>Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org> wrote: >>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>wrote:
>>>John Navas wrote: >>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote in <4af2c78...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a >>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short! >>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an >>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed, >>>> not IQ.
>>>The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>>Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
>Don't use words you don't understand, troll.
Good thing I didn't share the names of the plugins (yes, plural, more than one do this) that I've used to design my own bokeh effects by defining lens aperture patterns. Then applied to the gaussian-blur depth-map masks that they use. Perhaps he is upset that he had to go look up what a depth-map mask is?
3 bladed (sided) irises, 4, 6, 7, 8-sided irises for star-filter bokeh effects, 12, 19, etc., elliptical, whatever. Also design the diameter, edge softness, and annulus width for catadioptric lens bokeh emulations, the works. Nearly any bokeh that is created by any lens design can be emulated with this software, as well as bokeh effects that can't even be created in optical lens designs.
Heaven forbid that someone should share truly helpful and easily accessible information with troll idiots like you running around ruining it for everyone.
YOUR LOSS!
And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately see the trolls for what they truly are.
>On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org> wrote: >>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
>>>>John Navas wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote in <4af2c78...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a >>>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short! >>>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an >>>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed, >>>>> not IQ.
>>>>The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>>>Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
>>Don't use words you don't understand, troll.
>Good thing I didn't share the names of the plugins (yes, plural, more than
Trolls is FUN! wrote: > On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<snip prespoterous claims>
> YOUR LOSS!
> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has > to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. > Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described > above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls > taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long > as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and > pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at > pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately > see the trolls for what they truly are.
I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
Ofnuts wrote: > Trolls is FUN! wrote: >> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> <snip prespoterous claims>
>> YOUR LOSS!
>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has >> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. >> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as >> described >> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless >> trolls >> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as >> long >> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and >> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be >> better at >> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't >> immediately >> see the trolls for what they truly are.
> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
Google is your friend.
One such plugin is even unimaginatively called "Bokeh". I don't like the results but then I have never been into lenses smeared in vaseline etc. eg.
>Trolls is FUN! wrote: >> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
><snip prespoterous claims>
>> YOUR LOSS!
>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has >> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. >> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described >> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls >> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long >> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and >> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at >> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately >> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
I suppose I could upload two sample images, one without and one with a depth-map catadioptric-lens annulus bokeh applied to it, but ... why waste my time doing that for useless trolls?
Why should I even prove you wrong? You love being right! Don't you?
Whether you believe I am telling the truth or not is of zero importance to me. I enjoy using that software occasionally when needed. My favorite one does a remarkable job of emulating any lens bokeh that you can think of or have ever seen before. The only difference is that you have no knowledge of its existence, until now. Oh well! Unimportant to me.
Should I tell you the names for the plugins so role-playing trolls can learn to be better trolls? Just like the only contact they ever have with cameras is from downloading free camera manuals. They'd then have some advanced plugin information so they can pretend to be decent graphic editors too. They're so fuckingly transparent to someone like me when they pretend to be photographers in these news-groups. They just refuse to understand that yet, or they'd go play their silly pretend-expert games elsewhere.
Go forth and search! You have enough information in the previous post to find what you seek.
Blame all the useless resident-trolls that you support (or are one yourself) for not having the information just handed to you for free. Now you have to do some work to go find the software. Be extremely grateful that I was kind enough to tell you that software of that nature even exists.
Have fun!
(Awaiting your next, or some other troll's, pathetic manipulation attempt--to get some help that you don't even deserve, for free.)
<|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Ofnuts wrote: >> Trolls is FUN! wrote: >>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> <snip prespoterous claims>
>>> YOUR LOSS!
>>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has >>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. >>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as >>> described >>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless >>> trolls >>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as >>> long >>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and >>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be >>> better at >>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't >>> immediately >>> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
>Google is your friend.
>One such plugin is even unimaginatively called "Bokeh". I don't like the >results but then I have never been into lenses smeared in vaseline etc. eg.
