|
Post by aes53 on May 13, 2007 13:01:17 GMT -4
That's what I thought, the stupid kid is using equivalent to a long telephoto on a 6x6 camera, no wonder he couldn't get the picture to work. These hoax people are don't even realize the depth of their ignorance and don't even know when to be embarrassed. Thanks.
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on May 13, 2007 15:05:32 GMT -4
Well, that depends on what zoom setting he has used. The widest possible zoom setting (1.9 mm) in his camera is equivalent to 64 mm lens on a Hasselblad, which is pretty close to the 60 mm one used in lunar photography. Iff this is the setting Jarrah has used, it must have been by sheer accident, because he has demonstrated complete lack of understanding of photography with his talk about 57 mm lens. Instead he should have been talking about 1.9 mm setting and preferably presented some math examining the equivalent focal lengths of his camera and the Hasselblad.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 13, 2007 16:25:58 GMT -4
Oh, you shouldn't help him that way. Now he'll claim that's what he meant all along but the debunkers were trying to twist his words.
Actually, that's the best you can expect from him. The most likely response is;
............(sound of birds chirping)
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on May 13, 2007 17:04:28 GMT -4
I didn't want to make it appear as if we're trying to willfully deceive people or withhold information. Looking at his video it's rather obvious he didn't use 30X magnification, even though he did say his lens was a 57 mm. Jarrah just doesn't seem to have any idea what he's talking about.
Besides there is no way he can turn this into his advantage anymore. He has shown that he's not competent to judge fields of view of photographs, since he failed so miserably with postbaguk's photo.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 13, 2007 19:53:25 GMT -4
Actually, that's the best you can expect from him. The most likely response is; ............(sound of birds chirping) No, no. Crickets are much more likely!
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 14, 2007 7:37:38 GMT -4
Howzat?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 14, 2007 12:32:27 GMT -4
The relationship between frame format, focal length, and field(s) of view is elementary photography. So Jarrah is now telling everyone he's an expert photographer who seems to have no knowledge of how lenses work?
|
|
|
Post by aes53 on May 14, 2007 18:23:48 GMT -4
Well, yes, the little asswipe (am I allowed to call him that in the forum, sorry I'm new) did make a big deal out of the fact that he was using the "correct '~60mm focal length so that should nail him. It's not a stretch to tink that maybe he doesn't even realize that a zoom lens is one in which the focal length can be changed. I both posted a comment and e-mailed him directly but he apparently blocked my comment and didn't respond to my e-mail. I was considering doing a little video of my own since I have a Hasselbald and a bunch of lenses (though not a 60mm).
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 14, 2007 18:49:39 GMT -4
Yes, focal length alone does not determine field of view. I own two Canon EOS backs -- one digital and one 35mm film -- and a bagfull of EOS lenses. Only some of the digital Canon backs (sadly not including mine) have a sensor the same size as the 35mm film gate, and so with exactly the same lens and exactly the same focal length, the digital's field of view is notably smaller than the film's.
Jarrah has demonstrated his ability to operate a lens, but no ability to understand optics beyond the trial-and-error level. One can, in fact, take perfectly good pictures just by looking through the viewfinder and twisting the various lens rings to see what happens. The ability to make brick films does not, by itself, establish one as an experienced and trained photographer.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 15, 2007 2:23:57 GMT -4
I'm not an avid photog, but I know enough to realize that a 60mm lens on the Hasselblad and a 60mm on my old 35mm Pentax are completely different fields of view. Jarrah also recommended a 24,000mph orbit, so this latest faux pas is no great revelation. Sorry JW, keep swingin'... He'll probably be mad at me for saying it, but... 500 kilogram hammers, anyone? Yeah, he's quite pissed off at me alright.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on May 15, 2007 3:05:24 GMT -4
I've put a short video on Youtube that demonstrates the futility of relying on the apparent direction of a shadow to determine the lightsource - you really need to be looking at the vanishing point by extrapolating a straight line that intersects an object and the part of the shadow cast by that part of the object. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrFuCnW6T8
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on May 15, 2007 3:25:16 GMT -4
Like this? There's some observational uncertainty or observational error in there, but you get the gist of it.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on May 15, 2007 5:02:42 GMT -4
Like this? There's some observational uncertainty or observational error in there, but you get the gist of it. Errmm... is that the right photo?
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on May 15, 2007 8:33:49 GMT -4
EDIT: And for some unexplainable reason Jarrah gives a Special Thanks to Straydog. Why unexplainable? Jarrah obviously has to thank his great Defender Duane (I doubt he is realizing just how tainting Duane's Style of discussion is to his claims).
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on May 15, 2007 22:22:33 GMT -4
Like this? There's some observational uncertainty or observational error in there, but you get the gist of it. Errmm... is that the right photo? You know, I've been scratching my head wondering what you could possibly mean by that. I just went to Education Forum and noticed you had done nearly identical analysis there two days before me. What's even creepier, you had named your file AS17-136-20744 shadow analysis which is almost the same as the original file name of my picture, before I recompressed it to be able to post on imagevenue; with the exception of that one space between 20744 and shadow. That's some spooky action right there. I originally intended to post that picture at Youtube but then I realized you can't post url's there. So I posted it here instead, completely oblivious that it had been done already. Should have checked EF first. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.
|
|