 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / July 2009Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware
Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware Panasonic has released firmware updates for its latest digital cameras including the GH1, G1, ZS3 and TS1. The new firmware can identify genuine Panasonic batteries and _prevents the use of any third party battery packs_. The company says it has taken this move to ensure safety of its users against possible injuries because of overcharging, internal heating or short circuit in third-party batteries. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061701panaservicenotice.asp What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony).  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony). Before screaming "boycott" like some 1970's shop steward you might like to consider that fake batteries could be a problem. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Before screaming "boycott" like some 1970's shop steward you might like to > consider that fake batteries could be a problem. As I use 3rd party batteries (at 1/3 the Sony price) and have had no issues, why not? Most of these 3rd party batteries, esp. Li-ion, have the protection circuit built in and this is stated on their product sheets. And that is what I checked (via the re-seller) when I bought them. All this is is a ploy to force OEM battery purchases. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >>> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > All this is is a ploy to force OEM battery purchases. Sure, I accept there can be a forced OEM purchase angle as well as it being a way to head off iffy third-party sweatshop parts. Those are the extremes of control and greed, and you get it in the pharmaceutical, IT, and print industries. It's dumb but there you go. Personally, I'd favour third-party parts going through an independent and none discriminatory quality assurance process. Chips could help verify parts meet acceptable criterion and help push fake and potentially damaging parts off the board. Everyone's a winner. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >>>> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > meet acceptable criterion and help push fake and potentially damaging parts > off the board. Everyone's a winner. Which would drive up the price. There is no reason to be suspicious of suppliers who put up all their data and who have a good rep. I found a deal, looked up the supplier, spec, phoned the distributor and checked out the batts before buying. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> Personally, I'd favour third-party parts going through an independent and >> none discriminatory quality assurance process. Chips could help verify [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I found a deal, looked up the supplier, spec, phoned the distributor and > checked out the batts before buying. That's possible but fakes aren't cost free in terms of policing, employment conditions, preserving trade marks, and consumer safety. Fake car brake pads used to be a favourite. Now, I hear, memory on EBay is another. There's a big ding-dong over banking regulation in the UK. The generic arguments are similar. Loose regulation can work but it falls down when banks are run by shysters. Then, you have the knee-jerk problem of too much regulation which falls down when *sigh* banks are run by shysters. Quality and trust are important so, yes, I agree that credible specs and a good reputation are important. After last weeks fiasco, I'd like to see a bit more of that in the hardware calibration industry. Reviews seem based more on the colour of the box and what everyone else is doing rather than giving hard meaningful numbers for calibrator and software accuracy. This is tipping in to Zen (which I'm never more than half a step away from talking about) but I find the aims and values of Peter F Drucker and David Ogilvy on management and advertising, respectively, to be better than the bullshit and balls path many have gone down over the past few years. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >>> All this is is a ploy to force OEM battery purchases. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> of control and greed, and you get it in the pharmaceutical, IT, and print >> industries. It's dumb but there you go. There may be other motives. One: Product liability. Third party batteries may or may not be safe alternatives to OEM. Product liability actions, whether or not justified, whether or not won, are expensive. And in numbers, VERY expensive. Forcing OEM batteries may limit potential product liablity actions by limiting product to OEM spec batteries. If there is an issue with an OEM battery, a free replacement may be offered, as Delphi did with some portable XM receiver batteries, before cataclysmic results. In the event of a failure resulting in damage or injury, such good faith efforts can limit judgements. If there is a third party battery incident, users holding Panasonic liable can tie up the Legal department for years, resulting in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in costs and settlements, even if it can be demonstrated that the third party battery manufacturer, not Panasonic, is liable. Anybody can sue for anything. Even a baseless suit requires a legal response. That costs. Forcing OEM battery use can limit, though not eliminate, product liability costs. That there is a second profit motive, spurring OEM sales, doesn't hurt. Nakamichi, on it's portable cassette machine, a high drain device, specifically recommended against SOME types of batteries on performance grounds. Some batteries produced irregular variations in output voltage under high drain, though constant conditions, compromising performance of the device. Some batteries had too high an internal resistance, also compromising performance of the device. Nakamichi approved batteries, including, but not especially, Nakamichi branded batteries, produced specific performance, with user perceivable differences in device performance. Prompting complaints. Complaints, like legal actions, require response. Response costs. Nakamichi was quite specific that it would not honor, or even hear complaints about the device if non approved batteries were used. So it can be with Li-ion batteries in digital cameras, which are high drain devices: there may be device performance effects with less well manufactured batteries. This can produce performance issues that would increased manufacturer warranty costs. While corporate entities have certainly demonstrated, in recent years, a history of being bad citizens, forcing OEM component use does not, perforce, imply untoward motives. > Most of these 3rd party batteries, esp. Li-ion, have > the protection circuit built in and this is stated on their product > sheets. There are some 3rd party batteries that don't, by your own admission. (And I am not even talking about falsely labelled capacities and incorrect claims on product sheets.) In my part of the world, seatbelts are not considered optional by the law (nor by almost all people), even if most, nay, almost all car uses do not include accidents. > And that is what I checked (via the re-seller) when I bought them. And the part about accidents is proven by statistics, even the government statistics bureau and the politicans freely says so. > All this is is a ploy to force OEM battery purchases. All this must be a ploy to force people to wear seatbelts without any need, right? Now I wait for statements along the lines "Here I present you 3 dozen old men who were heavy smokers all of their life. See, smoking doesn't affect your health." -Wolfgang > > What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony). > > Before screaming "boycott" like some 1970's shop steward you might like to > consider that fake batteries could be a problem. Before screaming "1970's shop steward" like a right wing fruitcake, you might like to consider that fake batterys could carry any name at all, including Panasonic. You know: just like fake aircraft parts, fake pharmaseuticals, and all the other pirated-name-brand products that are sold in the US every day. >> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Before screaming "boycott" like some 1970's shop steward you might like to >consider that fake batteries could be a problem. You mean the same way that all MacBook batteries were totally safe to use because they came right from credible, dependable, and elite fortress of Apple? Or are you trying to say that 3rd-party batteries offer no more risk than those right from Panasonic because Panasonic could have a MacBook event at any time with their own "genuine"ly exploding batteries? Do you know how to think for yourself? Or do just love being some pitiful corporate shill and ass-kissing kowtowing puppet of theirs? You can't have it both ways you know. > Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony). So what's new? Fuji have been doing that - a little differently for years with the s5 Pro. That doesn't stop me using cheap Chinese batteries in it. I just have to reset a chip. No different than using knock-off inks in your Epson printer. Get a life Alan. Panasonic have as much right to make their cameras out of whatever they feel like as the company you worked for does to use proprietor gear in their radar - you can only get from them. Or is it different when it affects you personally? SignatureYou don't stop laughing because you grow old, You grow old because you stop laughing! >> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > proprietor gear in their radar - you can only get from them. Or is it > different when it affects you personally? Yeah, I wanted to make babies with this 10 tentacled alien that dropped down in my back garden last night but the DNA lock in was a bitch. Actually, one thing that does irritate me is the way manufacturers dick with stuff so an upgrade becomes a downgrade. Canon stripped all the manual features from their Ax000 range forcing new customers to buy S series cameras at twice the price. Bit naughty, that. It's going off topic but I plan on keeping my A590 IS forever even when I do jump for a mid-range or dSLR sometime. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge > It's going off topic but I plan on keeping my A590 IS forever even when > I do jump for a mid-range or dSLR sometime. If you want another one, mine is for sale cheap - the quality is far poorer than I hoped. BugBear >> It's going off topic but I plan on keeping my A590 IS forever even when I >> do jump for a mid-range or dSLR sometime. > > If you want another one, mine is for sale cheap - the quality is far > poorer than I hoped. I'd prefer an A650 as a do everything pocket camera but the A590 was what was around when I got one. I haven't been comparing it to anything so what's poor? The sensor, lens, or JPEGs? I think, the lens is a _bit_ soft and the JPEG's mess with colour, tone curve, and detail. I'm running CHDK so can get raw, and have calibrated it against a Macbeth chart so can get better results. What about a G9/G10? SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >>> It's going off topic but I plan on keeping my A590 IS forever even >>> when I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > what's > poor? The sensor, lens, or JPEGs? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/d3248fc3f2f9f0ba?hl=en& (I later used CHDK in both cameras, and the difference remained, although both images improved slightly) BugBear >> I'd prefer an A650 as a do everything pocket camera but the A590 was what >> was around when I got one. I haven't been comparing it to anything so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (I later used CHDK in both cameras, and the difference remained, > although both images improved slightly) I've zoomed in tight on a similar image I've got and some sharp edges look a _bit_ softer in raw than I think they could be. I read a few weeks back somewhere else that someone said the A590 lens was soft. A similar scene from a better 8 mpix camera might provide some more clues. I've found the A590 is a bit noisy, and JPEGs have a problem with tossing detail, contrast, and sharpening turning noise into sludge and overdone edges. A good DNG profile and some lightroom presets can help that but, I agree, better would be nice. I feel kinda bummed about this but it's what I bought and it will do for getting the basic practice I need. Most stuff I'll take will probably be viewed on screen so it's no big deal. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge > "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message > I've zoomed in tight on a similar image I've got and some sharp edges > look a > _bit_ softer in raw than I think they could be. I read a few weeks back > somewhere else that someone said the A590 lens was soft. A similar scene > from a better 8 mpix camera might provide some more clues. Hell, I thought I was fairly lucky to have a 8Mpx A630 to compare to! BugBear > Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony). I doubt Sony would worry themselves over such an issue - after all many of their cameras already require proprietary memory cards! >> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I doubt Sony would worry themselves over such an issue - after all many > of their cameras already require proprietary memory cards! Well you can get them second market, but they are more expensive than the equivalent SD. The reason I won't buy Sony was that they included mal-ware on their CD's and after they were caught and promised never to do it again - they did it again... >> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I doubt Sony would worry themselves over such an issue - after all many > of their cameras already require proprietary memory cards! Not DSLR's to date, though the a900 takes both CF and MemStick. And the consumers of the other cameras probably don't give a damn about the memory card source. They get one and keep it with the camera for its life. Sony license the design to other co's, as well, such as SanDisk. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >And the consumers of the other cameras probably don't give a damn about >the memory card source. They get one and keep it with the camera for >its life. Many do care because they can't swap the card with other devices. For example, I like to take pictures with my digital camera and swap the card into my cell phone to transmit them, and the multiplicity of formats limits my ability to do so. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >> And the consumers of the other cameras probably don't give a damn about >> the memory card source. They get one and keep it with the camera for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > card into my cell phone to transmit them, and the multiplicity of > formats limits my ability to do so. A valid point, and I did think about it (in not exactly those terms), but not an issue with most DSLR photographers. It is esp. useful to PJ's of course, and I could see use of it for companies with tech reps in the field needing engineering support - though for that the in-phone camera will sometimes suffice. Within a few years I believe it will be common for DSLR's to offload images on the fly to a local storage device or via WiFi directly to online storage, websites and even back to the photogs base computer. What I'd really like to see Sony do is integrate GPS into their bodies along with WiFi. This is such a natural (esp. as Sony make their own GPS') that I'm surprised that at least that part hasn't been done to date. I should be receiving a separate GPS data logger today or tomorrow - requires processing the log to insert locations into the DNG exif files. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >>> And the consumers of the other cameras probably don't give a damn about >>> the memory card source. They get one and keep it with the camera for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >in the field needing engineering support - though for that the in-phone >camera will sometimes suffice. Photo blogging is becoming quite popular, and sending photos by cell is perfect for that. Otherwise you're stuck with the camera in the phone. >Within a few years I believe it will be common for DSLR's to offload >images on the fly to a local storage device or via WiFi directly to >online storage, websites and even back to the photogs base computer. I seriously doubt Wi-Fi will catch on for that purpose, especially given the lack of enthusiasm in the market thus far, but perhaps Bluetooth PAN will. >What I'd really like to see Sony do is integrate GPS into their bodies >along with WiFi. This is such a natural (esp. as Sony make their own >GPS') that I'm surprised that at least that part hasn't been done to >date. I should be receiving a separate GPS data logger today or >tomorrow - requires processing the log to insert locations into the DNG >exif files. An A-GPS cell phone, more and more common, could easily add location data to transmitted images. I think it's a better fit than GPS in a digital camera. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > An A-GPS cell phone, more and more common, could easily add location > data to transmitted images. I think it's a better fit than GPS in a > digital camera. You can think that but there are endless applications where properly geo/time tagged data is useful as in file documentation for higher quality images. The addition of heading (lens axis), and even pitch, info would be useful as well. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> An A-GPS cell phone, more and more common, could easily add location >> data to transmitted images. I think it's a better fit than GPS in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >quality images. The addition of heading (lens axis), and even pitch, >info would be useful as well. Lots of things would be "useful". The question is whether it's practical or not, and given that GPS doesn't work well in many locations, in camera GPS is not something I'd want to rely on. My cell phone, by comparison, has location data wherever it has a signal. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> An A-GPS cell phone, more and more common, could easily add location >>> data to transmitted images. I think it's a better fit than GPS in a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > locations, in camera GPS is not something I'd want to rely on. My cell > phone, by comparison, has location data wherever it has a signal. Your cellphone camera is crap. It is not even a middle of the road P&S in quality. GPS works very well outdoor or in vehicles. And it certainly works better than the GPS that you don't have. It is of course outdoors where such data is most useful in any case. I'd rather the GPS in-camera, tagging photos whenever the reception is valid than my current situation which is lugging along a GPS logger and then merging the data into the image files later. More batteries, more operations to setup and wait on. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >>>> An A-GPS cell phone, more and more common, could easily add location >>>> data to transmitted images. I think it's a better fit than GPS in a >>>> digital camera. >>> You can think that but there are endless applications where properly >>> geo/time tagged data is useful as in file documentation for higher [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Your cellphone camera is crap. It is not even a middle of the road P&S >in quality. It's actually good enough for some things, not for others. >GPS works very well outdoor Yes. >or in vehicles. Only with a good external antenna, which a camera won't have. Or are you supposing an antenna connector on digital cameras so they can be hooked up to external antennas? What's next, a TV coax connector? ;) >And it certainly works >better than the GPS that you don't have. Sorry, but no -- the A-GPS in my cell works well anywhere I get cell service. (I have another half dozen or so GPS units, but I assume you're referring to my cell.) Suggest you read up on A-GPS before posting more bad information. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>>> An A-GPS cell phone, more and more common, could easily add location >>>>> data to transmitted images. I think it's a better fit than GPS in a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > you supposing an antenna connector on digital cameras so they can be > hooked up to external antennas? What's next, a TV coax connector? ;) a) I don't take photos while driving. b) GPS's (now) track amazingly well in autos even if they don't have a clear view of the sky. Not that I would care as the camera/GPS would be off. c) Todays receivers with up to date almanac and turned on near (within 200 km) of where they were last turned off usually track within 30 s or less. So the receiver can be off except in the half minute or so before I need it. Doesn't matter what happens in the car. >> And it certainly works >> better than the GPS that you don't have. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you're referring to my cell.) Suggest you read up on A-GPS before > posting more bad information. In some of the places where I photograph (less than 20 minutes from here) there is no cellphone coverage, period. (Even at my house, cell coverage is sketchy). Likewise traveling in US I'm in dead zones more often than not. If I don't have such a phone (and I don't, least not that I can get at the data) then it's useless. GPS covers pretty much the surface of the earth other than deep/steep canyons. Cell phones just don't. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >>> or in vehicles. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >a) I don't take photos while driving. It was you that brought up vehicles. [shrug] >b) GPS's (now) track amazingly well in autos even if they don't have a >clear view of the sky. ... Actually not so good. >c) Todays receivers with up to date almanac and turned on near (within >200 km) of where they were last turned off usually track within 30 s or >less. If you mean get a position fix, then yes. >So the receiver can be off except in the half minute or so before >I need it. Doesn't matter what happens in the car. Nice start up time for your camera. Not. LOL >> Sorry, but no -- the A-GPS in my cell works well anywhere I get cell >> service. (I have another half dozen or so GPS units, but I assume [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >In some of the places where I photograph (less than 20 minutes from >here) there is no cellphone coverage, period. ... Fortunately I usually don't have that problem (and when I do, I usually have a real GPS to fall back on). >GPS covers pretty much the surface of the earth other than deep/steep >canyons. Cell phones just don't. GPS also has problems in urban canyons, under trees, and anywhere inside. Cell generally does better except in areas where there's no cell coverage. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:04:24 -0400, Alan Browne >>b) GPS's (now) track amazingly well in autos even if they don't have a >>clear view of the sky. ... > Actually not so good. Personal experience tells me someting quite different to your claims. Maybe you only drive in tunnels. Maybe you should upgrade your GPS receiver to something sold in recent years. >>So the receiver can be off except in the half minute or so before >>I need it. Doesn't matter what happens in the car. > Nice start up time for your camera. Not. LOL There are ways to reduce the start-up time to about 0 seconds, if your clock is somewhere around ±10 minutes of correct. > GPS also has problems in urban canyons, under trees, and anywhere > inside. Cell generally does better except in areas where there's no > cell coverage. Most areas are without cell phone coverage. And that "under trees" claim is spurious, personal experience tells me something quite different to your claims. -Wolfgang >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:04:24 -0400, Alan Browne > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >claims. Maybe you only drive in tunnels. Maybe you should >upgrade your GPS receiver to something sold in recent years. I agree. Never had a problem with GPS >>>So the receiver can be off except in the half minute or so before >>>I need it. Doesn't matter what happens in the car. >> Nice start up time for your camera. Not. LOL >There are ways to reduce the start-up time to about 0 seconds, >if your clock is somewhere around ±10 minutes of correct. That is the same for any GPS >> GPS also has problems in urban canyons, under trees, and anywhere >> inside. Cell generally does better except in areas where there's no >> cell coverage. > >Most areas are without cell phone coverage. True >And that "under trees" claim is spurious, personal experience >tells me something quite different to your claims. I agree. What he has said is:- GPS works except where there is no coverage. Mobile phones work except where there is no coverage. More of the world has GPS coverage than mobile phone coverage. BTW you have to have the right mobile phone... not all can handle all four of the main systems in use. You can loose signal GPS or Phone in some conditions. They loose signal for different reasons. IT often depends on the construction of the building. Most camera GPS systems will "freeze" the co-ordinates when they loose signal. For example go into a building. How accurate do you need the position for the picture? Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ [GPS] > How accurate do you need the position for the picture? Sub-millimeter accuracy is needed for macros. :-) -Wolfgang >[GPS] >> How accurate do you need the position for the picture? > >Sub-millimeter accuracy is needed for macros. :-) I'm sure the US defense department will be very interested in how you are achieving that with GPS. ;) >>[GPS] >>> How accurate do you need the position for the picture? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm sure the US defense department will be very interested in how you > are achieving that with GPS. ;) The European Galileo system? ;-p SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >>>[GPS] >>>> How accurate do you need the position for the picture? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The European Galileo system? ;-p ROTFL! SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote: > More of the world has GPS coverage than mobile phone coverage. > BTW you have to have the right mobile phone... not all can handle all > four of the main systems in use. > You can loose signal GPS or Phone in some conditions. They loose signal > for different reasons. IT often depends on the construction of the > building. > Most camera GPS systems will "freeze" the co-ordinates when they loose > signal. For example go into a building. How accurate do you need the > position for the picture? Some GPS units don't freeze co-ordinates when losing signal, they simply keep on trucking at the last calculated speed and direction for a while, usually about 30 secs. So if you move into a place without signal at constant speed and direction you can get a good fix for up to 30 seconds. So you could for example walk into a church and steadily straight ahead until you're right under the steeple, and get a fix on it. And good GPS systems will let you define a waypoint as the average between two others, so you can stand either side of the church and average the steeple location. Some GPS systems with magnetic orientation sensors will let you take bearings on a location from two known positions so you can triangulate its position. Note that sometimes you want to locate the camera position, and sometimes you want to locate the image location, such as a photograph of a building or a distant landmark. If I'm using GPS to locate my photographs I like to have those kinds of facilities, but I don't see camera makers putting all that into a camera, or camera users having the patience to learn how to use it. Mostly they don't even read the photography section of the camera manual :-) So I'm a fan of a separate sophisticated GPS unit, and simply taking a snapshot of it to locate a photograph. SignatureChris Malcolm > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > simply keep on trucking at the last calculated speed and direction for > a while, usually about 30 secs. I'm not sure how it does it, perhaps it has INS supplementing the GPS, but I noticed the other day that my Garmin Street Pilot 2610 was tracking turns in the bottom level of a reinforced parking garage with 5 floors of parked cars above it and no sky visible at all > So if you move into a place without > signal at constant speed and direction you can get a good fix for up [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So I'm a fan of a separate sophisticated GPS unit, and simply taking a > snapshot of it to locate a photograph. >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:04:24 -0400, Alan Browne > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >claims. Maybe you only drive in tunnels. Maybe you should >upgrade your GPS receiver to something sold in recent years. I'm talking state of the art Garmin receivers. >>>So the receiver can be off except in the half minute or so before >>>I need it. Doesn't matter what happens in the car. