On 2011-03-10 19:06 , Rob Studdert wrote:
On 10 March 2011 07:42, steve harley wrote:
On 2011-03-09 11:19 , Eric Weir wrote:
And getting a Unix install up and running vs. getting a Mac up and running
-- no comparison. Mac wins hands-down, even over Ubuntu.
it's an absolute cinch to get Ubun
On 10 March 2011 07:42, steve harley wrote:
> On 2011-03-09 11:19 , Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>> And getting a Unix install up and running vs. getting a Mac up and running
>> -- no comparison. Mac wins hands-down, even over Ubuntu.
>
> it's an absolute cinch to get Ubuntu up and running in a virtual mac
On 2011-03-09 11:19 , Eric Weir wrote:
And getting a Unix install up and running vs. getting a Mac up and running --
no comparison. Mac wins hands-down, even over Ubuntu.
it's an absolute cinch to get Ubuntu up and running in a virtual machine
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
ht
I don't know if HAL IBM is actually a coincidence. IIRC, Clark in an
interview once made the statement that he and Kubrick made a conscious
decision to use HAL for just that reason.
On 3/9/2011 1:59 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:32:52PM +0100, AlunFoto wrote:
2011/3/9 Jo
> >> > In case you didn't realize this, Macs run Unix.
> >>
> >> Ah, but then again so does all current Windows incarnations. :-)
> >
> > No - Windows NT and later boxes run VMS.
>
> Thanks, John. What I didn't know, as I checked it out now, was that
> VMS and UNIX has no common roots.
>
you can
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:32:52PM +0100, AlunFoto wrote:
> 2011/3/9 John Francis :
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:54:43PM +0100, AlunFoto wrote:
> >> 2011/3/9 Larry Colen :
> >> > In case you didn't realize this, Macs run Unix.
> >>
> >> Ah, but then again so does all current Windows incarnations.
On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>> I spent a whole year trying to transition into Unix before I finally threw
>> in the towel and bought a Mac.
>
> In case you didn't realize this, Macs run Unix.
And getting a Unix install up and running vs. getting a Mac up and running --
no c
On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
> In case you didn't realize this, Macs run Unix
I do realize that. I was referring to my experience with Unix prior to OS X.
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew.
2011/3/9 John Francis :
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:54:43PM +0100, AlunFoto wrote:
>> 2011/3/9 Larry Colen :
>> > In case you didn't realize this, Macs run Unix.
>>
>> Ah, but then again so does all current Windows incarnations. :-)
>
> No - Windows NT and later boxes run VMS.
Thanks, John. What
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:54:43PM +0100, AlunFoto wrote:
> 2011/3/9 Larry Colen :
> > In case you didn't realize this, Macs run Unix.
>
> Ah, but then again so does all current Windows incarnations. :-)
No - Windows NT and later boxes run VMS.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
ht
2011/3/9 Larry Colen :
> In case you didn't realize this, Macs run Unix.
Ah, but then again so does all current Windows incarnations. :-)
Jostein
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdm
On Mar 6, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> On Mar 5, 2011, at 3:43 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/2011 22:25, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>> mike wilson wrote:
>>>
Do you use google mail, by any chance?
>>>
>>> You don't use Google mail - it uses YOU!
>>
>> I'm still hoping for tot
Yes I severely doubt that. I'm wondering though if there really is
that much DOF in the image or if the appearance thereof is a result of
magnification and pixel size. Those are some very small insects, mind
you.
2011/3/4 AlunFoto :
> 2011/3/4 Jos from Holland :
>> Does that mean combining the sha
On 06/03/2011 17:34, P. J. Alling wrote:
Apple still uses you it's just gentler about it.
You must have a silencer on your wallet.
On 3/6/2011 10:29 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
mike wilson wrote:
Do you use google mail, by any chance?
You don't
Yeah, I thought about that as I was composing the response. The difference, for
me anyway, is that even though the Mac is pretty locked-down, too --not really,
though -- the Apple people seem to understand human beings better, to know what
they're looking for, what will work for them. Everythin
Apple still uses you it's just gentler about it.
On 3/6/2011 10:29 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
mike wilson wrote:
Do you use google mail, by any chance?
You don't use Google mail - it uses YOU!
That was my complaint about Windows. Don't have that co
On Mar 5, 2011, at 3:43 PM, mike wilson wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 22:25, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> mike wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Do you use google mail, by any chance?
>>
>> You don't use Google mail - it uses YOU!
>
> I'm still hoping for total annihilation of MS, Google and Adobe when the
> battle fo
On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> mike wilson wrote:
>
>> Do you use google mail, by any chance?
>
> You don't use Google mail - it uses YOU!
That was my complaint about Windows. Don't have that complaint anymore.
---
On Mar 5, 2011, at 3:15 PM, mike wilson wrote:
> On 04/03/2011 16:29, Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>> After reading Jostein's response to Mike I realized I shoulda been writing
>> to Mike! My apologies, Mike! Thank *you* for the very clear explanation.
>
> Er, no. You were right the first time - I jus
On 06/03/2011 00:46, Steven Desjardins wrote:
Resistance is futile.
I do it purely for contrary SOB reasons, so it is also intensely satisfying.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM, mike wilson wrote:
On 05/03/2011 22:25, Mark Roberts wrote:
mike wilson wrote:
Do you use google mail, by any
Resistance is futile.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:43 PM, mike wilson wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 22:25, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>> mike wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Do you use google mail, by any chance?
>>
>> You don't use Google mail - it uses YOU!
>
> I'm still hoping for total annihilation of MS, Google and A
I use Firefox, Google is only the back end, I've set it up to be as
unobtrusive as possible, and instituted a number of filters on both
Firefox and Google to make it mimic a real e-mail system. Google is
still probably using me, but I hardly notice.