>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
> I suppose I could upload two sample images, one without and one with a > depth-map catadioptric-lens annulus bokeh applied to it, but ... why waste > my time doing that for useless trolls?
> Why should I even prove you wrong? You love being right! Don't you?
No, I love to learn... even from my errors.
> Go forth and search! You have enough information in the previous post to > find what you seek.
Obviously not, since someone thought the same, and found the "wrong" one according to you.
> (Awaiting your next, or some other troll's, pathetic manipulation > attempt--to get some help that you don't even deserve, for free.)
I'm not awaiting help, at least not from you obviously, since, being part of the crowd of DSLR dummies/minions/trolls I don't need this software.
I am awaiting some proof of your claims. Einstein did make some that where preposterous at the time, but he also gave ways to prove them. And this means giving enough information so that the people in doubt can check by themselves (I still have a P&S somewhere).
So either you prove me wrong, or you prove yourself a <insert derogatory term here>
> On 6 Nov 2009 02:51:17 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote: >>> On 5 Nov 2009 02:02:28 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens >>>>is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to >>>>lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the >>>>widest aperture is sharpest.
>>> Go educate your useless fuck of an ignorant moron troll self. Resolution >>> increases with objective optics diameter. IF those optics are of >>> diffraction limited quality.
>>But as you keep pointing out, DSLR lenses are not of diffraction >>limited quality and we're discussing DSLR lenses here! > What part of; that's exactly why you can't determine what aperture reveals > diffraction being an imaging problem because your lenses are not figured > accurately enough to cause observable diffraction, it's all optics figure > error; do you fail to comprehend?
Not at all. I've worked alongside colleagues who've written books on the subject. The mathematics of the relationship between lens optical aberrations and diffraction is simple, uncontroversial, and has long been well known. Your position can only logically be maintained if you disagree with one of the following propositions:
1. Lens optical errors vary inversely with aperture.
2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
3. Lens errors combine at worst multiplicatively.
Can you enlighten us as to which of those you disagree with, or whether you're using a different mathematical foundation for the relationship?
>>Is the amount of swearing and cursing you do when trying to educate >>others a reflection of how your own teachers treated you when they >>they were trying to teach you? :-) > I'll leave you to your fuckingly pathetic trolls' ignorance, only for you > to wake up one day (or not) realizing just how amazingly stupid you were > with your words and reasoning on this day.
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:50:52 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> >wrote:
>>Trolls is FUN! wrote: >>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>><snip prespoterous claims>
>>> YOUR LOSS!
>>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has >>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. >>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described >>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls >>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long >>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and >>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at >>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately >>> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>>I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
>I suppose I could upload two sample images,
If you actually had any. But you're just an asshole troll.
> Dudley Hanks wrote: > > "David J Taylor" > > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in > > messagenews:t6aIm.1501$Ym4.551@text.news.virginmedia.com... > >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in messagenews:4U9Im.50459$Db2.29545@edtnps83... > >>> I've heard a lot about how the cropped sensor cameras are defraction > >>> limited to around f/8 - f/11, so I thought I'd see what kind of an image > >>> my XSi puts out at a small aperture.
> >>> I snapped on my 50mm f/1.8 lens and set it up to take a picture at f/22, > >>> with a shutter speed of 1 sec.
> >>> Take Care, > >>> Dudley > >> Difficult to say, Dudley. Yes, the image isn't "tack sharp" (a term I > >> loathe), so there could be some diffraction visible, but I'm also not > >> convinced that the subject didn't move within the 1 second exposure!
> > Thanks, David, I'll try it again with an inanimate object, or a faster > > shutter speed.
> > I suppose, if the test is to be useful, I should also take an equivalent pic > > of the subject using a wider aperture so the two images can be compared.
> If you are serious about being able to tell include a few ball bearings > on black velvet in the picture composition. Specular highlights are > about the easiest thing to see if an image is diffraction limited.
> Or you could just use a pinhole over the lens and a verry long exposure.
> Regards, > Martin Brown
Not much point in using a pinhole, any lens will show as diffraction limited stopped down enough. I have a feeling most lenses stopped down to f8 "act" diffraction limited centrally, but the edges of most lenses are never diffraction limited and poor polish and surface figures on most camera lenses mean you never reach true diffraction.