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >There are ways to reduce the start-up time to about 0 seconds, >if your clock is somewhere around ±10 minutes of correct. The best warm fix is about 30 secs. >> GPS also has problems in urban canyons, under trees, and anywhere >> inside. Cell generally does better except in areas where there's no >> cell coverage. > >Most areas are without cell phone coverage. I don't spend much time hiking in remote deserts. >And that "under trees" claim is spurious, personal experience >tells me something quite different to your claims. Your trees must be pretty thin. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:04:24 -0400, Alan Browne >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I'm talking state of the art Garmin receivers. They are very good and the only time they have lost lock was in a 1/2 mile curved tunnel under a city. Re-lock as leaving tunnel. Otherwise pin point accuracy. (Car radio also goes in that tunnel) >>>>So the receiver can be off except in the half minute or so before >>>>I need it. Doesn't matter what happens in the car. >>> Nice start up time for your camera. Not. LOL >>There are ways to reduce the start-up time to about 0 seconds, >>if your clock is somewhere around ±10 minutes of correct. >The best warm fix is about 30 secs. You must have an old system... it depends where you are and the weather conditions and the landscape >>> GPS also has problems in urban canyons, under trees, and anywhere >>> inside. Cell generally does better except in areas where there's no >>> cell coverage. >>Most areas are without cell phone coverage. >I don't spend much time hiking in remote deserts. Lots of places don't have phone cover. The UK is 98% but there are still dips and valleys that have problems. Once stayed on a holiday park there was no phone signal 4 miles from town . Mobile phone signals are line of site from a ground based transmitter. Great if you live in a flat area like remote deserts where two masts can cover a far greater distance than in urban areas. >>And that "under trees" claim is spurious, personal experience >>tells me something quite different to your claims. >Your trees must be pretty thin. I agree... trees are not a problem Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>The best warm fix is about 30 secs. > >You must have an old system... Not so. >it depends where you are and the weather >conditions and the landscape It actually depends on bird acquisition and data reception. Anything in less time is a guess by the receiver. >>I don't spend much time hiking in remote deserts. > >Lots of places don't have phone cover. ... Not the places I go (which is all I care about). SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:04:24 -0400, Alan Browne >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > I agree... trees are not a problem I'm curious--what are you using? My etrex Vista loses lock on a regular basis in Connecticut forests in the summer. Maybe it's time to upgrade again. >> I agree... trees are not a problem > >I'm curious--what are you using? Garmin Nuvi 660fm > My etrex Vista loses lock on a regular >basis in Connecticut forests in the summer. How tall are the trees and how dense? If it is a very tall dense forest if could have some effect. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>> I agree... trees are not a problem >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >How tall are the trees and how dense? If it is a very tall dense forest >if could have some effect. Density matters. Height doesn't. GPS needs a clear view of the sky, SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > Density matters. Height doesn't. > GPS needs a clear view of the sky, a clear view helps but is not required with decent gps units. older ones do require a clear view, however. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>> I agree... trees are not a problem >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>How tall are the trees and how dense? If it is a very tall dense forest >>if could have some effect. > Density matters. Height doesn't. > GPS needs a clear view of the sky, For continuous tracking a GPS needs several acquired satellites and glimpses of a few roughly every thirty secs. For satellite acquisition it needs at least thirty secs of uninterrupted view. So a GPS with a good handful of acquired satellites can keep tracking in very dense forest, but only for a while, because if you keep moving it can't acquire any risen new ones to replace those which have set. And if it's a dense forest even if you stop it can never acquire enough new ones in the small windows accidentally available at a random stop. But switch to manual acquistion mode and you can always acquire satellites and keep tracking in dense woods :-) SignatureChris Malcolm In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote: >>>> And that "under trees" claim is spurious, personal experience >>>> tells me something quite different to your claims. >>> Your trees must be pretty thin. >> >> I agree... trees are not a problem > I'm curious--what are you using? My etrex Vista loses lock on a regular > basis in Connecticut forests in the summer. Maybe it's time to upgrade > again. Depends which model of Vista. The second model had a much improved receiver. Performance under tree cover also depends a lot on how you use. The first easiest way to improve under trees performance is to stop at least every half hour for a few minutes in a place with a nice open view, and put the GPS down, away from your body, in best reception orientation position (with Vistas that's horizonal face up) well away from your body's satellite signal shadow. That let's the unit acquire any new risen satellites, which it can't do when you're moving under trees due to the constant interruption of satellite view. But it tolerates constant interruption of locked satellite view. And of course when walking under tree canopy give your Vista the best view of the sky. That means don't put it in a body-shadowed pocket, clip it horizontal facing up to your rucksack strap on top of your shoulder. SignatureChris Malcolm > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:19:56 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg [GPS in cars] >>Personal experience tells me someting quite different to your >>claims. Maybe you only drive in tunnels. Maybe you should >>upgrade your GPS receiver to something sold in recent years. > I'm talking state of the art Garmin receivers. If you have bad reception with them, something is wrong --- and it's not the car. >>There are ways to reduce the start-up time to about 0 seconds, >>if your clock is somewhere around ±10 minutes of correct. > The best warm fix is about 30 secs. ... and can be done in post-processing. News for you: There's at least one commercial offer doing exactly that. Fix time: 0.2 seconds. This should be a big enough hint for you to figure it out. >>> GPS also has problems in urban canyons, under trees, and anywhere >>> inside. Cell generally does better except in areas where there's no >>> cell coverage. >>Most areas are without cell phone coverage. > I don't spend much time hiking in remote deserts. You don't spend time anywhere except mostly densely settled parts, it seems. >>And that "under trees" claim is spurious, personal experience >>tells me something quite different to your claims. > Your trees must be pretty thin. I understand that cell phone reception is spotty in the jungle. Where, granted, GPS reception is not that easy. Still, people are effectively using GPS in the tropical rain forrests, as a quick google will show you. -Wolfgang >> I'm talking state of the art Garmin receivers. > >If you have bad reception with them, something is wrong --- >and it's not the car. I don't have problems with them. >> The best warm fix is about 30 secs. > >... and can be done in post-processing. >News for you: There's at least one commercial offer doing >exactly that. Fix time: 0.2 seconds. Nope. Anything less is a guess, not a fix. >> I don't spend much time hiking in remote deserts. > >You don't spend time anywhere except mostly densely settled >parts, it seems. Nope. Wrong again. >> Your trees must be pretty thin. > >I understand that cell phone reception is spotty in the jungle. >Where, granted, GPS reception is not that easy. Still, people >are effectively using GPS in the tropical rain forrests, as a >quick google will show you. Only with difficulty. Tree cover is an issue. I'm done with the increasingly pointless back and forth. Feel free to have the last word. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>I understand that cell phone reception is spotty in the jungle. >>Where, granted, GPS reception is not that easy. Still, people >>are effectively using GPS in the tropical rain forrests, as a >>quick google will show you. > Only with difficulty. Tree cover is an issue. It's very difficult if you don't understand how to use a GPS under canopy. It's much easier if you do. Many of those who rely on GPS in heavily wooded places have taken the trouble to find out how to best use them under tree cover. SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >heavily wooded places have taken the trouble to find out how to best >use them under tree cover. Thank you, but I'm thoroughly familiar with how to use GPS -- I'd even be willing to bet that I have far more hours of experience than you do, since I routinely use it for marine navigation. The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking pictures, so would have to make a new fix when the camera is turned on. Or are you suggesting the camera would be draining its battery by keeping the GPS turned on all the time, and that users should be expected to manually acquire new birds from time to time? SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this > increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking > pictures, so would have to make a new fix when the camera is turned on. not necessarily. > Or are you suggesting the camera would be draining its battery by > keeping the GPS turned on all the time, and that users should be > expected to manually acquire new birds from time to time? gps battery drain is minimal compared to other camera functions and assuming the gps obtained a fix, perhaps in the morning of a photo shoot, the time to reacquire a fix a few minutes later is near-instant. plus, there's at least one camera gps device that doesn't need to get a fix at all. it *is* instant. >> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > plus, there's at least one camera gps device that doesn't need to get a > fix at all. it *is* instant. I am currently using a Promote Systems GPS on my D300: https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-GPS.html My only complaint is the initial acquire time which can range from 45sec to several minutes, however once running it provides accurate fixes even with tree cover. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >>> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 45sec to several minutes, however once running it provides accurate > fixes even with tree cover. BTW battery drainage when using the PromoteGPS is negligible. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >>>> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >BTW battery drainage when using the PromoteGPS is negligible. GPS chipsets in continuous operation will drain a couple of AA batteries in 8-16 hours. I personally don't consider that "negligible", especially in a compact camera, but as always, YMMV. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >BTW battery drainage when using the PromoteGPS is negligible. > > GPS chipsets in continuous operation will drain a couple of AA batteries > in 8-16 hours. I personally don't consider that "negligible", > especially in a compact camera, but as always, YMMV. assuming that's true, 8-16 hours is still a long time. how often do you go on 16 hour photoshoots? >> >BTW battery drainage when using the PromoteGPS is negligible. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >assuming that's true, 8-16 hours is still a long time. how often do >you go on 16 hour photoshoots? I often shoot for 2 or more days on a single charge, especially when away from "civilization". SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >> GPS chipsets in continuous operation will drain a couple of AA batteries > >> in 8-16 hours. I personally don't consider that "negligible", [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I often shoot for 2 or more days on a single charge, especially when > away from "civilization". you don't leave the camera on for 48 hours straight. i've gone much longer on a single charge, in both my gps and my slr. >> >> GPS chipsets in continuous operation will drain a couple of AA batteries >> >> in 8-16 hours. I personally don't consider that "negligible", [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >you don't leave the camera on for 48 hours straight. GPS would have to be continuous powered to avoid long startup delays. >i've gone much >longer on a single charge, in both my gps and my slr. What small GPS (make and model) runs for much longer than "48 hours straight" on a single charge? SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >> I often shoot for 2 or more days on a single charge, especially when > >> away from "civilization". > > > >you don't leave the camera on for 48 hours straight. > > GPS would have to be continuous powered to avoid long startup delays. nope. turn it on in the morning prior to beginning shooting photos. if it had a fix the day before it should only take 30 seconds to get a fix, often less (at least that's my experience). > >i've gone much > >longer on a single charge, in both my gps and my slr. > > What small GPS (make and model) runs for much longer than "48 hours > straight" on a single charge? doesn't matter since that's not a real world usage scenario. people will turn off the device during that time. >> >> I often shoot for 2 or more days on a single charge, especially when >> >> away from "civilization". [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >doesn't matter since that's not a real world usage scenario. people >will turn off the device during that time. Because you say so. I done with this pointless argument. Have the last word. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >> What small GPS (make and model) runs for much longer than "48 hours >> straight" on a single charge? > > doesn't matter since that's not a real world usage scenario. people > will turn off the device during that time. The real world scenario is you have to design for idiots. Some people use mobile phone on boats when the (UK) standard is VHF. You can't rely on signal coverage, batteries, or triangulation with a mobile in an emergency. I've got similar caveats with cameras and GPS. Some people will burn through the batteries and get lost. Personally speaking, I'd rather go with separate kit and a wireless connection like Bluetooth. It would also enable more functionality and upgradeability. GPS is a great thing but I'm old school and wouldn't go anywhere critical without map and compass. Partly, that's upbringing. Partly, that's a cultural difference between the US and UK. Ironically, you're almost never further than 50 miles from a road or settlement in the UK if you walk in a random direction while in the US you could be in deep doo-doo. Thankfully, most people just loiter the consumer hot spots but so the risks are low but anyone going off this path might be cautioned to follow best practices. "Let's be careful out there." SignatureCharles E Hardwidge > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:17:33 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>In article <aic7459fv9h3asd5ujthit5gn8eulcam7g@4ax.com>, John Navas >>> I often shoot for 2 or more days on a single charge, especially when >>> away from "civilization". Non-stop, of course. Without sleeping. Pressing the button every other second, when you're not switching cards. >>you don't leave the camera on for 48 hours straight. > GPS would have to be continuous powered to avoid long startup delays. Why would it have to be? Please explain ... > What small GPS (make and model) runs for much longer than "48 hours > straight" on a single charge? Your camera doesn't run on a single charge shooting 48 hours straight, so this is a spurious argument. -Wolfgang >>>>> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >>>>> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > in 8-16 hours. I personally don't consider that "negligible", > especially in a compact camera, but as always, YMMV. If you actually checked the link to the Promote site, you would find the PromoteGPS is a hot shoe mounted GPS for Nikon DSLRs. AA use in a compact camera is not available with this unit. So as I said, with my D300 + EN-EL3e + MD-D10 with EN-EL4a the battery drainage is minimal. SignatureRegards, Savageduck In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >>>>> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >>BTW battery drainage when using the PromoteGPS is negligible. > GPS chipsets in continuous operation will drain a couple of AA batteries > in 8-16 hours. I personally don't consider that "negligible", > especially in a compact camera, but as always, YMMV. Garmin's latest receivers can do a lot better than that while running a colour display at the same time. And there are ways of using those chip sets intermittently to get instant hot start without having to be on all the time, which reduces power consumption a lot more. SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> GPS chipsets in continuous operation will drain a couple of AA batteries >> in 8-16 hours. I personally don't consider that "negligible", [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >chip sets intermittently to get instant hot start without having to be >on all the time, which reduces power consumption a lot more. Garmin GPSMAP 176/176C Power Source: Four AA batteries (not included) Battery life: 4 to 16 hours based on backlight setting SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > I am currently using a Promote Systems GPS on my D300: > https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-GPS.html > > My only complaint is the initial acquire time which can range from 45sec > to several minutes, however once running it provides accurate fixes even > with tree cover. How much weight does it add? This may sound stupid, but does it mount any place other than the hot shoe? SignaturePeter >> I am currently using a Promote Systems GPS on my D300: >> https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-GPS.html [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How much weight does it add? > This may sound stupid, but does it mount any place other than the hot shoe? It adds less than 1 oz No, the mount is the hot shoe, however the times I have had to use the pop-up flash or add my SB-800, I have just pulled it off the hot shoe and let it dangle from the 6 inch cable and still get an accurate fix. I know the Nikon GP-1, which is also hot shoe mounted has a clip which will allow attachment to the camera strap. It does the same job, but will add another $100 to the bill. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>> I am currently using a Promote Systems GPS on my D300: >>> https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-GPS.html [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > will allow attachment to the camera strap. It does the same job, but will > add another $100 to the bill. After checking the price difference is about $50. But, more important is loss of use of the 10 pin connector as a remote release. SignaturePeter Life is a compromise. >>>> I am currently using a Promote Systems GPS on my D300: >>>> https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-GPS.html [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > After checking the price difference is about $50. But, more important > is loss of use of the 10 pin connector as a remote release. The GP-1 has a pass through to allow for a remote. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>>> I am currently using a Promote Systems GPS on my D300: >>>>> https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-GPS.html [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > The GP-1 has a pass through to allow for a remote. I have to correct myself here, the GP-1 allows for connection of the MC-DC2 Remote Cable, which is the mini-UPS D-90 remote, not the MC-30 or MC-36 10-pin remotes. However Solmeta has a 10-pin splitter cable allowing 2 input devices, as well of their own Geotagger N2 (also hot shoe mount, but which includes a strap clip & remote cable.) It has some other features, but as it uses its own battery in conjunction with the camera battery, seems to be a little on the bulky and inelegant compared to the GP-1 & PromoteGPS. http://www.solmeta.com/line.asp?id=18&imgid=75 http://www.solmeta.com/products.asp?lid=18&imgid=71 SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>>>> I am currently using a Promote Systems GPS on my D300: >>>>>> https://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-GPS.html [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > http://www.solmeta.com/line.asp?id=18&imgid=75 > http://www.solmeta.com/products.asp?lid=18&imgid=71 Thanks, you've got me thinking. SignaturePeter >> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >gps battery drain is minimal compared to other camera functions and No thanks. >assuming the gps obtained a fix, perhaps in the morning of a photo >shoot, the time to reacquire a fix a few minutes later is near-instant. >plus, there's at least one camera gps device that doesn't need to get a >fix at all. it *is* instant. There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >assuming the gps obtained a fix, perhaps in the morning of a photo > >shoot, the time to reacquire a fix a few minutes later is near-instant. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. > Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. nonsense. it's called a hot start and takes a second or two, tops with any recent gps device. older ones might be 5-10 seconds. and that's with multiple satellites and very high location accuracy. >> >assuming the gps obtained a fix, perhaps in the morning of a photo >> >shoot, the time to reacquire a fix a few minutes later is near-instant. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >any recent gps device. older ones might be 5-10 seconds. and that's >with multiple satellites and very high location accuracy. Citation? Or must we take your word for it? SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >> >assuming the gps obtained a fix, perhaps in the morning of a photo > >> >shoot, the time to reacquire a fix a few minutes later is near-instant. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Citation? Or must we take your word for it? <http://www.gpsmagazine.com/2008/08/garmin_announces_7_new_nuvi_gp.php> Garmin is also touting a new feature called "Garmin HotFix", which sounds exactly like SiRF's InstantFix, a feature that improves start-up time and lets the GPS almost instantly determine your location (provided the GPS has been turned on within the past 7 days). <http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7466265/description.html> The 1-second hot start mode requires that the drift of the real time clock be within 0.5 milliseconds, and time accurate to millisecond can be correctly estimated without needing to go through data bit and frame synchronization to extract precise time information. As a result, the GPS receiver can immediately achieve position fix upon locking onto at least 4 GPS satellite signals. <http://www.buygpsnow.com/globalsat-bt-359w-globalsat-359-globalsat-gps- 615.asp> Hot start 1 sec., average Warm start 38 sec., average Cold start 42 sec., average Reacquisition 0.1 sec. average <http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=465> 20 Channel EM-406A SiRF III Receiver with Antenna * Hot Start : 1s * Warm Start : 38s * Cold Start : 42s >> >> >assuming the gps obtained a fix, perhaps in the morning of a photo >> >> >shoot, the time to reacquire a fix a few minutes later is near-instant. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >* Warm Start : 38s >* Cold Start : 42s I'm not interested in a "hot start" guess. As I said, a real fix (warm or cold start) takes at least 30 secs. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > I'm not interested in a "hot start" guess. > As I said, a real fix (warm or cold start) takes at least 30 secs. a hot start is not a guess. it's a lock, with multiple satellites and a small error circle. >> I'm not interested in a "hot start" guess. >> As I said, a real fix (warm or cold start) takes at least 30 secs. > >a hot start is not a guess. it's a lock, with multiple satellites and a >small error circle. Nope. But I'm done with the pointless argument. Have the last word. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >> I'm not interested in a "hot start" guess. > >> As I said, a real fix (warm or cold start) takes at least 30 secs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope. nope right back. it very definitely is a full gps lock. > But I'm done with the pointless argument. that's because you're wrong. >> I'm not interested in a "hot start" guess. >> As I said, a real fix (warm or cold start) takes at least 30 secs. > > a hot start is not a guess. it's a lock, with multiple satellites and a > small error circle. I didn't know about that hot versus cold start thing. Thanks for the info. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge > I didn't know about that hot versus cold start thing. Thanks for the info. here's a good summary of the terms: <http://forum.ppcgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=31457> >> I didn't know about that hot versus cold start thing. Thanks for the >> info. > > here's a good summary of the terms: > > <http://forum.ppcgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=31457> I read some stuff earlier but some people might find it useful. Plus, the performance of older and newer GPS equipment, and the practical issues of using it in the field are handy. The pissing contest people get sucked into online doesn't add much and I've tuned that out. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >>> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >>gps battery drain is minimal compared to other camera functions and > No thanks. >>assuming the gps obtained a fix, perhaps in the morning of a photo >>shoot, the time to reacquire a fix a few minutes later is near-instant. >>plus, there's at least one camera gps device that doesn't need to get a >>fix at all. it *is* instant. > There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. > Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. So you find the 15 secs warm start often cited for Garmin's latest receivers (when not using WAAS) to be an exaggeration? SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. >> Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. > >So you find the 15 secs warm start often cited for Garmin's latest >receivers (when not using WAAS) to be an exaggeration? What you get in 15 secs is a rough fix, which gets refined as the receiver gets more data. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >> There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. > >> Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What you get in 15 secs is a rough fix, which gets refined as the > receiver gets more data. for warm start perhaps but not for a hot start. >> >> There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. >> >> Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >for warm start perhaps but not for a hot start. It's takes at least 30 secs to get a real fix. Anything less is a guess, no matter what you call it. I'm done. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) On 6/26/09 1:45 PM, in article 4p5a4553r6jcafrn96se4otnfhiqkn4gn6@4ax.com, >>>>> There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. >>>>> Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'm done. Can we put a fork in you if you really are? We can only wish... > >> What you get in 15 secs is a rough fix, which gets refined as the > >> receiver gets more data. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Anything less is a guess, no matter what you call it. > I'm done. still wrong. > It's takes at least 30 secs to get a real fix. > Anything less is a guess, no matter what you call it. > I'm done. Yes, don't let facts confuse you, John. Don't start thinking how a GPS receiver can produce positions faster than one every 30 seconds and how that works. And what would happen if you recreated the circumstances for that. -Wolfgang > There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. > Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. So your GPS needs 30 seconds between subsequent fixes? -Wolfgang >>> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >>> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. > Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. A GPS with: -an up to date almanac -an up to date clock (within 1 minute) -in the same area where last shut off (within 100 km) -a reasonable view of the sky Will re-acquire and track very quickly. 10 - 20 seconds is common. Not instant, but quick enough. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > > There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. > > Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Will re-acquire and track very quickly. 10 - 20 seconds is common. Not > instant, but quick enough. in my experience, if the gps has been off for less than an hour or two, it will get a fix within a couple of seconds. > In article <17adnWtNf8WM1tvXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne >> A GPS with: >> -an up to date almanac >> -an up to date clock (within 1 minute) >> -in the same area where last shut off (within 100 km) >> -a reasonable view of the sky - up-to-date ephemeris data (sent on a 30 second loop, each sat for itself, for the next 2 hours)[1] >> Will re-acquire and track very quickly. 10 - 20 seconds is common. Not >> instant, but quick enough. > in my experience, if the gps has been off for less than an hour or two, > it will get a fix within a couple of seconds. As long as the ephemeris data for the sats to be used is available. Almanac-only navigation has kilometers of errors. One ploy to reduce the TTFF (Time to first fix) is to store longer-term ephemeris data or transmit the same on a quicker channel than GPS itself, say via your cell phone (which can also give your starting position more accurate than the 100km[1] needed. So can almanac-only navigation.). -Wolfgang [1] I seem to remember that even 200-300km is close enough, but I may be wrong there. >>> There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. >>> Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in my experience, if the gps has been off for less than an hour or two, > it will get a fix within a couple of seconds. Sure, I just keep my expectations lower. Tracking within 30 s. would be more than adequate for my photography needs. Time to track also varies with GPS design and whatever hardware checks are done, whether a database is accessed, whether it will start tracking with 3 satellites (2D), track despite poor satellite geometry (high P/V/H/TDOP), low signal level, etc. I received an "AMOD" GPS logger the other day. I set it to record a set of NMEA sentences every 10 s. I had synced my camera clock to UTC a few days earlier (within 2 s). Per the image/gps syncronizer, the camera clock had not drifted more than 1 or 2s since I sync'd it a few days earlier. However, where I took photos under medium foliage (trees about 50 ft high, dense coverage), the position errors were on the order of 100 m or so on over half of the images. That's to be expected. In open areas, the error (using Google Earth) was less than 10m (probably less than 5). Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. >> Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Will re-acquire and track very quickly. 10 - 20 seconds is common. Not >instant, but quick enough. Warm fix of 15-20 secs is possible under ideal conditions, but not guaranteed (hence my 30 secs), and still nowhere near fast enough to be practical in a digital camera. The hypothetical camera with GPS will normally be powered off. That means a hot fix (e.g., reacquiring a fix when the GPS loses signal as when passing under something that temporarily blocks signals) isn't possible, so the GPS has to do a warm fix. The user turns on the camera to take a picture, and might well take one or even multiple pictures before the GPS has acquired a warm fix. Any geotagging of those images will thus at best be a *guess* based on the last fix. The only ways to overcome this issue would be to keep the GPS powered up all the time, draining the camera batteries even when the camera is turned off, or using A-GPS to get position data externally, which essentially means a cell phone built into the camera. A much more practical solution, IMHO, would be Bluetooth in the camera that could obtain location data from a Bluetooth cell phone, as well as transfer pictures to the cell phone. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> There is no such thing as an "instant" fix. >>> Anything less than 30 secs is a guess. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > guaranteed (hence my 30 secs), and still nowhere near fast enough to be > practical in a digital camera. Says who? It take me a minute or two to setup for a simple shot, never mind one that I'm taking care about. The design of the camera with a built in GPS could also allow for separate power state to the GPS with a slow sampling (say 5 seconds per minute) to keep the correlators aligned (and not bother wasting CPU on the nav solution and formatting data outputs) and then when the camera would be turned on, the GPS could enter a full performance mode with the correlators pretty much on code. In a 24 channel receiver, 4 correlators could be assigned per satellite (best 6) such that on each 'search' time the guessestimated Doppler shifts (in PR code chip units) could be applied at -2df, -df, df and 2df counts from the last shift (where df is just an guestimated search delta count. (eg: offset the PR code by that many bins from last center). Search for 1/2df in each direction from those 4 search points will locate the new df for that satellite. Save that and shut down for the next pass or full nav mode. 5 seconds? Could probably be done in a couple seconds each minute. After that, track for nav time would be a couple seconds - even less. ARM processors, by the way, are especially well suited to the above and many GPS receivers use ARM processors of various kinds. I checked my AMOD receiver yesterday. After being off for two days, it re-acquired in an open area in 15 seconds (possibly less, hard to tell with its blinking status light scheme). That is more than adequate for anyone with an interest in tagging their photos with the position. For someone with faster needs, the low power/fast acquisition scheme (or something similar) could be designed. (Already has). > The hypothetical camera with GPS will normally be powered off. That > means a hot fix (e.g., reacquiring a fix when the GPS loses signal as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The only ways to overcome this issue would be to keep the GPS powered up > all the time, draining the camera batteries even when the camera is See above. Low powered intermittent solutions are not a new idea. (IIRC there was even a "watch" GPS that used an approach similar to that that I describe above). > turned off, or using A-GPS to get position data externally, which > essentially means a cell phone built into the camera. > > A much more practical solution, IMHO, would be Bluetooth in the camera > that could obtain location data from a Bluetooth cell phone, as well as > transfer pictures to the cell phone. Well, except for the 85% of the SW US that I was in last year and 2006 without cell phone coverage. Considering that that area has a larger population than Canada, it shows that the world is a hell of a lot bigger than the cell phone coverage area. >> Warm fix of 15-20 secs is possible under ideal conditions, but not >> guaranteed (hence my 30 secs), and still nowhere near fast enough to be >> practical in a digital camera. > >Says who? It take me a minute or two to setup for a simple shot, never >mind one that I'm taking care about. Cameras have to be designed for everyone, not just you. and many people take pictures in less time than that. >The design of the camera with a built in GPS could also allow for >separate power state to the GPS with a slow sampling (say 5 seconds per >minute) to keep the correlators aligned (and not bother wasting CPU on >the nav solution and formatting data outputs) and then when the camera >would be turned on, the GPS could enter a full performance mode with the >correlators pretty much on code. ... With all due respect, that's uninformed speculation not reflected in real world products. Let me know if and when any such products materialize. >> A much more practical solution, IMHO, would be Bluetooth in the camera >> that could obtain location data from a Bluetooth cell phone, as well as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >population than Canada, it shows that the world is a hell of a lot >bigger than the cell phone coverage area. Irrelevant, since the cell phone would be no worse than your hypothetical camera. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> Warm fix of 15-20 secs is possible under ideal conditions, but not >>> guaranteed (hence my 30 secs), and still nowhere near fast enough to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cameras have to be designed for everyone, not just you. and many people > take pictures in less time than that. Indeed. I have fractions of a second to setup my shots & take them. That said, I have no need to log GPS to go with them... SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Warm fix of 15-20 secs is possible under ideal conditions, but not >>>> guaranteed (hence my 30 secs), and still nowhere near fast enough to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Indeed. I have fractions of a second to setup my shots & take them. Believe it, it shows in every one of your agonizingly bad snapshots. Point and shoot, auto-everything, machine-gunning, snapshooters are always like that. Always blaming their cameras, wondering why all their snapshots are blurry or wrongly exposed. Solution: Buy something even more automated, faster auto everything, faster start-up time, faster shutter response, faster auto-focusing, an even wider dynamic range so it's even more forgiving of all their incessant mistakes. And of course it must be more expensive, because we all know that you get what you pay for. Well, in the minds of total fools that's true at least. Hence the well-worn adage, "A fool and his money are soon parted." It'll always be the camera's fault. Make no mistake about that. Simple truth: No camera will ever be good enough for people like this, because they'll never be good enough. {How fuckingly dense can they get.} Blind Dudley tries this approach with an auto-everything camera. Never works for him either. As you've all been witness to, with every painfully bad snapshot that he posts. You're all just as hopelessly and equally blind. Maybe you should all train dogs or monkeys to take your snapshots for you. Then you can blame the animal too. "Whoa! Who just farted that stanky snapshot?! ... The dog did it!" Dudley should use that excuse, all his blurry and horrendously composed snapshots look just like his dog took them. In truth it would be difficult to tell the difference if his camera was lashed to the dog with a bark-triggered shutter mechanism. The dog would probably do an even better job of it than Dudley if it was taught to hold a "point". It'd definitely be a close call at least. >>Indeed. I have fractions of a second to setup my shots & take them. > > Believe it, it shows in every one of your agonizingly bad snapshots. > > Point and shoot, auto-everything, machine-gunning, snapshooters are always > like that. And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just one shot? I wonder if you've ever shot a model and anted to get just the right expression. How many shots would you take? If you wanted to catch a bird in flight with its wings in just the right position, would you only use one shot? etc,; etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc, > Always blaming their cameras, wondering why all their snapshots are blurry > or wrongly exposed. Solution: Buy something even more automated, faster [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It'll always be the camera's fault. Make no mistake about that. Sounds like you take perfect shots with just one try. </end sarcastic tag> > Blind Dudley tries this approach with an auto-everything camera. Never > works for him either. As you've all been witness to, with every painfully > bad snapshot that he posts. You're all just as hopelessly and equally > blind. Dudly should recieve lots of credit for his attitude and tries. I would be pleased if mjy shots came out half as good as his if I shot under the conditions he does. How dare you be so arrogant as to say, in essence, that only you can be right. <crap sniped> I apologize to the helpful members of this group for my mini rant, but your inexcusable posting just it a raw nerve and some things had to be said. Now go back in your corner and stick your head where the sun don't shine. SignaturePeter >>>Indeed. I have fractions of a second to setup my shots & take them. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just >one shot? Are you honestly admitting to the fact that you can't time the gait of a horse and know when to trip the shutter? Wow. I'm guessing that you'll never be a drummer either. Zero sense of rhythm. >I wonder if you've ever shot a model and anted to get just the right >expression. How many shots would you take? One, when I saw the right expression. >If you wanted to catch a bird in flight with its wings in just the right >position, would you only use one shot? Yes, one. Do it all the time. Got any more piss-poor excuses for you being such a piss poor photographer? >etc,; etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc, Yes, you're a piss-poor photographer, etc. etc. etc. >> Always blaming their cameras, wondering why all their snapshots are blurry >> or wrongly exposed. Solution: Buy something even more automated, faster [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Sounds like you take perfect shots with just one try. </end sarcastic tag> Feel free to think you are being sarcastic. It only shows the whole world that you're nothing but a piss-poor snapshooter, just like all the piss-poor snapshooters that you are trying to defend, the ones that you relate to. >> Blind Dudley tries this approach with an auto-everything camera. Never >> works for him either. As you've all been witness to, with every painfully [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >pleased if mjy shots came out half as good as his if I shot under the >conditions he does. Credit? For supplying more blurry snapshots that any 2 year-old with a camera can produce? Just what the world needs is more crap like that. Tell us all again why someone who can't even get ONE image in focus or properly composed should be given credit. This I've got to hear. Are you that easily swayed by your smarmy sympathy for nothing but a sad clown-act? A bad one at that. >How dare you be so arrogant as to say, in essence, that only you can be >right. No, I'm not the only one who is right. Everyone who is the least bit of a photographer is right. Anyone who is honest is right. That leaves out you and DUDley. ><crap sniped> > >I apologize to the helpful members of this group for my mini rant, but your >inexcusable posting just it a raw nerve and some things had to be said. Now >go back in your corner and stick your head where the sun don't shine. Apologize all you want. It's not going to make you into any kind of photographer. Sorry that the shoe fit you so tightly and it pinched your toes so much that it made you cry out so. But I love doing that. Letting the idiot reveal their own idiocy. >Sorry that the shoe fit you so tightly and it pinched your toes so much >that it made you cry out so. But I love doing that. Letting the idiot >reveal their own idiocy. Et tu. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>>>Indeed. I have fractions of a second to setup my shots & take them. >>> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > that it made you cry out so. But I love doing that. Letting the idiot > reveal their own idiocy. You obviously have superior skills that far exceed mine and the vast majority of professional photographers. It is also clear you are on such a high plane, that none of us are capable of learning from you. Welcome to my Bozo bin. SignaturePeter >none of us are capable of learning from you. You have all made that quite clear, many times over. People like you aren't capable of learning from anything, not just from me. Follow the mindless herd, it's the best that any of you can ever do. Say, "Baaaaaaaaaaa..." Say it again. You all do it so well. >>And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted >>to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Yes, you're a piss-poor photographer, etc. etc. etc. So I wonder why professionals used motor drives.... I wonder why one of the selling points of the high end professional DSLR's is the burst frame rate. (Mine has 2 burst settings) It sounds to me like you are the amateur here and probably do very little photography and only of static subjects. You probably can not tell the difference between passable and a great photo. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > It sounds to me like you are the amateur here and probably do very > little photography and only of static subjects. You probably can not > tell the difference between passable and a great photo. Trolls rarely can. Esp. if you stop feeding them. >> It sounds to me like you are the amateur here and probably do very >> little photography and only of static subjects. You probably can not >> tell the difference between passable and a great photo. > > Trolls rarely can. Esp. if you stop feeding them. I like to think most folks are posting for some legitimate purpose, including trying to start an intelligent discussion. However, that guy is now in my Bozo bin. BTW if you want to express your fatigue, do you write "I am tyred." <g> SignaturePeter >>> It sounds to me like you are the amateur here and probably do very >>> little photography and only of static subjects. You probably can not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > However, that guy is now in my Bozo bin. Well, he'll be out in a jif, as he's a nym-shifter. If everyone tried to not reply to provactive and ignorant posts, the signal noise ratio would improve. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>> It sounds to me like you are the amateur here and probably do very >>> little photography and only of static subjects. You probably can not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > BTW if you want to express your fatigue, do you write "I am tyred." <g> Only if you're an old broken down car. >>>And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted >>>to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >the selling points of the high end professional DSLR's is the burst >frame rate. (Mine has 2 burst settings) Which I'm sure you use constantly. I bet the biggest and most often confusing decision that you ever make when using your camera is which of your machine-gun point and shoot modes that you should be using. >It sounds to me like you are the amateur here and probably do very >little photography and only of static subjects. You probably can not >tell the difference between passable and a great photo. Yes, that's exactly right. You just keep on believing that. It'll probably be the only way that you can sleep at night if you don't. It'll also be the only way that you can ever try to believe one day that you'll ever be more than a just another of the many millions of remedial snapshooters with your pride & joy point and shoot DSLR. Yes! You're right. LOL :-) >>>>And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted >>>>to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Which I'm sure you use constantly. I don't but then again your opinion does not seem to count much around here. >I bet the biggest and most often >confusing decision that you ever make when using your camera is which of >your machine-gun point and shoot modes that you should be using. Wrong again. >>It sounds to me like you are the amateur here and probably do very >>little photography and only of static subjects. You probably can not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >pride & joy point and shoot DSLR. >Yes! You're right. Having just has pictures accepted by a newspaper yesterday and having sold additional sets from a professional engagement last week and another professional booking this week, where again I will not be using burst modes I KNOW you are wrong. You really do need to get a life outside this NG and try reality Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >Having just has pictures accepted by a newspaper yesterday and having >sold additional sets from a professional engagement last week and >another professional booking this week, where again I will not be using >burst modes I KNOW you are wrong. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Ooooo Goody! You had a local newspaper (read: nobody but local-yocals give a sh.t unless their lame-assed kids are in the photos) print your photo at 260x180 resolution!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh gawd, this is way too fuckin' funny! And then my pro compatriots wonder why I read this lame sh.t?!? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! LOL! I simply must forward this thread-link to them. They need a good laugh! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>Having just has pictures accepted by a newspaper yesterday and having >>sold additional sets from a professional engagement last week and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ooooo Goody! You had a local newspaper Who said it was local? I didn't >(read: nobody but local-yocals give >a sh.t unless their lame-assed kids are in the photos) print your photo at >260x180 resolution!!! That may be your experience but it also shows you are not a pro photographer. At least not a successful one. >And then my pro compatriots wonder why I read this lame sh.t?!? You have no pro compatriots. >I simply must forward this thread-link to them. They need a good laugh! >ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really? where would you be forwarding it to then? Lots of talk nothing to back it up Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I simply must forward this thread-link to them. They need a good laugh! > ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're all of about 15, aren't you? SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>> And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted >>> to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > little photography and only of static subjects. You probably can not > tell the difference between passable and a great photo. I'm forever amazed at these pissing contests. We all come here with passions in common, and end up flailing at each other over trivia of execution. Output matters. How one gets there rarely does. I shoot what I shoot, the way I shoot it, because it gets me where I want to go. Someone else's technique may be interesting, even informative, and probably worth trying. Maybe worth learning. But to piss in someone's ear over a difference in technique? Really? > I'm forever amazed at these pissing contests. We all come here >with passions in common, and end up flailing at each other over [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Really? There are people here, unfortunately, who think photography is all about technology rather than technique, and who are so insecure that they feel the need to put down others. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." ~Ansel Adams "A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into." ~Ansel Adams "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." ~Ansel Adams "A good photograph is knowing where to stand." ~Ansel Adams "Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it isn't a very interesting photograph. If it were, they would have more to say." ~Author Unknown "Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks." ~Henri Cartier-Bresson "The photograph itself doesn't interest me. I want only to capture a minute part of reality." ~Henri Cartier Bresson "Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner." ~Author Unknown "A Ming vase can be well-designed and well-made and is beautiful for that reason alone. I don't think this can be true for photography. Unless there is something a little incomplete and a little strange, it will simply look like a copy of something pretty. We won't take an interest in it." ~John Loengard, "Pictures Under Discussion" "Your Camera Doesn't Matter", by Ken Rockwell <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm> SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > There are people here, unfortunately, who think photography is all about > technology rather than technique, and who are so insecure that they feel > the need to put down others. how ironic that you say that. >> There are people here, unfortunately, who think photography is all about >> technology rather than technique, and who are so insecure that they feel >> the need to put down others. > > how ironic that you say that. ! >>And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted >>to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just >>one shot? >Are you honestly admitting to the fact that you can't time the gait of a >horse and know when to trip the shutter? Wow. I'm guessing that you'll >never be a drummer either. Zero sense of rhythm. >>I wonder if you've ever shot a model and anted to get just the right >>expression. How many shots would you take? > >One, when I saw the right expression. >>If you wanted to catch a bird in flight with its wings in just the right >>position, would you only use one shot? >Yes, one. Do it all the time. Got any more piss-poor excuses for you being >such a piss poor photographer? You're either seriously superhuman, seriously disingenuous, or just trying to be funny -- which is it? SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:32:30 -0500, gary marlin <gmarlin@gm.org> wrote >> Yes, one. Do it all the time. Got any more piss-poor excuses for you being >> such a piss poor photographer? > > You're either seriously superhuman, seriously disingenuous, or just > trying to be funny -- which is it? Isn't being a world-class tosser a possibility? Signaturelsmft >>>And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted >>>to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >You're either seriously superhuman, seriously disingenuous, or just >trying to be funny -- which is it? I love posting this photo at least once a year. It proves you useless amateur snapshooter dweebs so wrong on so many levels. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/3678112713_73851cd072.jpg Taken hand-held out of the window of a vehicle that's wildly bouncing down a boulder-strewn mountain pass at 40mph. Our brakes were going out. As passenger this time, I grabbed a camera to get my mind off of our precarious situation and make the most of it. We weren't sure we were going to make it safely back down the narrow dirt, gravel, and boulder, mountain-pass so I thought I might as well do something fun in my last half hour on earth. No image-stabilization. No burst mode. No fancy phase-detection auto-focus. Using nothing but my outstretched-arm human-steady-cam technique, while framing with the lens zoomed in all the way (320mm f.l.) and focusing in a high-quality P&S's LCD viewfinder. Now imagine what I do regularly when not shooting under those adverse conditions. This is just a good sample shot of how a *real* pro's techniques can be put to good use when they want to when using ANY camera, that's all it is. Are you people really this f.cking lame that you can't believe someone with real talent will regularly and consistently get images far far better than this simple sample shot? WOW. I had no idea that I'm discussing photography with people that aren't even at remedial snapshooter level. I thought that some of you were at least that far evolved. You people aren't just sad and pathetic, you're all just completely fuckingly hopeless. >>>> And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted >>>> to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/3678112713_73851cd072.jpg Jesus. You think that's a good shot? > Taken hand-held out of the window of a vehicle that's wildly bouncing down > a boulder-strewn mountain pass at 40mph. No f.cking kidding... SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted >>>>> to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Jesus. You think that's a good shot? That claim was never made nor implied. I never post anything to the internet that has the least bit of commercial value. Are you this amazingly stupid? No, don't answer that. You have already. Many many times over. Remember this from above? >>>>> If you wanted to catch a bird in flight with its wings in just the right >>>>> position, would you only use one shot? >>>> Yes, one. Do it all the time. It was posted in reply to the claims that I can't do that. To show everyone what can be done even when you're not trying hard, under the most adverse of situations and conditions, when ANY camera is in the hands of someone with real talent. Without using your beloved auto-everything point and shoot DSLR pieces of sh.t that you depend on for your incessant crapshot snapshottery. Someone sorely needs to hit you upside the head with a lead-filled clue-bat. Hopefully, a lesson from which you'll never survive. >> Taken hand-held out of the window of a vehicle that's wildly bouncing down >> a boulder-strewn mountain pass at 40mph. > >No f.cking kidding... On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, >>>>>> And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you >>>>>> wanted [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> >> No f.cking kidding... Riddle me this, o' photo-grailed one: Just what the f.ck are those talons doing? Another poor example of cut n' pasting. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!!!! WRONG - Try again. The sh.t is getting too deep. Clean your keyboard... >On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >Just what the f.ck are those talons doing? You don't get out much, do you. Our loudly rattling 40mph and swiftly oncoming outfitted camper (kayaks lashed on the sides, top loaded with canoe and mountain-bikes, etc.) startled the hawk, it was just taking off from that tree below and to the left of it. One of the few times that both of us put on seat-belts (we're the kind that don't obey idiot's laws) because we were bouncing down the boulder strewn mountain-pass so much our heads were hitting the roof of the camper. Apparently you've never experienced bouncing down a rugged mountain-pass with the brakes going out. Holy f.ck but wasn't that a long and precarious descent. Nursing the brakes by pumping them every so often. It would take about 20 pumps on the brakes to slightly slow down the camper. The emergency brake on at half at all times, not so much as to cause things to completely decompose. Ooops, wait, you weren't there. Nor do you have any idea what something like that would be like. Note: that's how effective my outstretched-arm human-steady-cam technique works. Effectively stopping motion as bad as our bodies being thrown around to hit the roof of the camper. I especially love how well it works when you are passenger on a bouncing 50mph snowmobile across flats in Alaskan wilderness. Herds of elk stampeding alongside come out tack-sharp, close-up. Or riding along in the bow of a bouncing speed-boat while snapping off close-ups of porpoising dolphins and flying-fish. Ooops, I almost educated you. I better stop doing that. Far be it from me to educate you in a *VERY* effective use of LCD viewfinders. You just keep on believing what you believe. But you go on. Keep believing anything that you want so you can stay safe in your comfy basement-living DSLR-Troll's bliss of inexperienced ignorance. >Another poor example of cut n' pasting. Right, you just keep believing that. You're SO smart. Just as smart as the rest of the remedial snapshooting DSLR owning morons in this newsgroup. Oh wait. Don't misconstrue that unintentional sarcasm. You're right. It's a poor example of cut'n and pasting. Yep. You're right. I admit it. It's all just an editing patch job. Don't let any proof to the contrary disprove what you've convinced yourself of, all of your pathetic little net-living mommy's-basement life. I don't want to be the cause of yet another psychotic break on your account. What with the cost of your medications and all. Must be rough with your level of income. [Then they wonder why nobody will ever post them photos to the contrary. Even seeing isn't believing in their fools' DSLR-propagandized minds. No matter what, they'll not believe what they see and always come up with one lame excuse or another.] >BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!!!! > >WRONG - Try again. Yep! So sorry! You caught me! You're SO SMART. >The sh.t is getting too deep. Clean your keyboard... >> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > you in a *VERY* effective use of LCD viewfinders. You just keep on > believing what you believe. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe these fairy tales of yours? SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, >>> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > >Do you seriously expect anyone to believe these fairy tales of yours? You just keep on believing that, you basement-living troll. LOL >>>> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > You just keep on believing that, you basement-living troll. "No". Yeah, that's what I thought. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- On 7/1/09 10:12 PM, in article f07o45p8bs51pfnl0j4e414ld24rcmq5f8@4ax.com, >> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >> >> Just what the f.ck are those talons doing? <excessive pontification mercifully snipped> > it was just taking off from that tree below and to the > left of it. That's just what I thought you'd try and come up with! That tree's twigs in no manner would be a perch for any hawk of that size in good health. Bullshit! >> Another poor example of cut n' pasting. <more excessive pontification mercifully snipped> > Right, you just keep believing that. You're SO smart. Doesn't take much to get ahead of your curve... >> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!!!! >> >> WRONG - Try again. > > Yep! So sorry! You caught me! You're SO SMART. You are sorry - but not in the manner that you may think... >> The sh.t is getting too deep. Clean your keyboard... >That's just what I thought you'd try and come up with! That tree's twigs in >no manner would be a perch for any hawk of that size in good health. >Bullshit! What's really bullshit, is some basement-living troll like you who thinks that little bit is the whole tree. That's all that exists of your universe isn't it. Whatever fits between the rectangular borders of some photo or your monitor. What a fuckin' pity you are. On 7/2/09 11:56 AM, in article mfpp459uhqd1su7lcf6c7knf310smiqkp4@4ax.com, >> That's just what I thought you'd try and come up with! That tree's twigs in >> no manner would be a perch for any hawk of that size in good health. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > isn't it. Whatever fits between the rectangular borders of some photo or > your monitor. Oh, so NOW you are dancing. And to be sure! Any part of the tree that it could roost on, oof ("out of frame" for your 2nd grade mind) would be several feet away. Therefore there is NO reason for one talon to still be dragging backwards. The bird, by that time, would be in cross-country position, landing gear firmly tucked. Not like it just missed some low-lying prey, or had a line attached. Nope. You are just to ignorant to understand that NO ONE buys you comp crap. Try again, loser. > What a fuckin' pity you are. "I muse not that your Dog turds oft doth eat; To a tongue that licks your lips, a turd's sweet meat." >On 7/2/09 11:56 AM, in article mfpp459uhqd1su7lcf6c7knf310smiqkp4@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >missed some low-lying prey, or had a line attached. Nope. You are just to >ignorant to understand that NO ONE buys you comp crap. You appear to know as much about birds as you appear to know about cameras and photography. Both amounting to little or nothing. Quick! What species is it? Since you're such a bird X-Spurt. There's a clue in that, and why it might be taking it's sweet time pulling in its landing gear. (You good for nothing know-nothing basement living troll. :-) ) I won't share more. But it will explain the behavior you see, perfectly, if you are smart enough to deduce just that much about the bird. But hey! If that's the only way that you can live in that little mind of yours by thinking that's an edit job, far be it from me to convince you differently! It's probably going to save on your steadily increasing anti-psychotic medication costs if you do just that. We wouldn't want nasty ol' reality interfering in your delusions you know. Nobody wants that for you. LOL! :-) >On 7/2/09 11:56 AM, in article mfpp459uhqd1su7lcf6c7knf310smiqkp4@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >missed some low-lying prey, or had a line attached. Nope. You are just to >ignorant to understand that NO ONE buys you comp crap. You appear to know as much about birds as you appear to know about cameras and photography. Both amounting to little or nothing. Quick! What species is it? Since you're such a bird X-Spurt. There's a clue in that, and why it might be taking its sweet time pulling in its landing gear. (You good for nothing know-nothing basement living troll. :-) ) I won't share more. But it will explain the behavior you see, perfectly, if you are smart enough to deduce just that much about the bird. But hey! If that's the only way that you can live in that little mind of yours by thinking that's an edit job, far be it from me to convince you differently! It's probably going to save on your steadily increasing anti-psychotic medication costs if you do just that. We wouldn't want nasty ol' reality interfering in your delusions you know. Nobody wants that for you. LOL! :-) On 7/2/09 2:15 PM, in article gq1q45ddqfvo2k764kvesbqmek0leao5nh@4ax.com, >> On 7/2/09 11:56 AM, in article mfpp459uhqd1su7lcf6c7knf310smiqkp4@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > :-) Look at that, folks! I got the troll SO upset that he posted twice!!!! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! I get the Troll Booth Award... >On 7/2/09 2:15 PM, in article gq1q45ddqfvo2k764kvesbqmek0leao5nh@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >I get the Troll Booth Award... Aww. Look at that. He proved again that he's just a basement-living pretend-photographer troll. Couldn't even answer the simple species question above. LOL! > On 7/2/09 2:15 PM, in article gq1q45ddqfvo2k764kvesbqmek0leao5nh@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > I get the Troll Booth Award... Well done! SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Another poor example of cut n' pasting. And notice that the image has no EXIF data. > BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!!!! > > WRONG - Try again. > > The sh.t is getting too deep. Clean your keyboard... SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > >And notice that the image has no EXIF data. Yep! It's all forged! You caught me! You're SO SMART! Oh, the shame I'm feeling! How can I ever live with myself?!? ROFLMAO! (Really, someone tell me. Are there really idiots still this ignorant that are still alive? Whatever happened to Darwinism? Am I going to have to rethink my faith in that? LOL!) On 7/2/09 12:26 AM, in article pugo459o1gm2kcp6rdku92r0kkdbkgef0s@4ax.com, >>> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, >>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > How can I ever live with myself?!? I would suggest a warm Drano enema to remove some that excessive crap that you seem to possess. It might do you well... >> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4 >>ax.com, >> >>>>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/3678112713_73851cd072.jpg > >And notice that the image has no EXIF data. Quite so. Also it was just the photo the link was to... whose page is it on? Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >>> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4 >>> ax.com, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Also it was just the photo the link was to... whose page is it on? Remember that other kook who used to post links to other people's photos & pass them off as his own? SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4 >>>> ax.com, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Remember that other kook who used to post links to other people's >photos & pass them off as his own? I don't believe that for one moment.... btw here is a photo I took last week of my girlfriend... :-))) http://www.artnewsblog.com/famous-paintings/mona-lisa/mona-lisa- painting.jpg Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > I don't believe that for one moment.... > > btw here is a photo I took last week of my girlfriend... :-))) > > http://www.artnewsblog.com/famous-paintings/mona-lisa/mona-lisa- > painting.jpg Would never do well in a camera club competition. her face is centered. SignaturePeter >>>>> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4 >>>>> ax.com, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > http://www.artnewsblog.com/famous-paintings/mona-lisa/mona-lisa- > painting.jpg Somehow the PP you used on that file sort of makes it look like an oil painting on a board. SignatureRegards, Savageduck On 7/2/09 8:55 AM, in article 4a4cbc3a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4 >>>> ax.com, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Remember that other kook who used to post links to other people's photos > & pass them off as his own? You haven't seen "gary marlin's" latest?!? <http://www.prelovac.com/vladimir/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/bird-catcher.jp g> > On 7/2/09 8:55 AM, in article 4a4cbc3a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Bob Larter" > <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > <http://www.prelovac.com/vladimir/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/bird-catcher.jp > g> LOL. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- On 7/2/09 12:02 AM, in article 4a4c3f65$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/1/09 12:09 PM, in article ac5n45p2ke4uka2m76okih6gtmn02ftu5j@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > And notice that the image has no EXIF data. Pathetic troll... >> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!!!! >> >> WRONG - Try again. >> >> The sh.t is getting too deep. Clean your keyboard... >>>>>> And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted >>>>>> to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > That claim was never made nor implied. I never post anything to the > internet that has the least bit of commercial value. Well no, I don't imagine that you can. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>And, Mr. expert, if you were shooting a simple horse runnng and you wanted > >>>to get all legs off the ground, would you shoot a rapid sequence, or just [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > least that far evolved. You people aren't just sad and pathetic, you're all > just completely fuckingly hopeless. Liar. > Sorry that the shoe fit you so tightly and it pinched your toes so much > that it made you cry out so. But I love doing that. Letting the idiot > reveal their own idiocy. And so you begin with yourself, appropriately. >>>>> Warm fix of 15-20 secs is possible under ideal conditions, but not >>>>> guaranteed (hence my 30 secs), and still nowhere near fast enough to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Believe it, it shows in every o[*SLAP!*] Still waiting to see a good shot from you, kook. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Warm fix of 15-20 secs is possible under ideal conditions, but not >>> guaranteed (hence my 30 secs), and still nowhere near fast enough to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cameras have to be designed for everyone, not just you. and many people > take pictures in less time than that. So, let them have a receiver that is always on and supplemented by additional batteries. No big deal at all v. the current state of people who carry a GPS integrated to the camera by cable. >> The design of the camera with a built in GPS could also allow for >> separate power state to the GPS with a slow sampling (say 5 seconds per [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > real world products. Let me know if and when any such products > materialize. It's very informed and not speculation. Just integration of existing or adaptations of existing technique. The approach I described is very similar to one already done for the first wrist watch GPS. A detail you conveniently snipped out from my prior post. That's a bad habit you have. I've been working intimately on GPS systems since there were only a few satellites available and one had to plan time of day to get just 3 in view for receiver testing. I've integrated GPS receivers with various air and land based radar systems, and managed development and production of GPS receivers for air transport, a very demanding environment. I know the internals of GPS receivers well enough to propose power saving strategies - and I have discussed these with engineers responsible for tracking algorithms for a variety of applications in detail to optimize strategies for a wide variety of real world problems. Been there, you see. The low power approach I describe above is but a variation on a theme of implemented and tested approaches other engineers in the same company did for a derivative high performance product that had a severe power consumption restraint over long service periods with little available power. It's only news to you but fairly old hat in reality. >>> A much more practical solution, IMHO, would be Bluetooth in the camera >>> that could obtain location data from a Bluetooth cell phone, as well as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Irrelevant, since the cell phone would be no worse than your > hypothetical camera. Very relevant. Even a GPS that takes 15 to 30 seconds to track is far superior to a cell phone based system that can't function for lack of signal. The possible solution set is pretty wide: 1. Additional power for GPS equipped cameras and let it track all of the time. 2. Low power consumption (correlator driving only) mode tracking as I described. 3. The reality of fix times that are much shorter than the 30 seconds you cling to where the receiver has been recently run. The first steps have already been done, of course, some Nikon's integrate with external GPS' already. Next step is to embed the GPS. That's all. It's just integration and optimization. > The user turns on the camera to take a picture, and might well take one > or even multiple pictures before the GPS has acquired a warm fix. Any > geotagging of those images will thus at best be a *guess* based on the > last fix. or they turn on the camera in the morning to get an initial fix, and then the rest of the day are all hot fixes that take seconds not tens of seconds. and don't say nonsense because i've done exactly that. or they get the gps device that doesn't need a fix at all because it post-processes the data. > The only ways to overcome this issue would be to keep the GPS powered up > all the time, draining the camera batteries even when the camera is > turned off, or using A-GPS to get position data externally, which > essentially means a cell phone built into the camera. and as has been noted before, battery drain is a non-issue as there are gps devices that can go nearly 2 days non-stop, far longer than anyone would be shooting photos. plus, as has been mentioned in this thread, the gps could go into a low power mode, maintaining enough data so that it can get an instant fix when needed. > A much more practical solution, IMHO, would be Bluetooth in the camera > that could obtain location data from a Bluetooth cell phone, as well as > transfer pictures to the cell phone. or a bluetooth gps. >> The user turns on the camera to take a picture, and might well take one >> or even multiple pictures before the GPS has acquired a warm fix. Any [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > or a bluetooth gps. Something such as Red Hen Systems' "Blue2Can" + the Bluetooth GPS of your choice. http://www.redhensystems.com/inc/sdetail/168 http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/red-hen-blue2can-gps-a1037.php SignatureRegards, Savageduck >> The user turns on the camera to take a picture, and might well take one >> or even multiple pictures before the GPS has acquired a warm fix. Any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >then the rest of the day are all hot fixes that take seconds not tens >of seconds. and don't say nonsense because i've done exactly that. Sorry, but hotfix doesn't work that way. Read my original message more carefully and read up on GPS. >or they get the gps device that doesn't need a fix at all because it >post-processes the data. Nope. >> The only ways to overcome this issue would be to keep the GPS powered up >> all the time, draining the camera batteries even when the camera is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >gps devices that can go nearly 2 days non-stop, far longer than anyone >would be shooting photos. Nope. Since the camera may be turned off for weeks (or more) at a time, battery drain when the camera is turned off has to be insignificant. >plus, as has been mentioned in this thread, >the gps could go into a low power mode, maintaining enough data so that >it can get an instant fix when needed. Nope. Battery drain is just too high. >> A much more practical solution, IMHO, would be Bluetooth in the camera >> that could obtain location data from a Bluetooth cell phone, as well as >> transfer pictures to the cell phone. > >or a bluetooth gps. Suit yourself, but I have no interest in carrying an unnecessary additional device. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >> The user turns on the camera to take a picture, and might well take one > >> or even multiple pictures before the GPS has acquired a warm fix. Any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sorry, but hotfix doesn't work that way. Read my original message more > carefully and read up on GPS. i have. thanks for asking though. > >or they get the gps device that doesn't need a fix at all because it > >post-processes the data. > > Nope. nope what? > >> The only ways to overcome this issue would be to keep the GPS powered up > >> all the time, draining the camera batteries even when the camera is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nope. Since the camera may be turned off for weeks (or more) at a time, > battery drain when the camera is turned off has to be insignificant. and if the camera is off for 'weeks at a time' then one would expect the gps to also be turned off. or the device plugs into the camera and turns itself off when the camera is off. plus, just the other day the time span was only 48 hours, now it's weeks. what happened? > >plus, as has been mentioned in this thread, > >the gps could go into a low power mode, maintaining enough data so that > >it can get an instant fix when needed. > > Nope. Battery drain is just too high. it isn't too high. > >> A much more practical solution, IMHO, would be Bluetooth in the camera > >> that could obtain location data from a Bluetooth cell phone, as well as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Suit yourself, but I have no interest in carrying an unnecessary > additional device. the bluetooth gps devices are small and hardly noticeable and you've already stated that geotagging doesn't interest you so you could leave it in the car and be close enough without carrying anything. >> Nope. Since the camera may be turned off for weeks (or more) at a time, >> battery drain when the camera is turned off has to be insignificant. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >turns itself off when the camera is off. plus, just the other day the >time span was only 48 hours, now it's weeks. what happened? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either the GPS is on all the time so it can provide location data fast enough but drains the battery, or it's off to conserve the battery but then isn't able to provide location data fast enough in many situations. >> Suit yourself, but I have no interest in carrying an unnecessary >> additional device. > >the bluetooth gps devices are small and hardly noticeable and you've >already stated that geotagging doesn't interest you What I've actually said is that rough location is sufficient for my purposes. >so you could leave >it in the car and be close enough without carrying anything. I'm often far from my car, so that's a non-starter. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >> Nope. Since the camera may be turned off for weeks (or more) at a time, > >> battery drain when the camera is turned off has to be insignificant. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. actually i can, and have. > Either the GPS is on all the > time so it can provide location data fast enough but drains the battery, > or it's off to conserve the battery but then isn't able to provide > location data fast enough in many situations. the gps is off at night and turned on first thing in the morning. even if it takes several minutes to get a fix (which is unusual if it had a fix the day before), the gps will be ready before you are. i typically turn the gps on when getting into the car to go to where i'll be taking photos. the batteries will last all day and probably the next day too. after shooting the photos for the day, turn off both the gps and the camera and recharge the batteries if needed. it's really quite simple. >>>> Nope. Since the camera may be turned off for weeks (or more) at a time, >>>> battery drain when the camera is turned off has to be insignificant. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > after shooting the photos for the day, turn off both the gps and the > camera and recharge the batteries if needed. it's really quite simple. That's the mode I'm in with the AMOD. Per its spec it's good for 15 hours on a set of fresh alkaline AAA's. I need to buy some NiMH in that size. (Will be lighter too). I'll be happy if I get 8 hours (and I turn off the receiver a lot of the time anyway). Even after a couple weeks off, most portable GPS' that I've used (a lot) will track in less than a minute. Take it to Europe or Asia and turn it on and it might take 2 - 3 minutes - but that of course is a one time thing. It does make sense to leave a receiver on for at least 15 minutes from time to time to assure that the almanac for all sats is up to date (complete almanac is 12.5 minutes long, the GPS data rate is only 50 bps and the almanac is "background" data). (You can also DL the almanac from the US Coast Guard and then load that into many receivers, but that's a tedious process compared to just leaving it on for that long once per month). I would just prefer that the GPS be integrated with the camera a la Nikon (or better, in the camera) and tag the photos directly. This would save me the tagging two-step at home as well as carrying the receiver. > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:07:17 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>In article <7thi45p64g123isum86u9cbd8fhqadc4s5@4ax.com>, John Navas >>or they turn on the camera in the morning to get an initial fix, and >>then the rest of the day are all hot fixes that take seconds not tens >>of seconds. and don't say nonsense because i've done exactly that. > Sorry, but hotfix doesn't work that way. Read my original message more > carefully and read up on GPS. Literature seems to contradict you, so please describe how hot fixes work according to you. >>or they get the gps device that doesn't need a fix at all because it >>post-processes the data. > Nope. [ ] No such devices exist. [ ] No such device could theoretically exist. [ ] It wouldn't work anyway for photography. -Wolfgang >> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:07:17 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>>In article <7thi45p64g123isum86u9cbd8fhqadc4s5@4ax.com>, John Navas [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Literature seems to contradict you, On the contrary. >so please describe how hot >fixes work according to you. Sorry, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. >>>or they get the gps device that doesn't need a fix at all because it >>>post-processes the data. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >[ ] No such device could theoretically exist. >[ ] It wouldn't work anyway for photography. [X] Uninformed speculation. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >>>or they turn on the camera in the morning to get an initial fix, and > >>>then the rest of the day are all hot fixes that take seconds not tens [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > On the contrary. provide such literature and let's see. > >so please describe how hot > >fixes work according to you. > > Sorry, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. in other words, an empty claim with no evidence to back it up. > >>>or they get the gps device that doesn't need a fix at all because it > >>>post-processes the data. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > [X] Uninformed speculation. yes, that's exactly what you are doing. thanks for admitting it. > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:32:12 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:07:17 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>>>or they turn on the camera in the morning to get an initial fix, and >>>>then the rest of the day are all hot fixes that take seconds not tens >>>>of seconds. and don't say nonsense because i've done exactly that. >>> Sorry, but hotfix doesn't work that way. Read my original message more >>> carefully and read up on GPS. >>Literature seems to contradict you, > On the contrary. >>so please describe how hot >>fixes work according to you. > Sorry, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. Fair enough, but what books and articles should I read to be shown that even already having all the data --- however they were loaded into the unit, as long as they are correct --- any hot fix will take at least 30 seconds? Don't tell me you don't have any pointers there or that finding them was 'homework' --- it isn't. >>>>or they get the gps device that doesn't need a fix at all because it >>>>post-processes the data. >>> Nope. >>[ ] No such devices exist. >>[ ] No such device could theoretically exist. >>[ ] It wouldn't work anyway for photography. > [X] Uninformed speculation. Judging by your behaviour you would never say you presented uninformed speculation. Hence, you are calling the following data "Uninformed speculation", and thus the proof of that claim is up to you --- I'll not do your homework. Please show me that http://www.jobo.com/web/photoGPS.447.0.html (manuals & co: http://www.jobo.com/web/photoGPS.486.0.html a bit more technical data and how it works: http://www.jobo.com/web/uploads/media/2008_09_17_JOBO_launches_photoGPS_at_photo kina2008.pdf http://www.jobo.com/web/uploads/media/2009_02_04_JOBO_photoGPS_MAC-OS_compatible.pdf ) is just "Uninformed speculation". While doing so, kindly explain reviews like http://www.coolest-reviews.com/200901/jobo-photogps-reviewed.htm http://thedigitalstory.com/2009/01/first_look_at_jobo_p.html http://www.adorama.com/Reviews/pwr/product-reviews/Cameras-Lenses/Digital-Camera s-Accessories/Jobo/p/ICDGPGPS-Jobo-photoGPS-Global-Positioning-System-GPS-Receiv er-with-Matching-Software-Hot-shoe-Interface.html http://diderotsdiary.iannelli.us/2009/02/look-at-jobo-photogps.html http://www.amazon.com/Jobo-Photo-Tagging-Flash-Shoe/product-reviews/B001OBRM8W http://www.shasam.net/archives/107/ http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/13416/slr_camera_gps_system/ http://www.pocket-lint.com/reviews/review_summary.phtml/3847/jobo-photogps-geota gging-camera-accessory.phtml http://owaa.org/ou/2009/03/march-product/ http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/camera-accessori es/jobo-photo-gps-567177/review http://thedigitalstory.com/2009/01/first_look_at_jobo_p.html http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/Gear/Search-Results/Photo-Accessories/JOBO-Photo-G PS-geo-imaging/ http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2009/archives/4047 And tell me that these must be fakes, too: http://www.amazon.com/Jobo-Photo-Tagging-Flash-Shoe/dp/B001OBRM8W http://www.adorama.com/ICDGPGPS.html Note that I don't say that this implementation is the best thing since sliced bread --- it surely has much potential to be better --- just that it's real. Oh, and while you are at it, you might want to read http://gpstekreviews.com/2008/08/26/garmin’s-hotfix-ephemeris-data-prediction-re duces-gps-start-times/ just as a little homework task for your "30 seconds for a hot fix, minimum" claims. -Wolfgang > Oh, and while you are at it, you might want to read > http://gpstekreviews.com/2008/08/26/garmin’s-hotfix-ephemeris-data-prediction-re duces-gps-start-times/ > just as a little homework task for your "30 seconds for a hot > fix, minimum" claims. Is this thread still raging? That's a good explanation and makes sense. Clearly, things have moved on from where GPS units were some years ago. Calculus used to be a university subject and only a dozen people could understand relativity. Within a single lifetime this has become common currency for school children. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >> Oh, and while you are at it, you might want to read >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > understand relativity. Within a single lifetime this has become common > currency for school children. Sorry but General Relativity is not "common currency for school children". They may get a qualitative description of special relativity and a discovery channel type description of black holes, but they do _not_ get the math that is needed to really understand it. More than a few dozen people can do the math these days, but it's not a huge number. By the way, calculus being a university subject was relatively recent--differential calculus was taught in many high schools in the early part of the century, then when it turned out that little junior couldn't handle it, instead of simply admitting that little junior wasn't smart enough, the schools did the egalitarian thing and stopped teaching it. Now, praise the Lord, it seems to be coming back. >>> Oh, and while you are at it, you might want to read >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is needed to really understand it. More than a few dozen people can do the > math these days, but it's not a huge number. The GPS system requires a curious mix of Newtonian mechanics, Special relativity and General relativity to address the orbital mechanics, source clock rate and PVT computation at the receiver. IIRC, the original POC GPS sat spec had the clocks designed to be at the same freq as the nominal receiver frequency. Upon review some physicists told the engineers that the clocks on the ground (the receivers) would miss part the signal, it would be shifted out of band: from the receiver's point of view in the gravity well, the sat freq would be observed to be higher than the receiver clock. (Gen. relativity). Thence the satellite freq. is observed to not only have a Doppler shift (Newtonian (satellite+earth rotation+receiver motion) accounted for in the correlator alignment) but a perceived satellite velocity shift (Spec. relativity) as well... The inital POC sats were therfore updated to carry clocks at both nominal and slightly slow frequency and the engineers got their lesson in GR. The deployed GPS sats carry slightly slowed clocks, of course. > By the way, calculus being a university subject was relatively > recent--differential calculus was taught in many high schools in the early > part of the century, then when it turned out that little junior couldn't > handle it, instead of simply admitting that little junior wasn't smart > enough, the schools did the egalitarian thing and stopped teaching it. Now, > praise the Lord, it seems to be coming back. The kids are (mostly) smart enough, but 3 out of 4 instructors aren't smart enough as teachers to teach it well. Add in a thick Indian or Pakistani accent (no matter how bright the teacher) and cal is hard to learn. I only know a couple people who could teach themselves from textbooks without help. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote: >> Calculus used to be a university subject and only a dozen people could >> understand relativity. Within a single lifetime this has become common >> currency for school children. > Sorry but General Relativity is not "common currency for school children". > They may get a qualitative description of special relativity and a discovery > channel type description of black holes, but they do _not_ get the math that > is needed to really understand it. More than a few dozen people can do the > math these days, but it's not a huge number. > By the way, calculus being a university subject was relatively > recent--differential calculus was taught in many high schools in the early > part of the century, then when it turned out that little junior couldn't > handle it, instead of simply admitting that little junior wasn't smart > enough, the schools did the egalitarian thing and stopped teaching it. Now, > praise the Lord, it seems to be coming back. Not just differential calculus. I was taught both differential and integral calculus at age 15 (in Scotland in 1956), and not just how to do it. We were required to understand it well well enough to be able to prove from first principles the basic theorems behind differentiation and integration. Nowadays the first year of university mathematics has to be taken up covering the ground that used to be covered in school, plus revising the stuff that has been done in school, but badly. SignatureChris Malcolm In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>heavily wooded places have taken the trouble to find out how to best >>use them under tree cover. > Thank you, but I'm thoroughly familiar with how to use GPS -- I'd even > be willing to bet that I have far more hours of experience than you do, > since I routinely use it for marine navigation. There aren't many trees in the sea :-) > The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this > increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking > pictures, so would have to make a new fix when the camera is turned on. Not necessarily. You seem to be unaware of the way such long batterey life instant response GPS systems can work. They can for example run a cycle of turning on briefly to maintain lock, so that they can do an instant hot start when required, without having to be on all the time. > Or are you suggesting the camera would be draining its battery by > keeping the GPS turned on all the time, and that users should be > expected to manually acquire new birds from time to time? It's also the case that the very latest GPS chip sets consume very much less power than their predecessors, and wouldn't add much extra drain to a camera if left fully active all the time the camera was on. There are plenty of technology options now available to solve these problems, and sufficient well-established demand for low power fast response GPS in other applications to fund their development outside of in-camera market demands. SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> Thank you, but I'm thoroughly familiar with how to use GPS -- I'd even >> be willing to bet that I have far more hours of experience than you do, >> since I routinely use it for marine navigation. > >There aren't many trees in the sea :-) I also hike, but of course you're just being "cute". >> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >cycle of turning on briefly to maintain lock, so that they can do an >instant hot start when required, without having to be on all the time. I'm familiar with how they work. >> Or are you suggesting the camera would be draining its battery by >> keeping the GPS turned on all the time, and that users should be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >much less power than their predecessors, and wouldn't add much extra >drain to a camera if left fully active all the time the camera was on. Simply not workable, for fairly obvious reasons. >There are plenty of technology options now available to solve these >problems, and sufficient well-established demand for low power fast >response GPS in other applications to fund their development outside >of in-camera market demands. If there were, we'd undoubtedly be seeing such products flooding the market, yet we don't. What we do see is cell phones with GPS and (mostly) A-GPS, mostly because of mandated E-911 positioning, and powered only when the cell phone is on, yet still a battery drain. (The difference in battery life of my TM506 with A-GPS on and off is easily noticeable.) SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > >It's also the case that the very latest GPS chip sets consume very > >much less power than their predecessors, and wouldn't add much extra > >drain to a camera if left fully active all the time the camera was on. > > Simply not workable, for fairly obvious reasons. it's actually very workable. > >There are plenty of technology options now available to solve these > >problems, and sufficient well-established demand for low power fast [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If there were, we'd undoubtedly be seeing such products flooding the > market, yet we don't. that doesn't mean anything. maybe it's not a high demand item (yet). you've said geotagging doesn't interest you and perhaps that's also the case for the typical user. In rec.photo.digital John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> Thank you, but I'm thoroughly familiar with how to use GPS -- I'd even >>> be willing to bet that I have far more hours of experience than you do, >>> since I routinely use it for marine navigation. >> >>There aren't many trees in the sea :-) > I also hike, but of course you're just being "cute". No I'm not. I'm pointing out that you have claimed that most of your experience is in the easiest and least demanding GPS navigation environment. The topic under discussion is GPS navigation under tree cover, which is probably the most demanding both of GPS performance and user skills. I've so far posted quite a bit of explanation about what causes the problems and some ways of getting round them. You've had very little to say on the topic beyond that it's an "issue". It would have been both welcome and impressive had you added some more helpful details about how to navigate under difficult tree cover. Instead you chose to suggest you probably have far more hours of GPS experience than I have -- in the simplest and easiest GPS environment there is! >>> The problem with tree cover is that GPS in a camera, the point of this >>> increasingly silly discussion, would be turned off except when taking [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>cycle of turning on briefly to maintain lock, so that they can do an >>instant hot start when required, without having to be on all the time. > I'm familiar with how they work. If you gave a bit more detail in your comments it would help to dispel the impression that you aren't. >>> Or are you suggesting the camera would be draining its battery by >>> keeping the GPS turned on all the time, and that users should be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>much less power than their predecessors, and wouldn't add much extra >>drain to a camera if left fully active all the time the camera was on. > Simply not workable, for fairly obvious reasons. I suspect this is a difference of opinion between us about what constitutes an acceptable size of battery and an acceptable battery life. I'd be happy with today's best power drain. I guess that five years should be enough to develop to develop GPS receivers of low enough power drain to satisfy you. >>There are plenty of technology options now available to solve these >>problems, and sufficient well-established demand for low power fast >>response GPS in other applications to fund their development outside >>of in-camera market demands. > If there were, we'd undoubtedly be seeing such products flooding the > market, yet we don't. What we do see is cell phones with GPS and > (mostly) A-GPS, mostly because of mandated E-911 positioning, and > powered only when the cell phone is on, yet still a battery drain. > (The difference in battery life of my TM506 with A-GPS on and off is > easily noticeable.) You can't flood a market until the products have been developed. I was talking about the technological possibilities of these products being developed. They are being developed. DSLRs with GPS options have been available for some time. Compacts with GPS built in are just arriving. The power requirements of GPS have been steadily dropping in much the same way as have computer power requirements. I've not seen mention of any technological barrier which will stop the continuing development of lower power units. SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> I also hike, but of course you're just being "cute". > >No I'm not. I'm pointing out that you have claimed that most of your >experience is in the easiest and least demanding GPS navigation >environment. 1. I've done nothing of the sort. 2. That's simply not true. While conditions on water can be near ideal, no more so than conditions on land, and conditions on water can also be very difficult, in severe weather for example. >It would have been both welcome and impressive had you added some more >helpful details about how to navigate under difficult tree >cover. The only relevant issue was difficulty. [SNIP irrelevant issues] >> If there were, we'd undoubtedly be seeing such products flooding the >> market, yet we don't. What we do see is cell phones with GPS and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >talking about the technological possibilities of these products being >developed. ... In other words, vaporware. Let me know when such products actually appear. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >> In rec.photo.digital John Navas<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > no more so than conditions on land, and conditions on water can also be > very difficult, in severe weather for example. The L band was chosen specifically for weather reasons. Conditions on open water are about the easiest, regardless of weather. Essentially you get one free satellite (the center of the earth) and can get a very good 2D fix with only 3 reasonably distributed sats. As the altitude is known (of the sea, river, or lake) that is all it takes (and all marine GPS's that I've seen allow the use of surface elevation in the solution and lock it to 2D). Of course almost all receivers use as many satellites as they can in the solution other than those very close to the horizon. For boats and ships there is no reason that they shouldn't have coverage anywhere in the world. On perfectly calm water there is a risk of multipath, however the gain pattern of the antenna should handle that most all of the time. On rough seas multipath doesn't last long enough. Commercial aircraft have it almost as easy, and when properly integrated, the baro altimeter input to the GPS can be used to calibrate a pseudo altitude and thence used it as a virtual satellite at the center of the earth. The challenges to land based GPS are much harder in canyons (natural and city) causing masking and/or multipath, foliage, vehicles in the way and so on. >>> In rec.photo.digital John Navas<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Conditions on open water are about the easiest, regardless of weather. Sorry, but no. We're not talking high-grade marine GPS units with decent external antennas here, we're talking el cheapo GPS chips with tiny pos internal antennas. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>>> In rec.photo.digital John Navas<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>> I also hike, but of course you're just being "cute". [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > decent external antennas here, we're talking el cheapo GPS chips with > tiny pos internal antennas. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. To twist the discussion around is worse. You suggested that marine conditions were difficult for GPS. Just correcting your misinformation. As to antenna design, a DSLR presents a fairly good platform for the antenna to be placed on the left top side. Depending on how the camera is carried, it should maintain track with at least some of the satellites and re-acquire the others smartly (seconds). >> Sorry, but no. We're not talking high-grade marine GPS units with >> decent external antennas here, we're talking el cheapo GPS chips with >> tiny pos internal antennas. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. > >To twist the discussion around is worse. You suggested that marine >conditions were difficult for GPS. Just correcting your misinformation. That's a straw man, and you know it. > As to antenna design, a DSLR presents a fairly good platform for the >antenna to be placed on the left top side. Depending on how the camera >is carried, it should maintain track with at least some of the >satellites and re-acquire the others smartly (seconds). Nonsense. Even the minimalist antennas in the Garmin wrist GPS units are way too big for a camera, and anything much smaller won't work terribly well. Rant on. I'm done. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> Sorry, but no. We're not talking high-grade marine GPS units with >>> decent external antennas here, we're talking el cheapo GPS chips with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Rant on. I'm done. Exhausted by the truth? A basic GPS antenna has a specific area and substrate size (~25 x 25mm). And that is small enough to fit on a DSLR. Another location would be forward of the prism and/or part of the pop up flash assembly. Really, you've shot your bullets and they're all duds. On 7/1/09 8:43 AM, in article fO2dnQIpi-14-tbXnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>> Sorry, but no. We're not talking high-grade marine GPS units with >>>> decent external antennas here, we're talking el cheapo GPS chips with [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Really, you've shot your bullets and they're all duds. That's what the women tell NavASS, the three knot sailor. You may ask why "Three Knot Sailor"? Well, one day, NavASS decided to relive the days of yore and visited a prostitute. He was doing as well as a guy in his condition could do. But, in a rare moment in which NavASS needed some reassurance of his superiority, he blurted out to the woman: "How am I doing?" The prostitute casually announced, "About three knots, sailor...". Taken aback in a rare moment of uncertainty of himself, NavASS could not help asking: "Three knots?!? What do you mean by that? To which she replied: "You're knot hard. You are knot in. And, you're knot getting your money back!" To which NavASS replied, as usual: "I'm done." > Thank you, but I'm thoroughly familiar with how to use GPS -- I'd even > be willing to bet that I have far more hours of experience than you do, > since I routinely use it for marine navigation. That's nice. You use GPS in about the easiest environment there is and call that in depth experience --- but your knowledge what can be done with receivers and is done in even the consumer units of today, like hot start, like assisted GPS (which offers typically 5 seconds TTFF), is nonexistent. As proven by your further posts. Your years of experience might just be the same week of experience over and over and over again; you should come off your high horse and really look anew into GPS technology instead. You might even learn something. -Wolfgang > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:10:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>> The best warm fix is about 30 secs. >>... and can be done in post-processing. >>News for you: There's at least one commercial offer doing >>exactly that. Fix time: 0.2 seconds. > Nope. Anything less is a guess, not a fix. Can you *prove* that? For all possible cases? It'll be very interesting to see your logic causing the real world to change radically. Starting with a GPS with ephermeris data preloaded via your cell phone. Ask nicely and I might even tell you how to log a position in 0.2 seconds. >>> I don't spend much time hiking in remote deserts. >>You don't spend time anywhere except mostly densely settled >>parts, it seems. > Nope. Wrong again. Cell phone reception in the middle of the Atlantic is spotty. Unless you use a sat phone. >>> Your trees must be pretty thin. >>I understand that cell phone reception is spotty in the jungle. >>Where, granted, GPS reception is not that easy. Still, people >>are effectively using GPS in the tropical rain forrests, as a >>quick google will show you. > Only with difficulty. Tree cover is an issue. Difficulty is a word for solved problems. > I'm done with the increasingly pointless back and forth. You have claims but no arguments? > Feel free to have the last word. I see you did answer ... -Wolfgang In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:19:56 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg > [GPS in cars] >>>Personal experience tells me someting quite different to your >>>claims. Maybe you only drive in tunnels. Maybe you should >>>upgrade your GPS receiver to something sold in recent years. >> I'm talking state of the art Garmin receivers. > If you have bad reception with them, something is wrong --- > and it's not the car. >>>There are ways to reduce the start-up time to about 0 seconds, >>>if your clock is somewhere around 10 minutes of correct. >> The best warm fix is about 30 secs. > ... and can be done in post-processing. > News for you: There's at least one commercial offer doing > exactly that. Fix time: 0.2 seconds. > This should be a big enough hint for you to figure it out. Let me guess. Does it do it by requiring you to leave the unit on long enough to acquire and lock enough satellites for a location fix, and then post processing can backtrack from there to the very first position data at first switch on from the then unidentified (and unparameterised) satellites? SignatureChris Malcolm > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote: >> News for you: There's at least one commercial offer doing >> exactly that. Fix time: 0.2 seconds. >> This should be a big enough hint for you to figure it out. > Let me guess. Does it do it by requiring you to leave the unit on long > enough to acquire and lock enough satellites for a location fix, and > then post processing can backtrack from there to the very first > position data at first switch on from the then unidentified (and > unparameterised) satellites? Nope, you don't need to let the unit running. The unit is not capable of aquiring and locking satellites, nor getting a location fix, on it's own. All that's done in postprocessing. -Wolfgang On Jun 26, 12:43 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: > > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: > >> News for you: There's at least one commercial offer doing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -Wolfgang IF you're not locking on satellite data, you're not getting a GPS fix. I used to flight test it way back before it was available for civilian uses. You need 3 in the constellation to get a GPS fix. How good a fix is determined by where the satellites are that are available to you. Hint: we care more about the Fulda gap than where you'd do bikini beauties in Rio. >On Jun 26, 12:43 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> >wrote: >> Nope, you don't need to let the unit running. The unit >> is not capable of aquiring and locking satellites, nor >> getting a location fix, on it's own. >> All that's done in postprocessing. >IF you're not locking on satellite data, you're not getting a GPS fix. >I used to flight test it way back before it was available for civilian >uses. You need 3 in the constellation to get a GPS fix. How good a fix >is determined by where the satellites are that are available to you. >Hint: we care more about the Fulda gap than where you'd do bikini >beauties in Rio. Hint: We're wasting our time. These are folks that take marketing hype to be gospel. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > IF you're not locking on satellite data, you're not getting a GPS fix. All I need is enough data for postprocessing to tell me later where the photo was taken. And that, given a certain infrastructure, is doable in 0.2 seconds. Of course that'll not help you if you want to do something else with your data and thus need the position now, not later. > I used to flight test it way back before it was available for civilian > uses. You need 3 in the constellation to get a GPS fix. You can get a 2D fix with 2 sats. You might need some special gear for that, true. > Hint: we care more about the Fulda gap than where you'd do bikini > beauties in Rio. Netscape cares about the Fulda gap? -Wolfgang > >>>b) GPS's (now) track amazingly well in autos even if they don't have a > >>>clear view of the sky. ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm talking state of the art Garmin receivers. garmin gps units with the sirf star iii chipset work amazingly well indoors and under obstructions. i know someone who has a bluetooth gps logger and he leaves it in his glove compartment and it tracks just fine. when i was shopping for a gps, i was able to get a 3d fix inside a department store at a shopping mall (steel frame construction) with no less than *six* satellites tracking, all with medium to high signal strength. the older non-sirf star iii chipset gps had absolutely no satellites. i easily get gps fixes indoors, and not on the top floor either. <http://www.gpslodge.com/archives/006739.php> Both the Nuvi 350 and the Nuvi 360 come with the SiRF star III chipset, which is very sensitive and recently I was able to get a signal with the SiRF star III in my basement. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>>b) GPS's (now) track amazingly well in autos even if they don't have a >> >>>clear view of the sky. ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> I'm talking state of the art Garmin receivers. > garmin gps units with the sirf star iii chipset work amazingly well > indoors and under obstructions. i know someone who has a bluetooth gps > logger and he leaves it in his glove compartment and it tracks just > fine. > when i was shopping for a gps, i was able to get a 3d fix inside a > department store at a shopping mall (steel frame construction) with no > less than *six* satellites tracking, all with medium to high signal > strength. the older non-sirf star iii chipset gps had absolutely no > satellites. i easily get gps fixes indoors, and not on the top floor > either. > <http://www.gpslodge.com/archives/006739.php> > Both the Nuvi 350 and the Nuvi 360 come with the SiRF star III > chipset, which is very sensitive and recently I was able to get a > signal with the SiRF star III in my basement. Early units made the assumption that using sigals so low and weak they were probably reflected should be avoided, because they give bad locations. But people like having a location reported even if it's seriously erroneous. Often they won't even notice the error, just be impressed that they got a location. So modern receivers report anything they can find, regardless of how likely it is to be seriously wrong. How accurately did it locate your basement? :-) SignatureChris Malcolm > How accurately did it locate your basement? :-) very accurately. it was exactly where i expected it to be, i.e., inset from the street. even more impressive, when it got a fix inside the steel framed store, it was also about the right distance from the road, given where i was inside the store. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> How accurately did it locate your basement? :-) > very accurately. it was exactly where i expected it to be, i.e., inset > from the street. > even more impressive, when it got a fix inside the steel framed store, > it was also about the right distance from the road, given where i was > inside the store. That is impressive! My models are the earlier less sensitive ones. SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> garmin gps units with the sirf star iii chipset work amazingly well >> indoors and under obstructions. i know someone who has a bluetooth gps [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >anything they can find, regardless of how likely it is to be seriously >wrong. Some do, mostly low-end consumer toys, but better ones intended for serious navigation don't, because an erroneous position can be much worse than no position at all. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:04:24 -0400, Alan Browne >>>b) GPS's (now) track amazingly well in autos even if they don't have a >>>clear view of the sky. ... >> Actually not so good. > Personal experience tells me someting quite different to your > claims. Maybe you only drive in tunnels. Maybe you should > upgrade your GPS receiver to something sold in recent years. >>>So the receiver can be off except in the half minute or so before >>>I need it. Doesn't matter what happens in the car. >> Nice start up time for your camera. Not. LOL > There are ways to reduce the start-up time to about 0 seconds, if > your clock is somewhere around 10 minutes of correct. >> GPS also has problems in urban canyons, under trees, and anywhere >> inside. Cell generally does better except in areas where there's no >> cell coverage. > Most areas are without cell phone coverage. > And that "under trees" claim is spurious, personal experience > tells me something quite different to your claims. There is a big difference in the under trees performance of the latest receivers and the previous generation, and another big difference between those and the antepenultimate systems. The special problem of tree cover comes from keeping moving under the trees, and the fact that recovering a temporariliy lost satellite lock takes much less time than locking onto a new satellite. While under trees passing trunks and boughs keep losing lock very briefly. That doesn't matter, because it picks it up again in seconds as you move. But as you keep travelling under tree canopy some satellites drop below the rather high visible horzion, and new ones rise. But the time in between passing trunks and boughs is rarely enough to acquire lock on a fresh satellite. So after a while you end up with too few locked satellites and loss of position. The latest units ameliorate that problem a lot, but can't remove it. So this tree canopy problem is also highly dependent on usage. If you keep moving under canopy you will eventually lose lock on all visible satellites. But if you stop now and then to admire the view and take a photograph, you may well give the system time to acquire a new satellite. So fast walkers (or drivers) under tree canopy may get very bad performance, whereas dawdlers and view admirers under the same trees may get very good performance. Of course if you understand how your GPS system works you can get good location performance in heavily wooded places by stopping every now and then for a session in which you check out where the satellites you ought to be able to lock to are in the sky, and you move carefully around to make them visible one by one through gaps in the canopy, and acquire lock. Even if there's only one good window through the canopy, you can walk around under it to catch each satellite one by one. Once a satellite had been recognised and locked most modern GPS systems can put up with catching a glimpse of it every thirty seconds to keep going, more if you have more than the minimum set locked in. But most people use their GPS units in ignorant auto mode, just as most people use their cameras :-) SignatureChris Malcolm >But most people use their GPS units in ignorant auto mode, just as >most people use their cameras :-) There's nothing "ignorant" about using something as it's designed and intended to be used. By your definition pretty much everyone is "ignorant". SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>But most people use their GPS units in ignorant auto mode, just as >>most people use their cameras :-) > There's nothing "ignorant" about using something as it's designed and > intended to be used. By your definition pretty much everyone is > "ignorant". I have a camera with both fully auto and fully manual modes. It's designed to be used in either way. I have a GPS unit which can be left to acquire satellites on their own, or assisted manually where there are problems such as under dense tree cover. You can't learn how to operate a DSLR fully manually just from the instruction book, nor can you learn how to operate an advanced GPS unit fully manually from the instruction book. But both devices were designed to be able to be used in such ways by knowledgeable expert users. I think it is quite reasonable to call someone ignorant who has a professional quality device designed for expert as well as novice auto use but who knows nothing beyond the auto use. "Not knowing" is what "ignorant" literally means. SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >use but who knows nothing beyond the auto use. "Not knowing" is >what "ignorant" literally means. We'll just have to agree to disagree. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > You can't learn how to operate a DSLR fully manually just from the > instruction book, nor can you learn how to operate an advanced GPS > unit fully manually from the instruction book. But both devices were > designed to be able to be used in such ways by knowledgeable expert > users. That;s why guys like Thom make a living. Most don't RTFM SignaturePeter >You can't learn how to operate a DSLR fully manually just from the >instruction book, nor can you learn how to operate an advanced GPS >unit fully manually from the instruction book. But both devices were >designed to be able to be used in such ways by knowledgeable expert >users. Well, to "operate" the device, yes, you can (and should be able to) learn it from the manual. That's what manuals are for. But being able to "operate" a devise doesn't mean you know how to use it. For that you need training. Just look at a car. The manual tells you which lever to move which way to turn on the left turn signal (and nowadays even where to find the steering wheel and which way to turn it to make a left turn). However it will not tell you _when_ to use that turn signal and it will not tell you either when to turn the steering wheel to the left and by how much. That is something that requires training and cannot be learned by reading. Same for photography: the manual does tell you how to set the apperture to F/4. It won't tell you when you may want to do that. >I think it is quite reasonable to call someone ignorant who has a >professional quality device designed for expert as well as novice auto >use but who knows nothing beyond the auto use. "Not knowing" is >what "ignorant" literally means. Ack. jue In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>> An A-GPS cell phone, more and more common, could easily add location >>>>> data to transmitted images. I think it's a better fit than GPS in a >>>>> digital camera. >>>> You can think that but there are endless applications where properly >>>> geo/time tagged data is useful as in file documentation for higher [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>Your cellphone camera is crap. It is not even a middle of the road P&S >>in quality. > It's actually good enough for some things, not for others. >>GPS works very well outdoor > Yes. >>or in vehicles. > Only with a good external antenna, which a camera won't have. Or are > you supposing an antenna connector on digital cameras so they can be > hooked up to external antennas? What's next, a TV coax connector? ;) For many years now GPS units have worked well inside cars with no external antenna. If the GPS is hand held in the front of the car the windscreen usually provides enough visibility unless it had one of the RF blocking heating systems within it. >>And it certainly works >>better than the GPS that you don't have. > Sorry, but no -- the A-GPS in my cell works well anywhere I get cell > service. (I have another half dozen or so GPS units, but I assume > you're referring to my cell.) Suggest you read up on A-GPS before > posting more bad information. If your A-GPS uses RAW GPS readings from the cell phone GPS receiver which is sent off for processing and the calculated location returned to the phone then it has the same aerial requirements as a GPS. If the cell phone has a fully fledged location calculation GPS unit then it has the same aerial requirements as a GPS. If it hasn't a GPS receiver, or can't currently get GPS readings, and is substituting cell phone location derived from the cell(s) controlling your phone what accuracy do you have? It depends on cell density and how sophisticated it is. The least sophisticated uses the local cell location. The most sophisticated uses multiple cells if they're available combined with signal strength as a rather error-prone estimate of distance to do a very rough approximation to trilateralisation. I find that with the systems here (UK) outside cities the error is measured in miles, and in cities it's in hundreds of yards. It's a lot better than nothing, but far from good enough for locating a photograph. What location error do you get? I don't mean the error the system optimistically hopes it has, I mean the real error it has in practice :-) SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> Only with a good external antenna, which a camera won't have. Or are >> you supposing an antenna connector on digital cameras so they can be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >windscreen usually provides enough visibility unless it had one of the >RF blocking heating systems within it. Can work well if you put it on (and secure it to) the dash, but not so good on the seat next to you. >> Sorry, but no -- the A-GPS in my cell works well anywhere I get cell >> service. (I have another half dozen or so GPS units, but I assume [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >which is sent off for processing and the calculated location returned >to the phone then it has the same aerial requirements as a GPS. ... A-GPS units can use tower triangulation to supplement GPS signals. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> Only with a good external antenna, which a camera won't have. Or are >>> you supposing an antenna connector on digital cameras so they can be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>windscreen usually provides enough visibility unless it had one of the >>RF blocking heating systems within it. > Can work well if you put it on (and secure it to) the dash, > but not so good on the seat next to you. >>> Sorry, but no -- the A-GPS in my cell works well anywhere I get cell >>> service. (I have another half dozen or so GPS units, but I assume [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>which is sent off for processing and the calculated location returned >>to the phone then it has the same aerial requirements as a GPS. ... > A-GPS units can use tower triangulation to supplement GPS signals. They can't use triangulation since the towers don't know angles. They could do trilateralisation by using signal strength as a rough approximation to distance. So if there's a building (or your head) in the way they get the distance wrong. And you can only do trilaterisation if your phone is being monitored by three towers, which is far from being always the case. It also only works if the system provider has set up the systems to do trilaterisation. In the UK for example, although this is regarded as a desirable system which system providers should provide, it's not legally mandatory, and most of them don't. Most of them don't even use the signal strength differences. They just report the position of the tower your phone is currently locked into. But that doesn't stop their salesmen from describing how wonderful their systems might be, and possibly even are in one or two places, and just happening to fail to mention that mostly that's not how they work. That's why I asked you what location errors you actually get from your phone, as opposed to those you might get if the advised best systems had been fully implemented and you were lucky enough to be in range of three towers. As I said, on my phone in the UK I get miles of error in the countryside, and hundreds of yards of error in the city. SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> A-GPS units can use tower triangulation to supplement GPS signals. > >They can't use triangulation since the towers don't know angles. Not precise angles, but usually a sector. >They >could do trilateralisation by using signal strength as a rough >approximation to distance. ... Wireless position systems actually include: * Angle of arrival (AOA) * Time difference of arrival (TDOA) * Location signature * GPS * Assisted GPS (A-GPS) * Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (A-FLT) * Timing Advance/Network Measurement Report (TA/NMR) * Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD) SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> A-GPS units can use tower triangulation to supplement GPS signals. >> >>They can't use triangulation since the towers don't know angles. > Not precise angles, but usually a sector. >>They >>could do trilateralisation by using signal strength as a rough >>approximation to distance. ... > Wireless position systems actually include: > * Angle of arrival (AOA) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > * Timing Advance/Network Measurement Report (TA/NMR) > * Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD) I keep asking you what the actual phone location system you have in your hand does, and how well, and you persist in replying with general specifications of what it might be able to do if everything possible had been implemented, which may not be the case with whatever you have. Is what your phone actually does compared to what some other phone somewhere else might be able to do so embarrassing? SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I keep asking you what the actual phone location system you have in >your hand does, and how well, Really? Where (by Message-Id)? >and you persist in replying with general >specifications of what it might be able to do if everything possible >had been implemented, which may not be the case with whatever you >have. I persist in giving complete answers in the hope they might curtail otherwise endless back and forth. But alas... >Is what your phone actually does compared to what some other >phone somewhere else might be able to do so embarrassing? Do you really think slurs are the way to have a constructive discussion? If you don't know how T-Mobile does E-911 positioning, and that matters to you, then I suggest you do some homework. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > For example, I like to take pictures with my digital camera and swap the > card into my cell phone to transmit them, and the multiplicity of > formats limits my ability to do so. Swap the card? Do you want that? Not really. You want to transmit the data! First, there are solutions like Eye-Fi. Second, of course you don't want to swap your mobile phone's card(s) any more than you want to swap (internal) hard drives in your computer. MicroSD cards are user upgradeable and you can carry them over from your last phone, but that's it. You certainly don't want to handle cards smaller than an SD when you are not sitting at your well-lit, uncluttered desk. Changing while walking works only sorta with an SD, and just OKish with an CF. And you'll have a chance of spotting them when you should drop them, unlike todays microscopic phone storage devices. The real solution is to tether your camera to your phone/data transmission tool. Hence phone cameras. And bluetooth, since cables are awkward, never around when you need them and prone to be lost.[1] And docking stations for cameras, tying the camera to the computer without having to remove the card. And EyeFi, tethering your transmission tool to your camera. And IP-capable cameras, remotely over the internet steerable 'web' camera designs. And WiFi-handgrips for some DSLRs. -Wolfgang [1] Bluetooth is widely available in mobile phones, smart phones, PDAs, netbooks, laptops, etc. Computers can easily be upgraded to bluetooth. Interfaces for bluetooth should be all standardized, as I understand it, and usable for transmitting data. It's also not hampered by the wish for even tinier memory packages for mobile phones and mutually incompatible flash memory interface designs. >> For example, I like to take pictures with my digital camera and swap the >> card into my cell phone to transmit them, and the multiplicity of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >cameras, remotely over the internet steerable 'web' camera designs. >And WiFi-handgrips for some DSLRs. Or just take ten seconds, $0.00 additional expense, & zero additional weight (we are talking field work) and just swap the card to the phone. MicroSD cards usually come with SD adapters. If you're worried about losing them, (carefully) put a dot of fluorescent paint on either side. >>The real solution is to tether your camera to your phone/data >>transmission tool. Hence phone cameras. And bluetooth, since [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >about losing them, (carefully) put a dot of fluorescent paint on >either side. Sorry, but that won't work, because his eyes are closed. ;) SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) John A <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > Or just take ten seconds, $0.00 additional expense, & zero additional > weight (we are talking field work) and just swap the card to the > phone. MicroSD cards usually come with SD adapters. You'll have to explain that to me, I don't get it. How does that work with the fast & good SD cards I have for my cameras and the single, just-good-enough microSD I filled with stuff for my phone? As I see it, to be able to transmit the data this way, I would have to re-buy all the storage I might need (and currently have in SD cards) in microSD cards, and that's not "$0.00 additional expense". > If you're worried about losing them, (carefully) put a dot of > fluorescent paint on either side. A great idea. I even might find them now in the high grass if a tiny puff of wind blows the 0.4 gramms away --- that gives me a warm feeling. Maybe it's my large hands, maybe it's that I am a clutz, but I don't feel comfortable changing SD cards in the field, how do you suppose I feel with microSD? -Wolfgang PS: Luckily, there are even microSD to CF "converters". >John A <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >don't feel comfortable changing SD cards in the field, how do >you suppose I feel with microSD? I don't know how it is supposed to make you feel, but you make me feel glad that I'm not a klutz (nor as-poor of a speller). MicroSD is wonderful. Can use them in all manner of things. Even in memory-incompatible devices. E.g. using inexpensive SD memory in MicroSD format with a MemoryStick adapter. I also have a handy 3mm x 10mm x 30mm key-fob USB-Stick adapter that they fit in. No need to have a dozen USB-Sticks for transferring data or running software from them.* Just pop in a new MicroSD from a little wallet pocket that has the required data on it. I carry along all my editors and plugins when traveling, running them right from the MicroSD cards. No need either for any special card-reader while traveling and using other computers, no need for even a USB cable. Put the MicroSD USB-stick right into the USB port. * [I'm a strong advocate and collector of any software than can be used as a no-need-to-install USB-Stick "portable". Excellent Photoline photo-editor being one of the few that can be tailored to work this way just by creating simple "UserSettings" and "Plugins" sub-folders. Another handy one to carry along for any dedicated nature photographer is "Stellarium Portable" astronomy software with the star-catalog data to magnitude 15, though some larger data-sets go much higher, which I feel is huge overkill for my needs. My hacker-hacked portable video editing software too comes in handy when doing time-lapse movie events while traveling, and then burning them to DVD with Portable Nero. As well as the hacker's Portable PTGUI for panos, HDR or otherwise. Well-rounded photo-trekkers need to fill out their portable-apps collections, no matter how you obtain them. Hacked and pirated is often the only way.] No matter how many photos I take and store on my camera cards I always have backup camera-memory readily available too, stored in whatever MP3 player and GPS unit that I also take along on any camera-outing. (No cell-phone, never found an important need for one.) You can store quite a few of those little MicroSD cards under the battery covers of most of the devices that use them; while you're out mountain-biking, hiking, or white-water kayaking. I fashion safe little pockets for them under the battery-covers using clear and strong packing tape. (Go to instructables.com and browse any of the ingenious duct-tape wallets to see how this is easily accomplished, but done in miniature for MicroSD cards.) One of my MP3 players alone houses about 48 GIGS of memory storage in individual MicroSDs, about 1/4th of that taken up with tunes, another 1/3rd taken up with a few favorite movies. My GPS houses about another 20 GIGS of MicroSD cards, all of North America in high-resolution topo and routing data. As well as high-resolution water depth maps and coastal data for all waters east of Asia and West of Europe and Africa, pole to pole. It's easy to get lost or endlessly trapped while kayaking or canoeing in places like the complex "10,000 Islands" maze area of the Everglades if you don't have that. I also like to take along favorite Hollywood movies and documentaries on them, to share with others when traveling. There's a fun little utility that they made for CHDK cameras where you can watch your lower-resolution (re-authored) DVD movies right in the camera or to play back on someone's TV set with the camera's AV-out cable. Out in the middle of nowhere in some remote campground we can enjoy some popcorn while re-watching 2.5 hour-long "Lord of the Rings" episodes using nothing but the camera's swing-out LCD display alone. (Sometimes the huddling close enough to do so has added benefits, company and freezing-weather dependent.) The non-essential accessory-maps, movies, and music data on all those MicroSDs can always be replaced when I get back home, I can't replace that moment in time for photos. Never lost a MicroSD yet either, knock on titanium-shelled camera, not wood. I think it would be a safe bet to say too that I've swapped more of them out in more places, more often, and under more adverse conditions than you've even imagined doing in your lifetime. Good photographers try to be attentive to even the most minute of details. This innate ability is also put to good use for, and includes, watching where your MicroSD cards might happen to be. I wonder ... is there a possible correlation in all this? "Fearful of losing MicroSD cards" = "clumsy and inattentive to important details" = "poor photographer"? Quite possible. Very possible. "As is the fractal part so goes the fractal whole." ~caMel~ Now why does that email address look bogus to me? > I don't know how it is supposed to make you feel, but you make me feel glad > that I'm not a klutz (nor as-poor of a speller). 