If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
J. Clarke wrote:
Don B wrote: If he works for National Geographic do you think they worry to much about equipment? If a piece of equipment gets wrecked it's probably chalked up as part of the expense of doing the article. If it gets wrecked before it gets the shot that is needed then it's chalked up to not getting the article. When you're lugging something up Everest you really don't want it to crap out 30 feet from the summit--on stuff like that you don't _get_ a do-over. I don't know about backups if you are going up Everest, but I shot a recording session that a National Geographic photographer was also shooting and he had more backup cameras with him then I own. That was when everyone was pretty much shooting film yet, and he had an assistant with him that was just loading cameras for him. The way he was going through film I thought he was going to burn up a motor drive. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
Robert Coe wrote:
The US has adopted the metric system where it matters. Our bolts and nuts are almost all metric, Hmmm, I wonder why in a hardware stores I see yards and yards of shelves with nuts and bolts in inches in any odd variation and fraction while there are less than 2 meters of shelf space for metric stuff. and metric units are used in virtually all scientific discourse and publications. Ack. OTOH, it makes no practical difference if we continue to measure distances in miles and temperature in degrees F. And to convert would result in enormous cost and confusion. It's easy to justify leaving things as they are. Yeah, right. Recently in a written exam I had to calculate the glide distance. I determined the glide slope to be 1:12, distance was given as 5 miles (statute, not nautical!). Now, how many feet did I drop? Well, as I had no freeking idea how many feet there are in a mile I converted the 5 miles into kilometers, divided by 12, moved the decimal by 3 digits to get meters, and converted back to feet. It worked, I got the right answer. How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile? jue |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
Jürgen Exner wrote:
How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile? Proud, and US AND American! Wow. Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory serves up. I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions necessary. What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is. -- john mcwilliams |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
On 2009-06-22 10:32:06 -0700, John McWilliams said:
Jürgen Exner wrote: How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile? Proud, and US AND American! Wow. Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory serves up. Yup. 1760 yards to the mile X 3 = 5280 feet. I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions necessary. What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is. All my college physics & chemistry was metric, and that was over 40 years ago! -- Regards, Savageduck |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-06-22 10:32:06 -0700, John McWilliams said: Jürgen Exner wrote: How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile? Proud, and US AND American! Wow. Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory serves up. Yup. 1760 yards to the mile X 3 = 5280 feet. I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions necessary. What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is. All my college physics & chemistry was metric, and that was over 40 years ago! I learned in high school that scientist and engineers never do conversions, they work in one system or another. In my first real world engineering job I found out that the company had data going back into the '20s and most of it before 1960 or so was in the US customary system, while later it was metric, so lots and lots and lots of conversions. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
On 22-06-09 12:49, Jürgen Exner wrote:
How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile? This is pretty much drilled into kids by the time they're 7 or so. Even in Canada over the switch to metric, all the basic units of the Imperial system were still learned. I routinely make metric-imperial conversions by simply remembering a few constants and calculating everything else from these (when needed). 0.3048 metres/foot (exactly, rational) 25.4 mm/inch (exactly, rational - and defines the above of course) 2.2 pounds/Kg (very close, irrational) 4.184 joules/calorie (very close) 9/5 deg F per deg C (plus 32F bias) [exactly]. Though I can usually just "guess" within a few degrees F or a couple C either way. 746 W / hp (nearly). etc. That covers the great majority of my needs. Otherwise, the best site for conversion factors (and a lot of interesting tidbits) is: http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/ The metric system has never accomplished the greatest problem. Time. The SI unit for time is the second. But there is no such thing as base 10 units for "minutes"/"hours" etc. It just does not fit "nicely". The second should have been re-defined as 1/100,000 of a solar day(slightly shorter than a second), and then "metric hours"/"metric minutes" derived from that. (And most other time associated units redefined from that). Instead they used the nominal solar second and the rest fits badly... -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
On 22-06-09 13:32, John McWilliams wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote: How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile? Proud, and US AND American! Wow. Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory serves up. I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions necessary. What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is. You just have to remember that a "C" has 9/5 F in it and a bias of 32F and calculate. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
On 22-06-09 16:29, Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-06-22 10:32:06 -0700, John McWilliams said: Jürgen Exner wrote: How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile? Proud, and US AND American! Wow. Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory serves up. Yup. 1760 yards to the mile X 3 = 5280 feet. I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions necessary. What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is. All my college physics & chemistry was metric, and that was over 40 years ago! The problems is use in most commerce. What's funny of course is that when you buy an 8 foot piece of 2x4 it's not 2x4 but it's 8 feet within a hair. But metric is slowly creeping in to US commerce, certainly. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
On 22-06-09 16:56, J. Clarke wrote:
Savageduck wrote: On 2009-06-22 10:32:06 -0700, John said: Jürgen Exner wrote: How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile? Proud, and US AND American! Wow. Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory serves up. Yup. 1760 yards to the mile X 3 = 5280 feet. I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions necessary. What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is. All my college physics& chemistry was metric, and that was over 40 years ago! I learned in high school that scientist and engineers never do conversions, they work in one system or another. In my first real world engineering job I found out that the company had data going back into the '20s and most of it before 1960 or so was in the US customary system, while later it was metric, so lots and lots and lots of conversions. You can be sure that in some integration projects, it is near inevitable that conversions need to be made. We avoid Imperial/US measurements whenever possible ... but it's not always possible. Over the past 10 years I've not had any trouble from US suppliers or integrators with metric specifications. They just do it. I think the younger (under 50) engineers, technicians and buyers have that attitude now. Certainly any system for the US military is performance spec'd in metric most all of the time (though navigation terms are often nautical units for air/Navy. One program over the past 10 years specified a display in yards). -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Weather Resistance
On 17-06-09 06:47, Don B wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: Don B wrote: If he works for National Geographic do you think they worry to much about equipment? If a piece of equipment gets wrecked it's probably chalked up as part of the expense of doing the article. If it gets wrecked before it gets the shot that is needed then it's chalked up to not getting the article. When you're lugging something up Everest you really don't want it to crap out 30 feet from the summit--on stuff like that you don't _get_ a do-over. I don't know about backups if you are going up Everest, but I shot a recording session that a National Geographic photographer was also shooting and he had more backup cameras with him then I own. That was when everyone was pretty much shooting film yet, and he had an assistant with him that was just loading cameras for him. The way he was going through film I thought he was going to burn up a motor drive. In the film days the average NatGeo article took 29,000 frames. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Goodbye RawShooter! ..."We are the Ado-Beorg, prepare to be assimilated.Resistance is futile" | ThomasH | Digital Photography | 8 | June 29th 06 04:11 AM |
DMM testing batteries under load -- what resistance? | Neil Harrington | Digital Photography | 61 | November 10th 05 05:11 PM |
Which SLR is weather resistant? | Tracy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 54 | May 4th 05 07:38 AM |
Which SLR is weather resistant? | Tracy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 27th 05 12:27 AM |
Water resistance? | Jim | Digital Point & Shoot Cameras | 1 | December 12th 04 05:50 AM |