> On 6 Nov 2009 02:51:17 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote: >>> On 5 Nov 2009 02:02:28 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens >>>> is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to >>>> lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the >>>> widest aperture is sharpest. >>> Go educate your useless fuck of an ignorant moron troll self. Resolution >>> increases with objective optics diameter. IF those optics are of >>> diffraction limited quality.
Iff the lens is of diffraction limited quality. Most SLR lenses have to compromise that to get the required flatness of field at the film plane.
>> But as you keep pointing out, DSLR lenses are not of diffraction >> limited quality and we're discussing DSLR lenses here!
> What part of; that's exactly why you can't determine what aperture reveals > diffraction being an imaging problem because your lenses are not figured > accurately enough to cause observable diffraction, it's all optics figure > error; do you fail to comprehend?
You are clueless. He is right. A pinhole camera will demostrate rather convincingly that the size of the aperture will eventually become small enough that no lens at all will give an image. And that as you make the hole even smaller the image not only gets dimmer but also more blurred. It is a classic trade off between geometric and wave optics approximations to get a rough solution.
When you stop down a normal camera lens the initial effect is to use only the centre of the lens so improve abberations and vignetting. This almost always improves sharpness unless you have a rare long focal length lens which is made to be diffraction limited at full aperture.
Eventually there comes a point where stopping down any further leads to the diffraction limit due to the wave nature of light hurting the sharpness of the image and going beyond that point makes image quality worse.
For most SLR lenses the sweet spot for being diffraction limited is somewhere between f5.6 and f11 depending on how well made they are.
On 6 Nov 2009 14:50:57 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Not at all. I've worked alongside colleagues who've written books on >the subject.
When a youth was giving himself airs in the Theater and saying, "I am wise, for I have conversed with many wise men." Epictetus replied, "I too have conversed with many rich men, yet I am not rich."
You were saying something? LOL!
I'm sure your colleagues, if you indeed ever had any, kept you around as their little puppy dog that didn't piddle on the carpet too often. Or conversely, got many laughs out of your incessant piddling habits. As I do with how often you piddle your nonsense to usenet.
Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)". If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
> The mathematics of the relationship between lens optical >aberrations and diffraction is simple, uncontroversial, and has long >been well known. Your position can only logically be maintained if you >disagree with one of the following propositions:
>1. Lens optical errors vary inversely with aperture.
Wrong. The central part of a lens or lenses may have the greatest figure error. Especially in a complex compound lens where one element or group of elements may have more imaging weight as aperture is increased or reduced. However, for a given amount of effort, fabrication and figuring errors are exponentially proportional to size. There is no law on which area of that lens may have the greatest error.
Common Sense 101
>2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
Wrong. It varies with distance of aperture edge to imaging plane. The amount of light in the image only reveals or hides the fixed amount of diffraction created/caused by distance. You can display the diffraction of light with a single knife-edge, no aperture required. This is why shorter focal-length lenses have less diffraction problems. This also is why it's so easy to create truly diffraction-limited optics for P&S cameras due to the smaller focal-lengths required and smaller optics diameters required (i.e. for a given effort, a smaller diameter optic is easier to figure accurately).
Physics 101 Manufacturing 101
>3. Lens errors combine at worst multiplicatively.
Wrong.
Grade-School Math 101
>Can you enlighten us as to which of those you disagree with, or >whether you're using a different mathematical foundation for the >relationship?
<|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task wrote: >> On 6 Nov 2009 02:51:17 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote: >>>> On 5 Nov 2009 02:02:28 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens >>>>> is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to >>>>> lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the >>>>> widest aperture is sharpest. >>>> Go educate your useless fuck of an ignorant moron troll self. Resolution >>>> increases with objective optics diameter. IF those optics are of >>>> diffraction limited quality.
>Iff the lens is of diffraction limited quality. Most SLR lenses have to >compromise that to get the required flatness of field at the film plane.
