Discussion:
Cult of Sharpness
(too old to reply)
F***@Zappa.com
2009-11-07 04:11:42 UTC
Permalink
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?

You know you want to.

If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.

Are you in?
Dudley Hanks
2009-11-07 04:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
ah, just when I was thinking of starting a softness sect...

Take Care,
Dudley
Educated & Experinced Pro
2009-11-07 04:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." -
Groucho Marx

Now, if perchance you decided to start a club that included people who
found photographic subjects and compositions that are so astounding and awe
inspiring, no matter the resolution, count me in.

Hardware worshippers are nothing but idiot crapshot artists and internet
trolls. Consider yourself part of their club.
John Sheehy
2009-11-08 04:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Educated & Experinced Pro
Hardware worshippers are nothing but idiot crapshot artists and
internet trolls. Consider yourself part of their club.
Wow. What about a club for people who imagine ridiculous dichotomies?
John A.
2009-11-08 05:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Sheehy
Post by Educated & Experinced Pro
Hardware worshippers are nothing but idiot crapshot artists and
internet trolls. Consider yourself part of their club.
Wow. What about a club for people who imagine ridiculous dichotomies?
The P&S Troll is a club of one.
Rich
2009-11-07 04:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper
lenses. If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft)
lenses.
Are you in?
You can make a sharp lens soft, but you can't make a soft lens sharp.
Alan Browne
2009-11-07 13:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
There isn't much wrong with the available sharp lenses.

Sharp (and fast) goes with price, esp as FL goes up.

Sharp lenses can be made to produce soft shots.

Soft lenses can be made softer still. But not sharper.
Chris Malcolm
2009-11-07 16:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
I'm not clear what you want to achieve. I thought that for any given
exchangeable lens camera it was possible to get a lens with at least
slightly higher resolution than its sensor -- if you were prepared to
pay for it.

But it sounds as though you want to stop them making soft lenses
altogether. If you can buy the sharp lenses you want, why would you
want to stop them making the much cheapr and not so sharp lenses that
most people are happy with?
--
Chris Malcolm
Atheist Chaplain
2009-11-08 00:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
with is "cheap" lenses
If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
F***@Zappa.com
2009-11-08 03:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atheist Chaplain
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
with is "cheap" lenses
If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma)
That thing was soft as shite.
Bruce
2009-11-08 10:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
Post by Atheist Chaplain
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
with is "cheap" lenses
If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma)
That thing was soft as shite.
Yet the review samples of that Smegma lens that were supplied to the
photo magazines were all sharp ... just like all the Smegma lens
review samples. No wonder the reviewers are so keen to keep them -
they could never find one as good in a camera store.
Atheist Chaplain
2009-11-08 10:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
Post by Atheist Chaplain
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
with is "cheap" lenses
If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma)
That thing was soft as shite.
It was a Sigma, what do you expect :-)
Having said that I do believe that they do occasionally make a sharp lens,
but its a lottery if you get one, and the odds are about the same :-)
<insert rant by satisfied Sigma customer here in
three...............two..................one...............>
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Michael
2009-11-08 20:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atheist Chaplain
Post by F***@Zappa.com
Post by Atheist Chaplain
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
with is "cheap" lenses
If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma)
That thing was soft as shite.
It was a Sigma, what do you expect :-)
Having said that I do believe that they do occasionally make a sharp
lens, but its a lottery if you get one, and the odds are about the same
:-)
<insert rant by satisfied Sigma customer here in
three...............two..................one...............>
Apparently the satisfied Sigma customer is currently reading another newsgroup.
--
Michael
Wolfgang Weisselberg
2009-11-09 00:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
Post by F***@Zappa.com
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
but you'll have sharp lenses.

That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.

As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and
ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for
you, but not for most people.

F'up,
-Wolfgang
Uh - you forgot something important - again
2009-11-09 03:08:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
Post by F***@Zappa.com
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
but you'll have sharp lenses.
That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.
As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and
ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for
you, but not for most people.
F'up,
-Wolfgang
What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.