'as-poor of a speller'? > MicroSD is wonderful. If you say so ... you must be right, "karl k". But I note you are unwilling to back your claim with your good name. > My GPS houses about another 20 GIGS of MicroSD > cards, all of North America in high-resolution topo and routing data. As [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > complex "10,000 Islands" maze area of the Everglades if you don't have > that. I've never been canoeing in the Everglades where I got lost and needed maps from pole to pole. You must be really inattentive to come out of the swamps, go south past Cuba, through the Panama canal and never notice until you are halfway to Cape Horn. > Out in the middle of nowhere in some > remote campground we can enjoy some popcorn while re-watching 2.5 hour-long > "Lord of the Rings" episodes using nothing but the camera's swing-out LCD > display alone. Yes, it's a grand idea to watch a movie (for example "Lord of the Rings") definitively meant for the big screen on a tiny LCD, running down your batteries in the middle of nowhere. > Never lost a MicroSD yet either, knock on titanium-shelled camera, not > wood. I think it would be a safe bet to say too that I've swapped more of > them out in more places, more often, and under more adverse conditions than > you've even imagined doing in your lifetime. You've got great skill in solving problems in the hardest possible way. Determined, if not necessarily smart. > Good photographers try to be attentive to even the most minute of > details. So anyone who is a good photographer can change microSD cards, that's what you say? Wonder what Anselm Adams would think, handling huge view cameras ... > This innate ability is also put to good use for, and includes, > watching where your MicroSD cards might happen to be. Good to know that ability cannot be learned nor trained. > I wonder ... is there a possible correlation in all this? "Fearful of > losing MicroSD cards" = "clumsy and inattentive to important details" = > "poor photographer"? > Quite possible. Very possible. Let me put it that way: you'll go far as an orator for an extremist party, where easy, cheap and wrong solutions are preferred to understanding the problems or even looking closely. -Wolfgang >Now why does that email address look bogus to me? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If you say so ... you must be right, "karl k". But I note >you are unwilling to back your claim with your good name. Which means bupkis. >> Good photographers try to be attentive to even the most minute of >> details. > >So anyone who is a good photographer can change microSD cards, >that's what you say? Pretty much. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> Good photographers try to be attentive to even the most minute of >>> details. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Pretty much. Or have their assistants to do it. If they're *really* good photographers. ;) >I've never been canoeing in the Everglades where I got lost and >needed maps from pole to pole. You must be really inattentive >to come out of the swamps, go south past Cuba, through the >Panama canal and never notice until you are halfway to Cape Horn. No no no ... learn to comprehend what you are reading. Even though I have the depth and coastal data for the whole hemisphere in my GPS, only a small subset of that is needed to keep from getting trapped in that vast coastal and wetlands expanse known as the 10,000 Islands area. I was checking out my mapping software just about an hour ago, retracing some of my routes through that region, just for fun. I noticed that some of the waypoints on the mapping software had little Park Service "notes" that I had never accessed nor bothered to read before. Some were interesting. Even the data included in the GPS mapping software suggests to allocate at least 7 days to get from one end of that region to the other by canoe, and no watercraft over 18 ft. in length should ever be used. The convoluted paths through the seemingly hundreds of miles of mangrove tunnels and mud-flat expanses won't allow it. And that's only if you stick to the "recommended" most direct route. Why go where everyone else has gone before? Really, you aught to get out more often. >> Out in the middle of nowhere in some >> remote campground we can enjoy some popcorn while re-watching 2.5 hour-long [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the Rings") definitively meant for the big screen on a tiny LCD, >running down your batteries in the middle of nowhere. Ah, you're one of those lame "bit-heads". You think it's all about the number of pixels and the quality of the image. Never about the content being the most important factor. Here's some, probably rather disturbing, news for you. Did you know the whole "Lord of the Rings" series was popular for many decades and entertained millions as just (GASP) B&W TEXT ONLY?!? Oh my! How did they ever pull that off without the widescreen surround-sound presentation? That must have been some pretty fancy ASCII-art no doubt. Content, me boy. Content. It's all about the content. Always has been, always will be. Batteries being run down? I take it you've done little, to no, of the more adventurous type of photography trip. One of my most favorite folding solar-panels for recharging cameras and batteries packs down to only 9"x4"x1" when folded up in its soft cloth casing. Yet unfolded in bright sunlight it will recharge a run-down Li-Ion battery in under 3 hours. Giving me over 500 minutes (>8.3 hours) of photo shooting time. My other 2 panels aren't as compact, but will run a laptop without any battery in it, by sunlight alone. Not that I care to lug a lap-top around very often, nor those extra solar-panels. I like to travel as light as possible, going places where no photographer has ever gone before. (Cue Star Trek theme music if you must.) Computers, to borrow for the few hours needed at times, are available everywhere when back in more "civilized" areas. The RV campgrounds are crawling gate to gate with computers for the borrowing. I have to be careful though. If I fix just one person's computer problem for them then word gets out and I get trapped as "computer guru" in a park for a week. All the free dinners and stuff are nice, but ... >Let me put it that way: you'll go far as an orator for an extremist >party, where easy, cheap and wrong solutions are preferred to >understanding the problems or even looking closely. > >-Wolfgang Let me put it this way, you're a talentless "clutz". :-) One who can't even begin to comprehend the vast benefits of a nearly universal memory storage device. Your loss, not mine. > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:55:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>I've never been canoeing in the Everglades where I got lost and >>needed maps from pole to pole. You must be really inattentive >>to come out of the swamps, go south past Cuba, through the >>Panama canal and never notice until you are halfway to Cape Horn. > No no no ... learn to comprehend what you are reading. Take only what you need. Everything else is between very optional and hindering. > Really, you aught to get out more often. Somewhere Chaucer would aprove, maybe? >>> Out in the middle of nowhere in some >>> remote campground we can enjoy some popcorn while re-watching 2.5 hour-long >>> "Lord of the Rings" episodes using nothing but the camera's swing-out LCD >>> display alone. >>Yes, it's a grand idea to watch a movie (for example "Lord of >>the Rings") definitively meant for the big screen on a tiny LCD, >>running down your batteries in the middle of nowhere. > Ah, you're one of those lame "bit-heads". You think it's all about the > number of pixels and the quality of the image. Ah, I do? That's news to me. > Never about the content being the most important factor. The most important factor is the impact. Content is important, true, but nobody buys content. Nobody ever praises a photograph "It's got a lot of content". "Iconic" photographs, those images that define and keep over generations have emotional impact. The same is true for films. Nobody laughs over the *content* of a comedy, nobody cries over the *content* of a love film. And having seen all of LOTR on the big screen and on small screens, I am qualified to judge that the impact is much weaker on tiny screens. > Here's some, probably rather disturbing, > news for you. Did you know the whole "Lord of the Rings" series was popular > for many decades and entertained millions as just (GASP) B&W TEXT ONLY?!? I've read it a couple of times. On paper. In a book. (GASP) > Oh my! How did they ever pull that off without the widescreen > surround-sound presentation? That must have been some pretty fancy > ASCII-art no doubt. Shock your parents: read a book. > Content, me boy. Content. It's all about the content. Always has been, > always will be. Suuure. [solar panels] Oh, so to actually *use* some your marvelous microSD cards, you carry an array of solar panels, starting from 9"x4"x1", weighing I don't know how much. > I like to travel as light as possible, I think you're saving weight at the wrong end. > One who can't even begin to comprehend the vast benefits of a nearly > universal memory storage device. Your loss, not mine. I probably comprehend the vast benefits better than you do. You're just jaded that I don't agree to your elevation of microSD to miracle status. To you everything looks like a nail 'cause you only have a hammer (microSD). -Wolfgang >John A <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >to re-buy all the storage I might need (and currently have in SD >cards) in microSD cards, and that's not "$0.00 additional expense". Stick the phone microSD card in an SD adapter. Insert the SD adapter in the camera. Take pictures. Remove the SD adapter from the camera. Remove the phone microSD card from the SD adapter. Insert the microSD card in the phone. Transmit pictures. Works great. Zero cost if you already have the microSD card. Dirt cheap if you don't. One annoyance for me is that my phone of choice (Sony Ericsson TM506) uses (ugh) Memory Stick Micro (M2) memory cards, so I have to use a backup phone with microSD slot to transmit pictures. Fortunately, because my carrier (T-Mobile) is GSM, I can do this by simply swapping my SIM card. >> If you're worried about losing them, (carefully) put a dot of >> fluorescent paint on either side. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >don't feel comfortable changing SD cards in the field, how do >you suppose I feel with microSD? I've never had a problem changing SD cards or even microSD cards (or SIM cards) in the field, even in moving boats. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:57:07 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>John A <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>> Or just take ten seconds, $0.00 additional expense, & zero additional >>> weight (we are talking field work) and just swap the card to the >>> phone. MicroSD cards usually come with SD adapters. >>You'll have to explain that to me, I don't get it. How does that >>work with the fast & good SD cards I have for my cameras and the >>single, just-good-enough microSD I filled with stuff for my phone? >>As I see it, to be able to transmit the data this way, I would have >>to re-buy all the storage I might need (and currently have in SD >>cards) in microSD cards, and that's not "$0.00 additional expense". > Stick the phone microSD card in an SD adapter. > Insert the SD adapter in the camera. > Take pictures. Sorry, I need the phone in the meantime. And that includes the data saved on the microSD. Which is, by the way, nearly full. > Remove the SD adapter from the camera. > Remove the phone microSD card from the SD adapter. > Insert the microSD card in the phone. > Transmit pictures. Sorry, I am out of cellphone range, the microSD is full after 3 pictures, and I want to make more pictures. No, there's nothing to delete on the card, sorry, I need it all. Told you I'd need to buy extra storage. I also want to continue shooting while transmitting, which can take _very_ long, depending on location and upload speed. And then I am shooting RAW + JPEG, and I'll only transmit chosen JPEGs (because of the size, and because flickr, for example, doesn't do RAW). I'll still want all the RAWs. Told you I'd need to buy enough cards. At least 2 and a mobile hard drive. > Works great. Sure, for _you_ it may work great. You just don't get that not everybody is you. Or uses equipment just like you do. Or has needs different from yours. > Zero cost if you already have the microSD card. > Dirt cheap if you don't. Lost in the dirt in seconds, too. > One annoyance for me is that my phone of choice (Sony Ericsson TM506) > uses (ugh) Memory Stick Micro (M2) memory cards, so I have to use a > backup phone with microSD slot to transmit pictures. Fortunately, > because my carrier (T-Mobile) is GSM, I can do this by simply swapping > my SIM card. I see, no additional weight, no additional costs, no additional hassles. > I've never had a problem changing SD cards or even microSD cards > (or SIM cards) in the field, even in moving boats. Good for you! I'd like to watch you changing microSD cards in high winds on a rocky rowing boat or while jogging through waist-high grass. -Wolfgang >> Stick the phone microSD card in an SD adapter. >> Insert the SD adapter in the camera. >> Take pictures. > >Sorry, I need the phone in the meantime. And that includes the >data saved on the microSD. Which is, by the way, nearly full. I didn't realize you couldn't afford a few dollars for another microSD card. You have my sincere sympathy. I have three. >> Remove the SD adapter from the camera. >> Remove the phone microSD card from the SD adapter. >> Insert the microSD card in the phone. >> Transmit pictures. > >Sorry, I am out of cellphone range, You have my sincere sympathy. You might want to consider a better carrier. I'm almost always in cell range, usually 3G range. >the microSD is full after >3 pictures, You have my sincere sympathy. You might want to consider a bigger card. 16 GB cards are readily available. >Told you I'd need to buy extra storage. You can manufacture impossible circumstances for anything, but that doesn't prove anything. >> Works great. > >Sure, for _you_ it may work great. And for many others. >> Zero cost if you already have the microSD card. >> Dirt cheap if you don't. > >Lost in the dirt in seconds, too. You have my sincere sympathy. No problem here. >I see, no additional weight, no additional costs, no additional >hassles. None that matter. >> I've never had a problem changing SD cards or even microSD cards >> (or SIM cards) in the field, even in moving boats. > >Good for you! I'd like to watch you changing microSD cards >in high winds on a rocky rowing boat or while jogging through >waist-high grass. I do it all the time on racing sailboats and in RIBs with high wind and choppy sea. No biggie. I'm done with this too. Feel free to have the last word. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:24:50 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>> Stick the phone microSD card in an SD adapter. >>> Insert the SD adapter in the camera. >>> Take pictures. >>Sorry, I need the phone in the meantime. And that includes the >>data saved on the microSD. Which is, by the way, nearly full. > I didn't realize you couldn't afford a few dollars for another microSD > card. You have my sincere sympathy. I have three. Changing the topic from "$0.00 additional expense, & zero additional weight"[1] to "a few dollars, another microSD card" is sneaky, but doesn't cut ice. Switching to microSD for by-phone uploads is not $0.00. Which was the point, and you know it. >>Sorry, I am out of cellphone range, > You have my sincere sympathy. You might want to consider a better > carrier. I'm almost always in cell range, usually 3G range. Only almost, I notice. But yes, maybe I should switch to a sat phone. Or to some different upload system that works for me. Which is the other point: your usage patterns may not be mine. >>the microSD is full after >>3 pictures, > You have my sincere sympathy. You might want to consider a bigger card. > 16 GB cards are readily available. for $0.00 :-) Add an CR-7200 and ... oops, that won't work in the mobile phone, I'm afraid. Not fully loaded. >>Told you I'd need to buy extra storage. > You can manufacture impossible circumstances for anything, > but that doesn't prove anything. You can manufacture unrealistic circumstances for your claims, but that doesn't prove they are workable for anyone. >>Sure, for _you_ it may work great. > And for many others. The silent majority, I'm sure. >>I see, no additional weight, no additional costs, no additional >>hassles. > None that matter. True, compared to good glass and a usable body the cost of yet another score gigabytes flash memory is $0.00. -Wolfgang [1] Message-ID: <1u3245trahuoe7nrrq1phih47h3b4c1bl5@4ax.com> >> For example, I like to take pictures with my digital camera and swap the >> card into my cell phone to transmit them, and the multiplicity of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >First, there are solutions like Eye-Fi. Eye-Fi cards are expensive, small, dog slow, won't work on most public hotspots that require any sort of authentication, and won't work at all when there's no Wi-Fi, as is often the case when I'm out and about taking pictures, whereas I usually have cell phone service. No thanks. >Second, of course you don't want to swap your mobile phone's >card(s) any more than you want to swap (internal) hard drives in >your computer. MicroSD cards are user upgradeable and you >can carry them over from your last phone, but that's it. You don't speak for me. I most definitely do want to swap memory cards, which are specifically designed to be swappable, and in fact I do it all the time. >You certainly don't want to handle cards smaller than an SD >when you are not sitting at your well-lit, uncluttered desk. >... Again, you don't speak for me, and I have no problem swapping microSD cards anywhere. If you can't, that's your problem, not mine. >The real solution is to tether your camera to your phone/data >transmission tool. Hence phone cameras. And bluetooth, since [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >cameras, remotely over the internet steerable 'web' camera designs. >And WiFi-handgrips for some DSLRs. No thanks. None of those things are even close to workable when I'm out and about taking pictures. You're welcome to live in tech fantasy land, but I choose to live in the real world, and will keep on swapping memory cards to use my cell phone to actually transmit pictures. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > Eye-Fi cards are expensive, small, dog slow, won't work on most public > hotspots that require any sort of authentication, and won't work at all > when there's no Wi-Fi, as is often the case when I'm out and about > taking pictures, whereas I usually have cell phone service. No thanks. Disliking an implementation does not indicate grasping the idea. > Again, you don't speak for me, You don't pay me to speak for you, so stop complaining. > and I have no problem swapping microSD > cards anywhere. If you can't, that's your problem, not mine. Good enough. Just don't complain the next time someone tells you to just do something you and most people are not able to do competently for some reason. It's your problem, not mine or anyone elses. > but I choose to live in the real world, and will keep on swapping > memory cards to use my cell phone to actually transmit pictures. If your real world really needs swapping microSD cards because no better solution is possible, ever, then that's your choice and all I can do is wish you the best of luck. Don't assume everyone will share your 'vision' of the future and the real world. -Wolfgang > [1] Bluetooth is widely available in mobile phones, smart phones, > PDAs, netbooks, laptops, etc. Computers can easily be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > even tinier memory packages for mobile phones and mutually > incompatible flash memory interface designs. By a remarkable coincidence Brad Templeton has an interesting blog topic on cameras, connectivity, and additional functionality that covers a lot of what's being discussed in this topic: http://ideas.4brad.com/features-high-end-digital-cameras SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >> [1] Bluetooth is widely available in mobile phones, smart phones, >> PDAs, netbooks, laptops, etc. Computers can easily be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://ideas.4brad.com/features-high-end-digital-cameras Excerpt: >> Show me the blurries >> A feature I have been requesting for some time. After I take a photo, let >> one of the review modes offered provide a zoom in of something that is supposed to be in focus. I don't know about "high-end cameras" but my (ironically, soft photo making) A590IS has exactly this feature! BugBear >> [1] Bluetooth is widely available in mobile phones, smart phones, >> PDAs, netbooks, laptops, etc. Computers can easily be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >http://ideas.4brad.com/features-high-end-digital-cameras Some nice ideas there, but I don't think he's thought them through well enough. For example: Consider a new format between jpeg and raw The jpeg compression is good enough that detail is not lost. What is lost is exposure range. Raw format preserves everything, but is very large and slower and harder to use when organizing photographs -- its main value is in post-processing photographs. A 12 bit jpeg standard exists, but is not widely used, but if cameras started offering it, I expect we would see support for it proliferate, even faster than support for raw has done. Sticking with relatively ancient JPEG and stopping at only 12 bits is shortsighted -- if you're going to make a change, make it big enough to last for a long time even with unexpected developments. HD Photo (JPEG XR) would be a much better choice. But then there's the dilemma, how to get everyone to rally around a single new standard? SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>By a remarkable coincidence Brad Templeton has an interesting blog topic >>on cameras, connectivity, and additional functionality that covers a lot [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > But then there's the dilemma, how to get everyone to rally around a > single new standard? There's a discussion of 12 bit versus higher bit depths here: http://forums.popphoto.com/showthread.php?p=634647 My guess is Brad is coming from the position of taking an existing and known JPEG standard which is good enough for manipulation, fast, and cheap to implement in silicon. I've done some checking and the 12 bit code exists in Photoshop and a number of image libraries. Once you step beyond this point you're getting into much more hairy territory. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >>>By a remarkable coincidence Brad Templeton has an interesting blog topic >>>on cameras, connectivity, and additional functionality that covers a lot [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >Photoshop and a number of image libraries. Once you step beyond this point >you're getting into much more hairy territory. A huge amount of support is available, including code, for HD Photo. Good enough compromises tend to just create the same problem over again in short order, and 12 bit is limiting already. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>My guess is Brad is coming from the position of taking an existing and >>known JPEG standard which is good enough for manipulation, fast, and cheap [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Good enough compromises tend to just create the same problem over again > in short order, and 12 bit is limiting already. You've got to remember the issues of code support, processing power, and usability across a range of kit from low end cameras to web servers. Brad's solution is good enough, tight, and only takes a tweak to implement. HD Photo and other options step into different territory and are expensive overkill. If you can make a case for the silicon real estate, compatibility, and usability of a different standard then go right ahead but, remember, that slides off print and tweak formats and into middle ground editing formats. I'm not against cameras supporting those but they are a different thing and impact the pragmatics differently. Raw is, of course, on the other extreme and has its own issues. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >> A huge amount of support is available, including code, for HD Photo. >> Good enough compromises tend to just create the same problem over again >> in short order, and 12 bit is limiting already. > >You've got to remember the issues of code support, processing power, and >usability across a range of kit from low end cameras to web servers. Sure, and a big advantage of HD Photo is significantly better results with comparable processing power versus JPEG. >Brad's >solution is good enough, tight, and only takes a tweak to implement. HD >Photo and other options step into different territory and are expensive >overkill. I completely disagree. >If you can make a case for the silicon real estate, compatibility, and >usability of a different standard then go right ahead but, remember, that >slides off print and tweak formats and into middle ground editing formats. With HD Photo there is no silicon real estate issue, the compatibility issue is the same, and usability is superior. You ought to at least take an in depth look at HD Photo before putting it down. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > You ought to at least take an in depth look at HD Photo before putting > it down. John, I just put forward Brad's case for 12 bit JPEG. I've explained that position and am happy with it. I'm not running anything down or shutting a door on *you* putting the case for HD Photo. So, you might try a more constructive approach and show less attitude. Thanks. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge > John, I just put forward Brad's case for 12 bit JPEG. I've explained that > position and am happy with it. I'm not running anything down or shutting a > door on *you* putting the case for HD Photo. So, you might try a more > constructive approach and show less attitude. Thanks. good luck on that. :) >> John, I just put forward Brad's case for 12 bit JPEG. I've explained that >> position and am happy with it. I'm not running anything down or shutting >> a door on *you* putting the case for HD Photo. So, you might try a more >> constructive approach and show less attitude. Thanks. > > good luck on that. :) I saw it coming a couple of posts back. Once people get caught up in the winning and losing game it's hard to do anything but back off. Personally, I like Brad's 12-bit JPEG scheme. HD Photo is intriguing but I went through the OpenGL and Direct 3D thing years ago so am a bit circumspect of the politics. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >Personally, I like Brad's 12-bit JPEG scheme. So it was your opinion. >HD Photo is intriguing but I >went through the OpenGL and Direct 3D thing years ago so am a bit >circumspect of the politics. Those things have nothing to do with HD Photo. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>Personally, I like Brad's 12-bit JPEG scheme. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Those things have nothing to do with HD Photo. Brad's article caught my eye and I thought it was worth mentioning. While specifications and implementations are separate to the politics it's something that does have a bearing on issues. OpenGL versus Direct 3D and, later, VC-1 versus H.264, and JPEG are similar in this regard. In an ideal world one would only consider the silicon, software, and ecosystem requirements. There's different domains from cheap embedded systems to usage scenarios, to worldwide software infrastructure to consider. Standards and ownership are different things but still a significant factor in outcomes. People need to be aware of this but I'd agree they also need to know where the line is between the two. Earlier experiences in other technical areas have repeated further down the line and I'm not going to chuck that experience away. Also, I've been around business and politics long enough to spot when technical and political issues are being mangled to win arguments or grab market share. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >> You ought to at least take an in depth look at HD Photo before putting >> it down. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >door on *you* putting the case for HD Photo. So, you might try a more >constructive approach and show less attitude. Thanks. That sure looked like your opinion to me. Still does. But I'll take your word for it. Sorry. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> You ought to at least take an in depth look at HD Photo before putting >>> it down. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That sure looked like your opinion to me. Still does. > But I'll take your word for it. Sorry. It happens. People's perspective can be negatively influenced by an accumulation of rigid opinions and land grabbing. Grandstanding politicians on TV and internet trolls don't help that. The issues of 8 bit JPEG, intermediate, and fragmented raw standards are an issue that needs grasping. My personal experience at the low end (Canon A590) while I get into photography hasn't been great. Mostly, I'm just focused on the issues with cruddy JPEG implementations (the A590's sucks), a properly profiled DNG hack, and getting my Lightroom presets knocked into shape. While I get into a position where I can justify a better camera the issues Brad raises about standards is interesting. I just put it on the table to contribute to the topic and see what people made of it. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge > Consider a new format between jpeg and raw > Sticking with relatively ancient JPEG and stopping at only 12 bits is > shortsighted -- if you're going to make a change, make it big enough to > last for a long time even with unexpected developments. > HD Photo (JPEG XR) would be a much better choice. Or maybe sRAW does fit one of the bills, after all. (How many pixels do you really need?) -Wolfgang : Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware : [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : : What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony). Surely you jest. Sony is the company that once sneaked operating system changes into users' computers to prevent them from "stealing" content from Sony CDs. A few years ago laptop batteries sold by Dell and several other manufacturers started exploding and starting fires. Some of the manufacturers had to issue recalls. Who actually made the offending batteries for those manufacturers? Sony. I think it's fair to say that if there's a way to make an extra buck, it has already occurred to Sony. Bob > Surely you jest. Sony is the company that once sneaked operating system > changes into users' computers to prevent them from "stealing" content from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think it's fair to say that if there's a way to make an extra buck, it > has already occurred to Sony. You mean a US division of Sony used a faulty third party tool, and they recalled the broken batteries without issue? The last time I checked Sony were suing that third party, and scammers aren't known for making good on warranties. Ragging on Sony for that is as dumb as if I carried a grudge against Americans for George Bush. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >> Surely you jest. Sony is the company that once sneaked operating system >> changes into users' computers to prevent them from "stealing" content [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > warranties. Ragging on Sony for that is as dumb as if I carried a grudge > against Americans for George Bush. So? I carry a grudge against Americans for George Bush, and I **am** American. Chris : >> Surely you jest. Sony is the company that once sneaked operating system : >> changes into users' computers to prevent them from "stealing" content [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] : So? I carry a grudge against Americans for George Bush, and I : **am** American. Come to think of it, so do I. And I'm a Republican. Bob > : So? I carry a grudge against Americans for George Bush, and I > : **am** American. > > Come to think of it, so do I. And I'm a Republican. Me too. And not *just* for Bush, you betcha! >> So? I carry a grudge against Americans for George Bush, >> and I **am** American. > > Come to think of it, so do I. And I'm a Republican. Yep, you voted for him and now I get to pay for his incompetence for the next 25-years. Thank God for Obama, the savior! > Thank God for Obama, the savior! So this means you expect him to be crucified by the Romans? How quaint! : >> So? I carry a grudge against Americans for George Bush, : >> and I **am** American. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : Yep, you voted for him and now I get to pay for his incompetence for the : next 25-years. Thank God for Obama, the savior! Rita, are you daft? I was probably that moron's most outspoken opponent in the photography newsgroups. If you don't remember that, just ask George Kerby, who actually did support Bush. I didn't vote for him either time, and I didn't even vote for his father when he ran for re-election. I'm a real Republican, not a neocon or Cheney stooge. I'm appalled at the direction the party has taken in recent years. I voted for Obama and would do so again in a heartbeat. Bob > : >> So? I carry a grudge against Americans for George Bush, > : >> and I **am** American. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm a real Republican, not a neocon or Cheney stooge. I'm appalled at the > direction the party has taken in recent years. > I voted for Obama and would do > so again in a heartbeat. You wouldn't be alone. There are many people (about 52% of the voting public) who have displayed little respect for the office of the president. How else can one explain Obama being elected when so little is know about him or his ambitions. > Bob > There are many people (about 52% of the voting > public) who have displayed little respect for the office of the > president. How else can one explain Obama being elected when so little > is know about him or his ambitions. The first insane thing is thinking that the Office of the President of the US is special in some way. It isn't. It is an elected office. Believing the US election system is much better than a survival of the media fittest contest is plain silliness. Five things killed McCain: 1) Getting off of his own message and caving to the Republican machine in the last 3 months. 2) Palin. 3) Palin. 4) Palin. 5) Palin. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > Five things killed McCain: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 4) Palin. > 5) Palin. The informed consensus view in the UK is this is about right. McCain had effectively won the campaign but threw it away. Like any other group the Republicans will take time to accept and embrace change, and that's the opportunity in opposition if they want to grasp it. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >> Five things killed McCain: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Republicans will take time to accept and embrace change, and that's the >opportunity in opposition if they want to grasp it. About right, but I'd modify the list to be: 2) Bush 3) Palin 4) Bush 5) Palin And, it really wasn't Palin. To many, it was the Republican party's obvious ineptitude in promoting someone so obviously unqualified and so obviously a sop to the Religious Right. It demonstrated that the party itself was incapable of putting together an organization that could manage the country. I've added Bush because I feel so many Americans wanted all vestiges of the Bush administration out. I kind of wonder about 1). What *was* "his own message"? I'm not sure he ever got *on* his own message or determined what it was. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems nick c <nchen711@cloudnine.net> wrote: >> : >> So? I carry a grudge against Americans for George Bush, >> : >> and I **am** American. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> I'm a real Republican, not a neocon or Cheney stooge. I'm appalled at the >> direction the party has taken in recent years. >> I voted for Obama and would do >> so again in a heartbeat. > You wouldn't be alone. There are many people (about 52% of the voting > public) who have displayed little respect for the office of the > president. How else can one explain Obama being elected when so little > is know about him or his ambitions. Anyone who didn't know a lot about Obama and his intentions simply didn't care or hadn't been paying attention. He didn't suddenly arrive from another planet. On his way up he made quite a lot of noise, wrote a lot, and attracted plenty of interest, research, and comment. SignatureChris Malcolm >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems nick c <nchen711@cloudnine.net> wrote: >>> : [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >from another planet. On his way up he made quite a lot of noise, wrote >a lot, and attracted plenty of interest, research, and comment. Quite a bit of which he's now starting to go back on, like open meetings, not taxing health care benefits, and contributions. Not to mention appointing the same folks that got us in the financial mess in the first place, and not terribly surprising, but disappointing nonetheless. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >> I voted for Obama and would do >> so again in a heartbeat. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > president. How else can one explain Obama being elected when so little > is know about him or his ambitions. Because everyone knew that McCain is just another Bush. Funny how all these people now say they haven't voted for Bush. Obama has made so many strides in getting us back on course. On 6/22/09 5:22 PM, in article v4mdneoDxo6vmd3XnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@supernews.com, "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote: >>> I voted for Obama and would do >>> so again in a heartbeat. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > people now say they haven't voted for Bush. Obama has made so many strides > in getting us back on course. To total disaster. > : Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware > : [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > changes into users' computers to prevent them from "stealing" content from > Sony CDs. And it cost them dearly in reputation. They will be a lot more careful in the future. To date they are not forcing their batteries on people. That is the point. And their DSLR's support CF cards. And support Minolta lenses. > A few years ago laptop batteries sold by Dell and several other manufacturers > started exploding and starting fires. Some of the manufacturers had to issue > recalls. Who actually made the offending batteries for those manufacturers? > Sony. Which in an odd way proves my point. More suppliers are better than fewer. As to the Sony batteries, as unfortunate as those failures were, it was a near inevitable consequence of making Li-ion batteries - learning curve. > I think it's fair to say that if there's a way to make an extra buck, it has > already occurred to Sony. Not according to their financial results. They've had a rough time of this current climate. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > Which in an odd way proves my point. More suppliers are better than > fewer. As to the Sony batteries, as unfortunate as those failures were, > it was a near inevitable consequence of making Li-ion batteries - learning > curve. There's usually a balance between authority and society, or brands and the market. I note, Ray Bradbury is railing against the internet and he has a point. The tiny bit I pay attention to isn't very good, and I get a similar discomfort with the traditional darkroom versus the digital darkroom. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >> Which in an odd way proves my point. More suppliers are better than >> fewer. As to the Sony batteries, as unfortunate as those failures were, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > point. The tiny bit I pay attention to isn't very good, and I get a similar > discomfort with the traditional darkroom versus the digital darkroom. You keep raising objections to your own progress with digital photography. Take the Nike attitude. Ray Bradbury is one of the brighter lights of fiction, esp. science fiction coupled to social realities. I can see how he would see the negatives in the internet. However, like all double edged swords, the internet has its overwhelmingly positive side as it does its negative - people need to focus on getting positive value from it. A friend of mine, no wilting flower where it comes to technology, marketing and media, has all but sworn off reading or listening to the news. It has become to him a mind distracting repetitious blur that has almost no bearing on his life. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> There's usually a balance between authority and society, or brands and >> the market. I note, Ray Bradbury is railing against the internet and he [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > news. It has become to him a mind distracting repetitious blur that has > almost no bearing on his life. I'm taking a balanced view, and that was really the point behind my comment so there's no violent disagreement here. I've stopped watching broadcast TV, don't read the media, and don't vote for similar reasons. I think, it's important to find yourself as much as finding the shot and, in some ways, they can be the same thing. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge > I'm taking a balanced view, and that was really the point behind my comment > so there's no violent disagreement here. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and, in > some ways, they can be the same thing. You're right Charles... Hearing every day that America is on the verge of a depression after I've already decided to come home (from 30 years in Australia) is disturbing enough but to learn that my home is also home to a bunch of retirees behaving badly... bigots who stick their head in the sand and ignore the even more frightening fact that they created the mess in the first place is even more disturbing. I wouldn't have know anything about it if I'd simply bought a book and not watched TV! SignatureYou don't stop laughing because you grow old, You grow old because you stop laughing! >>> Which in an odd way proves my point. More suppliers are better than >>> fewer. As to the Sony batteries, as unfortunate as those failures were, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > news. It has become to him a mind distracting repetitious blur that has > almost no bearing on his life. One of the most clever parodies of the news media's propensity of mindless repetition was the "Buckwheat is dead." skit on SNL: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/82/82pstutts.phtml SignaturePeter > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message >> A friend of mine, no wilting flower where it comes to technology, >> marketing and media, has all but sworn off reading or listening to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://snltranscripts.jt.org/82/82pstutts.phtml Good script. Don't think I saw that one. Only see about 2 shows/year... Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony). Calling for a boycott is a bit strong. It's better to warn people and let them them decide that Panasonic is full of crap on their own. I just bought a Panasonic TV a few hours ago. This kind of BS would make me cancel my order if I could. Most companies are screwing customers in a way that's probably illegal. PR departments will claim it's increased revenue to improve product quality without charging a higher up-front fee. Those who have already paid the up-front fee call it a scam. SignatureI will not see your reply if you use Google. >> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I just bought a Panasonic TV a few hours ago. This kind of BS would > make me cancel my order if I could. I bought a Panasonic television (plasma) and blu ray player at the end of 2007. Fine equipment - quite pleased. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony). Okay, I'll boycott them. Again. Isn't the fact that they're noise boxes already enough of a reason to avoid them at all costs? >> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Okay, I'll boycott them. Again. Isn't the fact that they're noise boxes > already enough of a reason to avoid them at all costs? Doesn't count if you're not in the market... ;-) I don't know that they're noise boxes. From most of what I hear/read Panasonic make very good digital cameras, both 4/3 and other. That's not to say they could be as good as an APS-C or FF. Their best noise performance is limited to a narrower ISO range, that's all. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Okay, I'll boycott them. Again. Isn't the fact that they're noise boxes >already enough of a reason to avoid them at all costs? You boycott everything, as your lack of any real experience makes clear. ;) SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) Justice to all Mankind, Even Those Who Make an Enemy of Islam I hope you don’t mind receiving my letter. It is short but full of information. Justice to all Mankind, Even Those Who Make an Enemy of Islam The saying of Allaah the Exalted: "O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allaah as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others allow you to avoid justice. Be just: that is closer to piety; and fear Allaah. Indeed, Allaah is Well- Acquainted with what you do." [Soorah Al-Maa'idah 5:8] Ibn Katheer explains: “Do not let your hatred of a people cause you to be unjust to them, rather you must be just to everyone, friends or enemies, this is why Allaah said: ‘Be just: that is closer to piety’ Meaning being just is closer to piety than being unjust.” At Tabari, a renowned scholar of the 8th century comments: “Do not let enmity between you and others cause you to be unjust in your dealings and rulings with them such that you oppress them due to the enmity that is between you… It has been stated that this verse was revealed when the Jews plotted to murder the Prophet.” Al Qurtubi, a scholar from the 12th century states: “This verse also proves that the disbelief of non-Muslims must not prevent us from being just to them…and it is not permissible for us to retaliate in the same manner, even if they kill our women and children and cause sorrow to befall us, it is not permissible for us to act likewise with the intention of making them feel grief and sorrow.” Allaah the Elevated says: "Verily, Allaah enjoins justice, beneficence, giving (help) to kith and kin, and forbids all forms of evil and Al-Munkar (i.e. all that is prohibited by Islamic law and oppression). He admonishes you, that you may take heed.)." [Soorah An-Nahl 16:90] Ibn Katheer states: “Allaah orders his servants with justice, which is fairness and equity, and encourages them to be beneficent.” Allaah the Mighty says: "Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice." [Soorah Al-Hadeed 57:25] At Tabari comments: “Meaning: So that people may interact amongst each other with justice.” Allaah the Merciful says: "That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another." [Soorah An-Najm 53:38] Ibn Katheer comments: “Meaning: Anybody who has oppressed himself by disbelief or sins will be responsible for those sins, nobody else will carry the burden.” As Sa`di, a scholar of the 19th century explains: “…and no one shall bear the sin of another.” The noble scholar; `Abdul-Azeez Aal Ash-Shaykh, current Mufti of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia comments: “Allaah judged that no person shall bear the burden of another person’s sin due to His absolute justness.” The Messenger of Allaah, may peace be upon him, informed us that Allaah said: “O My Servants, indeed I have prohibited injustice for myself, and I have prohibited it amongst you.” The noble scholar; `Abdul-`Azeez Aal Ash-Shaykh comments: “This is general to all mankind, whether they are Muslim or not, it is not permissible for any one person to oppress another even if they were enemies or harbored hatred for one another. Enmity and hatred do not authorize anyone in the legislation of Islam to be unjust or practice oppression.” The former Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh `Abdul-`Azeez Ibn Baaz states: “It is not permissible for Muslims to transgress upon non-Muslims, not in their person, their wealth or their reputations if they are formal residents in a Muslim country, have a treaty with Muslims or are under Muslim protection, rather they must be given their rights. Muslims must not transgress upon non-Muslims by stealing from, betraying or cheating them with regards to their wealth. Likewise they mustn’t physically transgress upon them by hitting them and so on. The fact that they are residents, under treaty or protection secures them from that.” The noble scholar; Saalih al Luhaydan, chairman of the higher judiciary council of Saudi Arabia states: “During battles, the Messenger of Allaah would advice the army: “Do not kill women, children, the elderly and those devoted to worship in their religious centers.” This means that Islam does not permit killing anyone except those who kill, wage war or oppress Muslims.” An Nawawi, a distinguished scholar from the 12th century states: “There is a consensus amongst the scholars that killing women and children is prohibited in battle except if they themselves engage in battle.” ———————– For more information about Islam http://english.islamway.com/ http://www.islamhouse.com/ http://www.discoverislam.com/ http://www.islambasics.com/index.php http://english.islamway.com/ http://www.islamtoday.net/english/ http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/MainPage/indexe.php http://www.sultan.org/ Contact Us At Imanway.group@gmail.com >Justice to all Mankind, Even Those Who Make an Enemy of Islam >I hope you don’t mind receiving my letter. It is short but full of >information. <snip> I certainly do mind, very much. Your letter has what? to do with photography. No one here, except some that may know me from another group, knows my religious and political beliefs. Not that I'm bashful, just that it's grossly inappropriate in a group where try to share some things about photography and art. SignaturePeter >>Justice to all Mankind, Even Those Who Make an Enemy of Islam >>I hope you don’t mind receiving my letter. It is short but full of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > beliefs. Not that I'm bashful, just that it's grossly inappropriate in a > group where try to share some things about photography and art. It's probably just a spambot. I'm happy discussing Zen and politics alongside photography but it's really a background thing. Indeed, as photography involve insight and self-empowerment (to use that ghastly overused phrase) photography, is mostly, enough on its own with confusing the issue. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge >>>Justice to all Mankind, Even Those Who Make an Enemy of Islam >>>I hope you don’t mind receiving my letter. It is short but full of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > self-empowerment (to use that ghastly overused phrase) photography, is > mostly, enough on its own with confusing the issue. Those who know me consider me to be a very spiritual person. Certainly my photography is influenced by Zen. It is also influenced by my current mood which in turn may very well be influenced by the antics of the politicians in power. Call me a stick in the mud, if you will, but I believe that political and religious discussions lead to bitterness that may very well inhibit the free interchange of artistic and technical concepts. SignaturePeter Have you heard about the Buddhist who said to a hot dog vendor, "make me one with everything." >>>>Justice to all Mankind, Even Those Who Make an Enemy of Islam >>>>I hope you don’t mind receiving my letter. It is short but full of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > religious discussions lead to bitterness that may very well inhibit the > free interchange of artistic and technical concepts. Yes, it would be jolly rude to get in the way of the Photoshop and raw arguments. ;-) These things can be raised and people probably need the outlet sometime but I'd agree that they're mostly a side issue unless there's something about them specifically which can add value to the topic of photography. Speaking for myself, at the moment, photography is a vehicle for practicing Zen and drawing out a more personal practical and social focus. But, the main aim is developing skill and getting the shot. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge Who is this Zen guy that seems to have a wide influence on some people in this group. Where are his photos posted? :) >>>>Justice to all Mankind, Even Those Who Make an Enemy of Islam >>>>I hope you don’t mind receiving my letter. It is short but full of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > religious discussions lead to bitterness that may very well inhibit the > free interchange of artistic and technical concepts. >Who is this Zen guy that seems to have a wide influence on some people in >this group. Where are his photos posted? :) No kidding! SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > Who is this Zen guy that seems to have a wide influence on some people in > this group. Where are his photos posted? :) Hey, top poster. You missed an interesting shoot with meetup. Ever see mermaids carrying umbrellas? I am working on selections and may have them posted shortly. The big holdup is my most severe critic has little time to review and disapprove. :-) (She doesn't have a website either, but she gets upwards of $50 for an 8x10, up to $750 for a much larger size. BTW she uses a Nikon D70 almost exclusively with a Sigma lens.) I am considering an offer from someone who has offered to be my agent. I don't know if it will come to anything, though. SignaturePeter > I certainly do mind, very much. > > Your letter has what? to do with photography. No one here, except some that > may know me from another group, knows my religious and political beliefs. > Not that I'm bashful, just that it's grossly inappropriate in a group where > try to share some things about photography and art. But the fact that he'd hit newgroups with his religious spam automatically tells you what he is: only fanatics think that their views are appropriate anywhere and anytime. And you'll never convince a fanatic -*any* fanatic- that he's not doing you a favor by cross- posting his trash to your newsgroup. The concept of "inappropriate" is simply not within his scope. On Jun 22, 4:53 pm, "Peter" <peter...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > I certainly do mind, very much. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > where > try to share some things about photography and art. But the fact that he'd hit newgroups with his religious spam automatically tells you what he is: only fanatics think that their views are appropriate anywhere and anytime. And you'll never convince a fanatic -*any* fanatic- that he's not doing you a favor by cross- posting his trash to your newsgroup. The concept of "inappropriate" is simply not within his scope. Of course you're right. The poster is also entitled to his/her beliefs. I simply don't give a tinker's dam about anyone who seeks to impose their religious vies on me. I hope to discourage religious wars, except of course Nikon over Canon. <G> SignaturePeter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.