>>> But as you keep pointing out, DSLR lenses are not of diffraction >>> limited quality and we're discussing DSLR lenses here!
>> What part of; that's exactly why you can't determine what aperture reveals >> diffraction being an imaging problem because your lenses are not figured >> accurately enough to cause observable diffraction, it's all optics figure >> error; do you fail to comprehend?
>You are clueless. He is right. A pinhole camera will demostrate rather >convincingly that the size of the aperture will eventually become small >enough that no lens at all will give an image. And that as you make the >hole even smaller the image not only gets dimmer but also more blurred. >It is a classic trade off between geometric and wave optics >approximations to get a rough solution.
>When you stop down a normal camera lens the initial effect is to use >only the centre of the lens so improve abberations and vignetting. This >almost always improves sharpness unless you have a rare long focal >length lens which is made to be diffraction limited at full aperture.
>Eventually there comes a point where stopping down any further leads to >the diffraction limit due to the wave nature of light hurting the >sharpness of the image and going beyond that point makes image quality >worse.
>For most SLR lenses the sweet spot for being diffraction limited is >somewhere between f5.6 and f11 depending on how well made they are.
>Regards, >Martin Brown
All wrong. No sense educating you again too, read other reply.
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> John Navas wrote: >>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>> wrote in <4af2c78...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a >>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short! >>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an >>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference. >>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed, >>> not IQ. >> The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
> Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of > aperture blades for bokeh,
Um, no, it doesn't.
> as well as even emulating catadioptric lens > systems no matter what camera took the image, and more.
Why the hell would anyone in their right mind want to emulate the doughnut-shaped bokeh you get with a cat lens?
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Brown wrote: > Ofnuts wrote: >> Trolls is FUN! wrote: >>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> <snip prespoterous claims>
>>> YOUR LOSS!
>>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone >>> has >>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. >>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as >>> described >>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless >>> trolls >>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as >>> long >>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and >>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be >>> better at >>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't >>> immediately >>> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
> Google is your friend.
> One such plugin is even unimaginatively called "Bokeh". I don't like the > results but then I have never been into lenses smeared in vaseline etc. eg.
Me either. I prefer the real bokeh you get from good lenses.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:50:52 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> > wrote:
>> Trolls is FUN! wrote: >>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> <snip prespoterous claims>
>>> YOUR LOSS!
>>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has >>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. >>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described >>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls >>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long >>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and >>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at >>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately >>> see the trolls for what they truly are. >> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
> I suppose I could upload two sample images, one without and one with a > depth-map catadioptric-lens annulus bokeh applied to it,
Oh, I doubt that.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Dudley Hanks wrote: > "Bob Larter" <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4af37455$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> John Navas wrote: >>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>> wrote in <4af2c78...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a >>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short! >>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an >>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference. >>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed, not >>> IQ. >> The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as >> well. > Any difference in number / quality of elements?
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>Martin Brown wrote: >> Ofnuts wrote: >>> Trolls is FUN! wrote: >>>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> <snip prespoterous claims>
>>>> YOUR LOSS!
>>>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone >>>> has >>>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. >>>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as >>>> described >>>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless >>>> trolls >>>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as >>>> long >>>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and >>>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be >>>> better at >>>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't >>>> immediately >>>> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
>> Google is your friend.
>> One such plugin is even unimaginatively called "Bokeh". I don't like the >> results but then I have never been into lenses smeared in vaseline etc. eg.
>Me either. I prefer the real bokeh you get from good lenses.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
>Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:50:52 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> >> wrote:
>>> Trolls is FUN! wrote: >>>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>> <snip prespoterous claims>
>>>> YOUR LOSS!
>>>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has >>>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description. >>>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described >>>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls >>>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long >>>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and >>>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at >>>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately >>>> see the trolls for what they truly are. >>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
>> I suppose I could upload two sample images, one without and one with a >> depth-map catadioptric-lens annulus bokeh applied to it,
>Oh, I doubt that.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
>Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote: >>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote in <4af2c78...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a >>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short! >>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an >>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference. >>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed, >>>> not IQ. >>> The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>> Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of >> aperture blades for bokeh,
>Um, no, it doesn't.