On reconsideration, I take that back. There is only one situation in which
you can use any D/SLR lens' full resolving power. If you mount the camera
on a sturdy tripod in a pitch-black room, lock up the mirror, use a slow
shutter-speed (about 30 seconds to wait for all vibrations to dampen down),
triggered on hand-free time-delay or with a cable-release. Fire a flash
mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash. Trigger the
flash pulse 30 seconds after the first curtain opens, while both curtains
of the shutter are still open, to create the exposure. Using a 2nd curtain
flash-sync setting if you have one. Only then can you detect or use a lens'
true resolving power with your D/SLR camera.

A unique shooting situation but the only one way where you can accomplish
this task.

(Wondering when they're ever going to get smart enough to figure this stuff
out.)
Wolfgang Weisselberg
2009-11-09 17:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Uh - you forgot something important - again <***@address.info> wrote:

Uh, "the Liar" is back, again!
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
but you'll have sharp lenses.
What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
What difference does your opinion make when your facts are
all wrong --- again, as usual and expected by now?
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
Fire a flash
mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash.
Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!

Once you combine a couple million flashes, you could slightly move
a very thin piece of paper with a synchronized mass flash ... as
it burns to ashes from the intense light.


Yo, slime, thanks for the proof you never held a firing flash,
either.

-Wolfgang
Uh - you forgot something important - again
2009-11-09 22:39:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:42:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
Uh, "the Liar" is back, again!
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
but you'll have sharp lenses.
What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
What difference does your opinion make when your facts are
all wrong --- again, as usual and expected by now?
Showing that you've never even read the tests done on this problem, nor
tested it yourself.

What's the matter? You don't own any camera to test?
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
Fire a flash
mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash.
Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
No, you pathetic "can't dazzle them with brilliance so baffle them with
your bullshit" moron. It's caused by the discharge in the capacitor and its
dielectric layers responding to the release of energy. Fuck are you ever
stupid. PROVED AGAIN!

ANYONE with a flash unit can fire it off with the test button on it and
feel the jolt occurring from the capacitor discharging.

Oh wait, that's right. You have probably never even touched a flash unit,
nor any camera. You just proved that by refuting that flash units don't
impart a pulse of motion when fired.
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
Once you combine a couple million flashes, you could slightly move
a very thin piece of paper with a synchronized mass flash ... as
it burns to ashes from the intense light.
Yo, slime, thanks for the proof you never held a firing flash,
either.
-Wolfgang
Moe! Larry! Curly! Bob! Eric! Savage! Rich! Wolfy! (etc. etc.) ........
Nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck (boink!) ... LOL
Wolfgang Weisselberg
2009-11-10 12:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Uh - you forgot something important - again <***@address.info> wrote:

Uh - the slime liar is back - again!
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:42:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
What difference does your opinion make when your facts are
all wrong --- again, as usual and expected by now?
Showing that you've never even read the tests done on this problem, nor
tested it yourself.
I read lots of tests about that --- sorry, your claims are
proven wrong. While noone doubts that there is mirror slap
and shutter slap, the effect is in most practically cases
undetectable. In the few cases where it is detectable, it's
trivial to circumvent --- much easier than pre-focussing with
P&S for action shots.

My own tests and extensive experience gives the same result.
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
What's the matter? You don't own any camera to test?
Would you kindly borrow me yours, so I can see your
sledgehammer mirror slap? Oh, sorry, I remember, you don't have one ...
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
Fire a flash
mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash.
Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
No, you pathetic "can't dazzle them with brilliance so baffle them with
your bullshit" moron.
Looking into a mirror can cause slime to write that stuff.
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
It's caused by the discharge in the capacitor and its
dielectric layers responding to the release of energy.
Ah. the electrons rushing out of the capacitator must have
tons of mass. And of course the random rotation of molecules
(in all directions) causes a lot of translational energy.