On 3/5/2011 4:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
m
On 05/03/2011 22:25, Mark Roberts wrote:
mike wilson wrote:
Do you use google mail, by any chance?
You don't use Google mail - it uses YOU!
I'm still hoping for total annihilation of MS, Google and Adobe when the
battle for omniscience kicks off. With a side order of Apple obliteration.
mike wilson wrote:
>Do you use google mail, by any chance?
You don't use Google mail - it uses YOU!
--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
On 04/03/2011 16:29, Eric Weir wrote:
After reading Jostein's response to Mike I realized I shoulda been writing to
Mike! My apologies, Mike! Thank *you* for the very clear explanation.
Er, no. You were right the first time - I just clarified a small
technical point. Do you use google mail
2011/3/4 Jos from Holland :
> Does that mean combining the sharp picture parts of different photos into
> one photo? Amazing!
Indeed. A much used technique for photomicroscopy.
However I find it hard to believe he could obtain enough usable
exposures for a stack when working handheld.
Jostein
-
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Toine wrote:
> Yes manually in photoshop or with special stacking software.
>
> On 4 March 2011 22:44, Jos from Holland wrote:
>> Does that mean combining the sharp picture parts of different photos into
>> one photo? Amazing!
Two free examples:
tufuse (which I u
Yes manually in photoshop or with special stacking software.
On 4 March 2011 22:44, Jos from Holland wrote:
> Does that mean combining the sharp picture parts of different photos into
> one photo? Amazing!
> Jos
>
> On 4-3-2011 22:32, Toine wrote:
>>
>> He actually mentions stacking in the video.
Does that mean combining the sharp picture parts of different photos
into one photo? Amazing!
Jos
On 4-3-2011 22:32, Toine wrote:
He actually mentions stacking in the video. By the looks of the DOF it
must be a stack. The amazing part is he's getting usable stacks
handheld because the dof is as
He actually mentions stacking in the video. By the looks of the DOF it
must be a stack. The amazing part is he's getting usable stacks
handheld because the dof is as thin as a sheet of paper. I feel lucky
if I get one sharp picture from a series of 20 or 30 handheld.
On 4 March 2011 22:09, Eric Fe
Toine's suggestion of focus stacking I'd have thought.
Eric.
On 4 March 2011 20:13, Jos from Holland wrote:
> Jostein, agree with you.
> But some of the pictures in this clip have a much better than normal D.O.F.
> for a K200 sensor, as if a much smaller sensor was used, what could be the
> expl
Jostein, agree with you.
But some of the pictures in this clip have a much better than normal
D.O.F. for a K200 sensor, as if a much smaller sensor was used, what
could be the explanation?
Regards, Jos
On 4-3-2011 8:13, AlunFoto wrote:
To achieve at least a nominal depth of field, you need to
After reading Jostein's response to Mike I realized I shoulda been writing to
Mike! My apologies, Mike! Thank *you* for the very clear explanation.
On Mar 4, 2011, at 2:13 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
> I find that the only way to achieve accurate focus is to home in on
> the subject with fully open ap
On Mar 4, 2011, at 2:13 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
> I find that the only way to achieve accurate focus is to home in on
> the subject with fully open aperture and then stop down for exposure.
> The guy in the video seems to work with the lens already stopped down
> when approaching his subject. I think
2011/3/4 mike wilson :
>> Starting with the K-series DSLRs, Pentax abandoned its old TTL flash
>
> Starting with the cheaper versions of the *ist line 8-)
Gee, I didn't know that. Thanks. :-)
Jostein
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Ma
On 04/03/2011 08:13, AlunFoto wrote:
2011/3/3 Eric Weir:
Let me see if I understand some of what you say [I suspect I
don't entirely]: Absence of aperture coupling is equivalent to
using an M lens?
Worse. :-)
You know, with the M series, there is a mechanical coupler that can be
engaged via t
2011/3/3 Toine :
> Most amazing is he stacked photo's from live insects all without a tripod.
You're right! He must have used stacking. That's unbelievable. Maybe
he left out the tripod part just to simplify the video?
> I'm using a ringflash and normal macro lens. Sometimes I stack a
> Raynox 25
2011/3/3 Eric Weir :
> Let me see if I understand some of what you say [I suspect I
> don't entirely]: Absence of aperture coupling is equivalent to
> using an M lens?
Worse. :-)
You know, with the M series, there is a mechanical coupler that can be
engaged via the Green Button. When you reverse
Thanks Jostein ;)
You explained the setup from the video perfectly. It's all manual (his
flash looks like an old vivitar). The man is a walking tripod and his
eyesight must be above average because his lens is stopped down
manually to at least f11 and the tubes also reduce the effective
aperture.
On Mar 3, 2011, at 1:02 PM, AlunFoto wrote:
> The main challenge with working a setup like his, is that you're on
> full manual. There's no aperture coupling, so you have to stop down
> the lens manually. Also, there's no P-TTL. You need to set the flash
> for manual, and figure out the right com
2011/3/3 Eric Weir :
> Thanks for posting this, Jostein. Impressed with the frugality of his
> "kit" as well as the insects. I'd like to know more about the tubes
> and a reversed lens setup, but as I'm not going to be attempting
> to emulate him soon -- it would be in still photography -- I'll hol
I loved it... thanks for sharing.
ann
AlunFoto wrote:
I found this very inspirational:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60
Jostein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
On Mar 3, 2011, at 2:18 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
> I found this very inspirational:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60
Thanks for posting this, Jostein. Impressed with the frugality of his "kit" as
well as the insects. I'd like to know more about the tubes and a reversed lens
setup, but a
I found this very inspirational:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60
Jostein
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the lin
44 matches
Mail list logo