>> as well as even emulating catadioptric lens >> systems no matter what camera took the image, and more.
>Why the hell would anyone in their right mind want to emulate the >doughnut-shaped bokeh you get with a cat lens?
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:04:20 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
<eti...@somewhere.net> wrote: >You can display the diffraction of >light with a single knife-edge, no aperture required.
Some interesting images found while bored. Referred to as "Grimaldi's Shadows" in days of yore. Circa 17th century. The resident-trolls posting in these news-groups today are 300 to 400 years behind the learning curve. They're not mental-throw-backs to just last century. I'm not at all surprised.
> On 6 Nov 2009 14:50:57 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>Not at all. I've worked alongside colleagues who've written books on >>the subject. > When a youth was giving himself airs in the Theater and saying, "I am wise, > for I have conversed with many wise men." Epictetus replied, "I too have > conversed with many rich men, yet I am not rich." > You were saying something? LOL! > I'm sure your colleagues, if you indeed ever had any, kept you around as > their little puppy dog that didn't piddle on the carpet too often. Or > conversely, got many laughs out of your incessant piddling habits. As I do > with how often you piddle your nonsense to usenet. > Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating > department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)". > If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your > truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my > guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover my academic affilation and status.
>>The mathematics of the relationship between lens optical >>aberrations and diffraction is simple, uncontroversial, and has long >>been well known. Your position can only logically be maintained if you >>disagree with one of the following propositions:
>>1. Lens optical errors vary inversely with aperture. > Wrong. The central part of a lens or lenses may have the greatest figure > error. Especially in a complex compound lens where one element or group of > elements may have more imaging weight as aperture is increased or reduced. > However, for a given amount of effort, fabrication and figuring errors are > exponentially proportional to size. There is no law on which area of that > lens may have the greatest error.
Let's get down to specifics and try to avoid confusing the issue with a smokescreen of rare exceptions. Let's take one of the largest and simplest kinds of lens aberration -- chromatic aberration.
Do you really seriously claim that what you wrote above usually applies to chromatic aberration in DSLR camera lenses?
>>2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture. > Wrong. It varies with distance of aperture edge to imaging plane.
Of course it does! But do you not realise that there is no contradiction between that fact and the fact that the proportion of diffraction error in an image formed by a given camera lens at a given image distance increases with aperture?
Your responses in this thread suggest that you do have access to some reasonably authoritative source of information on the topic, but that you don't really understand what it means.
> The > amount of light in the image only reveals or hides the fixed amount of > diffraction created/caused by distance. You can display the diffraction of > light with a single knife-edge, no aperture required. This is why shorter > focal-length lenses have less diffraction problems. This also is why it's > so easy to create truly diffraction-limited optics for P&S cameras due to > the smaller focal-lengths required and smaller optics diameters required > (i.e. for a given effort, a smaller diameter optic is easier to figure > accurately).
That's exactly what I thought. You don't really understand this at all. What you say is perfectly true, but if you really understood what you've written you'd realise that it has nothing to do with the change in the relative amount of diffraction in an image formed by a non-diffraction-limited lens at varying apertures.
>>3. Lens errors combine at worst multiplicatively. > Wrong. > Grade-School Math 101
You appear to have as little understanding of Maths 101 as Physics 101 or Optics 101. It's a bit pointless citing such elementary sources to someone whose education has gone well past that point. If you want to disagree, then rather than vaguely waving your hand at an unspecified first year undergrafuate textbook, why not try to actually find the relavant page and quote it?
I am of course generously assuming that you once did such courses and can still remember what's in the textbooks :-)
>>Can you enlighten us as to which of those you disagree with, or >>whether you're using a different mathematical foundation for the >>relationship? > Three strikes, you're outta here TROLL. > Blatantly Obvious 101
That's one course I have no doubt you attended :-)
On 7 Nov 2009 16:32:35 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating >> department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)". >> If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your >> truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my >> guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
>Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover >my academic affilation and status.