Whole new physics you are creating, slime.
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
Fuck are you ever
stupid. PROVED AGAIN!
Yep, slime, you are.
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
ANYONE with a flash unit can fire it off with the test button on it and
feel the jolt occurring from the capacitor discharging.
Having owned more flashes than you have pressed the test
button of any flash ... nope, you are wrong.
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
Oh wait, that's right. You have probably never even touched a flash unit,
nor any camera. You just proved that by refuting that flash units don't
impart a pulse of motion when fired.
You just proved you never ever held a flash in your life.
Don't worry, a nonexisting flash will work well with your
imaginary camera, taking perfect shots.

-Wolfgang
Uh - you forgot something important - again
2009-11-10 20:13:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:24:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
Uh - the slime liar is back - again!
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:42:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
No, you pathetic "can't dazzle them with brilliance so baffle them with
your bullshit" moron.
It's caused by the discharge in the capacitor and its
dielectric layers responding to the release of energy.
Ah. the electrons rushing out of the capacitator must have
tons of mass. And of course the random rotation of molecules
(in all directions) causes a lot of translational energy.
No brilliance again, just more bullshit, as usual coming from your idiot's
trolling.

It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
from the discharging capacitor.

Don't you feel bad always having to go to such extremes to invent your wild
red-herring explanations just for the attention? While wasting the time of
people far more intelligent than you'll ever be. Others always having to
correct your incessant bullshit-troll's words. Or is this just your way of
getting even with smart people for them always proving to the world how
stupid and ignorant you have been all your life? (The latter being the more
correct and plausible reason.)

After this I think I'll let some other intelligent person reveal to the
world how you manage to always make a fool of yourself. It's so easy to do.
I'm sure one of them might take some pleasure from it. If there are any
intelligent people around here that is, pickings seem mighty slim.
Babysitting your ignorance becomes an endless unpaid task for anyone who
adopts the desperate Wolfy Cretin. But you are fun to bounce off of your
crib walls once in a while--to watch you wildly grasp for anything that you
possibly can in an attempt to retain your bliss of ignorance.
Uh - you forgot something important - again
2009-11-12 22:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
from the discharging capacitor.
What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of
about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), &
I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird
quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which
are the kind used in flashguns.
Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of
the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the flashgun
in any direction.
Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor
out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from
debunking your bullshit. ;^)
Fourthly: this only proves that you've never held a decent flash in your
hand while firing it off. Anyone who has done that can easily detect the
physical pulse of motion upon firing it.
*snort* You're imagining it, kid.
If he's imagining it, then so too am I. I've always assumed it was due
to the release of the dielectric stress in the capacitor.
Nope. Electrolytic capacitors don't do that. The 'click' is from the
expansion of the xenon gas in the flash tube. The amount of expansion is
*tiny*, but you can hear it because it happens so fast.
See http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar98/889679790.Eg.r.html
"A charged capacitor's plates attract each other. The dielectric
provides a reaction force keeping the plates apart. It thus feels
a mechanical compressive stress."
When the capacitor is discharged there is no longer attraction between
the plates, no reaction force is required and the dielectric is no
longer under compression. The sudden release of the compression force
enables the capacitor to expand which sudden expansion is a source of
a shock pulse.
I promise you that if electrolytic capacitors were in the habit of
changing shape as their charge varied, (suddenly or otherwise), most
electronic devices wouldn't work for very long.
Why?
Mainly because the electro's would snap off their leads from metal
fatigue, or would destroy the solder joints on the PCB. See my comments
to the P&S troll, up in the quoted part of this post.
It's possible to calculate the amplitude of the movement, and its very
small, about comparable with a tweeter speaker at the high frequency
end of its range.
Eric Stevens
You can't do that, then the red-herring DSLR-Troll Bob Larter (a.k.a.
Lionel Lauer, real home troll-group: alt.kook.lionel-lauer) would have to
use the example of how all stereo speakers and anything near them always
regularly shake themselves to death the first time you use them. This is
probably why all high-speed machinery, jets, and even cars always
self-destruct on first use due to all the vibrations imparted to their
electronics. Even all the ultrasonic motors for focusing and zooming in all
newer camera lenses destroy the lenses' electronics soldering-joints on
first use. That's a proven FACT! In a self-deluding and highly ignorant
troll's mind of course.

