European trip ?'s

Following up to eatinBelgium

what would be really handy, is camera combined with a phone, then I
could email the picture straight away........

very useful, I use one myself for appropriate applications.
Although I dont email the photos to people.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Padraig Breathnach

So why are you spending so much time and investing so much effort in
trying to make these things clear to some people?

for the fun of debate which can clarify thought and just possibly
a slight feeling that false information should not be left
unchallenged in a public forum, if that's not too pompous.
But mainly for the fun, (trolls always think that those who go
along with them are being led by the nose, when a moments thought
would tell them the regulars are here for diversion from what
they should be doing, often a DIY task in my case).
In this case perhaps the argument is too one sided to be that
interesting, which perhaps was your point?.
It has been a demonstration set piece of the troll setting up the
false argument and the "marks" moving in to support it and then
the technical experts coming in to demolish them, like watching a
con trick, but luckily here on usenet nobody dies.

Well you did ask!
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to "eatinBelgium" :


Tim C. wrote:
Following up to "-hh" :


Tim C. wrote:
Following up to "eatinBelgium" :
... I remember reading that they used software to correct the
Hubble problems originally.

But they did use software that isn't readily available to the general
public.

And despite that, they still sent up a repair crew to install another
piece of glass.


Which made it even better than before. :-)
--
Tim C.

cost of one space shuttle mission, priceless
endangerment of crew, priceless

where do they get those colours from......software ??

Certainly a lot of the pictures are "false colour" ie produced by software.
--
Tim C.

Following up to Martin :

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:36:32 +0100, Tim C.
wrote:

Following up to "eatinBelgium" :


Tim C. wrote:
Following up to "-hh" :


Tim C. wrote:
Following up to "eatinBelgium" :
... I remember reading that they used software to correct the
Hubble problems originally.

But they did use software that isn't readily available to the general
public.

And despite that, they still sent up a repair crew to install another
piece of glass.


Which made it even better than before. :-)
--
Tim C.

cost of one space shuttle mission, priceless
endangerment of crew, priceless

where do they get those colours from......software ??

Certainly a lot of the pictures are "false colour" ie produced by software.

I thought Hubble pictures taken in the visible part of the spectrum
were the real thing.

You might be right. But I think most of the images I've seen have been some
sort of composite.
--
Tim C.

Following up to Martin

I remember a satellite with a camera with a 32x8 pixel memory. It took
some truly amazing colour photos. :-)

probably because it had a good lens :-)
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Martin

I thought Hubble pictures taken in the visible part of the spectrum
were the real thing.

If it an optical telescope working in the visible spectrum I cant
immediately see why it shouldn't be?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reid schreef:

Following up to Martin

I remember a satellite with a camera with a 32x8 pixel memory. It took
some truly amazing colour photos. :-)

probably because it had a good lens :-)

only 'probably' !

The Reid schreef:

Following up to eatinBelgium

you see if we had never of had this discussion I would never have known
about these wonderful products. Reidy take note !!

ah, the trolls justification.

but are they any good ?

for what?

naughty troll

and will they rival my Sony Cybershot for quality ??

How much quality do you require?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zzzzz/

here is what I think is acceptable.
which ones would look better with a DSLR ?

Following up to The Reid :

Following up to Martin

I remember a satellite with a camera with a 32x8 pixel memory. It took
some truly amazing colour photos. :-)

probably because it had a good lens :-)

And some pretty damn good software to process it afterwards. ;-)
--
Tim C.

eatinBelgium wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zzzzz/

here is what I think is acceptable.
which ones would look better with a DSLR ?

As previously discussed:


5 from 13 in the Madeira group (38%):
-- DSC00165, DSC00156, DSC00153, DSC00126, DSC00150


4 from the 8 in the Martinique group (50%):
-- 105-0547_IMG, 105-0525_IMG, 105-0524_IMG, 105-0571_IMG


....that's 43% overall that would have IMO looked better with the proper
equipment (ie, a dSLR).


Please note that I didn't count those photos that had compositional
errors against the equipment. For example, DSC00197. It has the dog's
tail cut out of the frame, but a wider lens isn't needed because
there's plenty of empty space on the other side: the tail would have
easily been kept in frame had it not been for the classical 'center
focus' composition error. This is always a judgement call, and how I'm
applying it here is if looks like a recomposition could be done without
requiring the photographer to move (reposition), its a human error that
shouldn't be counted against the equipment.


-hh