Why on earth do you think anyone would be interested enough in you to do something as hugely pointless a waste of time as that? Your words here speak for themselves. You're an idiot. A semi-educated idiot. The world is crawling with them. Some of the most stupid people I have ever met in life even had PhD and Dr prefacing their names.
>> exponentially proportional to size. There is no law on which area of that >> lens may have the greatest error.
>Let's get down to specifics and try to avoid confusing the issue with >a smokescreen of rare exceptions.
No smokescreen at all. Poor lens figuring is DIRECTLY RELATED to why you CANNOT MEASURE the amount of diffraction, especially when stopped down. If you cannot obtain the sharpest image at full aperture, then that means YOUR OPTICS ARE NOT DIFFRACTION-LIMITED. Therefore, stopping down that lens is NO GUARANTEE that the softness you are observing is in any way related to diffraction. Are you this pathetically stupid that you can't grasp something so simple?
> Let's take one of the largest and >simplest kinds of lens aberration -- chromatic aberration.
>Do you really seriously claim that what you wrote above usually >applies to chromatic aberration in DSLR camera lenses?
Ahhh.... the bleats of a pure troll. Red-herring CA bullshit smokescreens that have has nothing to do with the diffraction problems being discussed.
>>>2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
>> Wrong. It varies with distance of aperture edge to imaging plane.
>Of course it does! But do you not realise that there is no >contradiction between that fact and the fact that the proportion of >diffraction error in an image formed by a given camera lens at a given >image distance increases with aperture?
This will be the last time I tell you this. If the optics are not of diffraction-limited quality, then your optics CANNOT create diffraction artifacts to even measure it or detect it.
You only asked that I disagree with three of your points. ALL THREE were wrong.
I suggest you pay for some courses on these areas of study instead of trying to manipulate someone far more intelligent than you into educating you for free.
>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote: >> Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating >> department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)". >> If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your >> truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my >> guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
>Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover >my academic affilation and status.
Don't argue with it. It doesn't care about the truth. It will keep lying and keep arguing as long as you keep responding to what it writes.
On 7 Nov 2009 16:32:35 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating >> department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)". >> If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your >> truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my >> guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
>Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover >my academic affilation and status.
Why on earth do you think anyone would be interested enough in you to do something as hugely pointless a waste of time as that? Your words here speak for themselves. You're an idiot. A semi-educated idiot. The world is crawling with them. Some of the most stupid people I have ever met in life even had PhD and Dr prefacing their names.
>> exponentially proportional to size. There is no law on which area of that >> lens may have the greatest error.
>Let's get down to specifics and try to avoid confusing the issue with >a smokescreen of rare exceptions.
No smokescreen at all. Poor lens figuring is DIRECTLY RELATED to why you CANNOT MEASURE the amount of diffraction, especially when stopped down. If you cannot obtain the sharpest image at full aperture, then that means YOUR OPTICS ARE NOT DIFFRACTION-LIMITED. Therefore, stopping down that lens is NO GUARANTEE that the softness you are observing is in any way related to diffraction. Are you this pathetically stupid that you can't grasp something so simple?
> Let's take one of the largest and >simplest kinds of lens aberration -- chromatic aberration.
>Do you really seriously claim that what you wrote above usually >applies to chromatic aberration in DSLR camera lenses?
Ahhh.... the bleats of a pure troll. Red-herring CA bullshit smokescreens that have has nothing to do with the diffraction problems being discussed.
>>>2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
>> Wrong. It varies with distance of aperture edge to imaging plane.
>Of course it does! But do you not realise that there is no >contradiction between that fact and the fact that the proportion of >diffraction error in an image formed by a given camera lens at a given >image distance increases with aperture?
This will be the last time I tell you this. If the optics are not of diffraction-limited quality, then your optics CANNOT create diffraction artifacts to even measure it or detect it.
You only asked that I disagree with ONE of your points and prove it. ALL THREE were wrong.
I suggest you pay for some courses on these areas of study instead of trying to manipulate someone far more intelligent than you into educating you for free.
|