(Can this Bob Larter troll get any more lame with his invented excuses to
back up his ignorant and delusional claims?)

btw: the amount of pulse motion in my higher-power strobes, upon which I
employ my own design of stacked fresnel-lenses for focusing their light on
distant wildlife subjects even further (shots 200-500 ft. away and more in
total darkness) has far more motion imparted into my hand than some
tweeter's range of motion. A mid-range speaker with a nicely audible thump
imparted into it would be a closer analogy for the motion detected. Much of
the difference in our perceptions could be due to their age and newer
capacitor manufacturing technology today. If I turn down their power, then
it is slight. At lowest power almost imperceptible. At full power the pulse
of motion felt in my hand is far greater.

(original follow-up newsgroups now restored after the trolls culled them
from the list so nobody would notice them being proved wrong in the other
groups that they troll)
F***@Zappa.com
2009-11-13 03:28:38 UTC
Permalink
This thread, 'Cult of sharpness' is now closed.

Thank you to all who participated.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
2009-11-13 05:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
from the discharging capacitor.
What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of
about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), &
I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird
quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which
are the kind used in flashguns.
Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of
the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the flashgun
in any direction.
Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor
out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from
debunking your bullshit. ;^)
Fourthly: this only proves that you've never held a decent flash in your
hand while firing it off. Anyone who has done that can easily detect the
physical pulse of motion upon firing it.
*snort* You're imagining it, kid.
If he's imagining it, then so too am I. I've always assumed it was due
to the release of the dielectric stress in the capacitor.
Nope. Electrolytic capacitors don't do that. The 'click' is from the
expansion of the xenon gas in the flash tube. The amount of expansion is
*tiny*, but you can hear it because it happens so fast.
See http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar98/889679790.Eg.r.html
"A charged capacitor's plates attract each other. The dielectric
provides a reaction force keeping the plates apart. It thus feels
a mechanical compressive stress."
When the capacitor is discharged there is no longer attraction between
the plates, no reaction force is required and the dielectric is no
longer under compression. The sudden release of the compression force
enables the capacitor to expand which sudden expansion is a source of
a shock pulse.
I promise you that if electrolytic capacitors were in the habit of
changing shape as their charge varied, (suddenly or otherwise), most
electronic devices wouldn't work for very long.
Why?
Mainly because the electro's would snap off their leads from metal
fatigue, or would destroy the solder joints on the PCB. See my comments
to the P&S troll, up in the quoted part of this post.
It's possible to calculate the amplitude of the movement, and its very
small, about comparable with a tweeter speaker at the high frequency
end of its range.
Eric Stevens
You can't do that, then the red-herring DSLR-Troll Bob Larter (a.k.a.
Lionel Lauer, real home troll-group: alt.kook.lionel-lauer) would have to
use the example of how all stereo speakers
Which are attached on a flexible mount, & wired up with flexible copper
braid for exactly this reason.
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
and anything near them always
regularly shake themselves to death the first time you use them. This is
probably why all high-speed machinery, jets, and even cars always
self-destruct on first use due to all the vibrations imparted to their
electronics.
In fact, solder joints on heavy components often do fail due to
vibration. It's common practice to glue or bolt such parts to the PCB or
chassis to help prevent such failures.
Post by Uh - you forgot something important - again
Even all the ultrasonic motors for focusing and zooming in all
newer camera lenses destroy the lenses' electronics soldering-joints on
first use.
They are connected by ultra-flexible wires for this exact reason.
Flash capacitors are simply soldered direct to the PCB, just like any
other non-vibrating component.
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."

<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."

MC
2009-11-09 13:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
Have you considered increasing the light and stopping down?
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Kennedy McEwen
2009-11-10 00:18:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@Zappa.com
writes
Post by F***@Zappa.com
I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
There should be one less "l" and an extra "n" in there! ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Loading...