Discussion:
OT - I wish I'd taken this photo
Add Reply
HVS
2018-01-05 15:58:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)

Loading Image...
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
occam
2018-01-05 16:07:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
Not unlike this award winning photo in the National Geograhic:
Loading Image...
HVS
2018-01-05 16:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd
taken. (It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/77feqi6c7325ogk/camels.jpg?dl=0
Very nice; thanks.

I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Mark Brader
2018-01-06 01:20:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Luckily, it's impossible to mispronounce "Canada"
***@vex.net | even if you try. --Stan Brown
Tony Cooper
2018-01-06 02:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down. The designation on Nikon cameras is
"continuous", but it's a burst. Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right. Burst sequences can be from four to ten images
depending on the camera's internal memory capacity and a couple of
other factors.

Shooting a batter at a baseball game, I'll shoot in a continuous burst
as the batter starts the swing hoping to catch that shot of the ball
just coming off the bat. Or, a fielder hoping to catch the ball just
before entering the mitt. It's the photographer, not the batter or
fielder who is the hoper.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2018-01-06 03:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.

It occurs to me that "burst" has essentially the same meaning when the
shots are the kind taken with an applicable type of gun, rather than an
applicable type of camera. I wonder if the camera usage was coined
with that in mind.
--
Mark Brader "Thus the metric system did not really catch on
Toronto in the States, unless you count the increasing
***@vex.net popularity of the 9 mm bullet." -- Dave Barry

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-06 04:53:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
Cheating, eh? These two shots (different base runners) are a million
to one captures if you shoot one frame. I shoot a burst of six shots
and still miss the moment most of the time.

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/End-of-the-Season/i-GDc2zDL/A

A fraction of a second off and the ball is not in the frame. You get
this, and it's not nearly as a good a shot.

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/April-22-/i-cfxGZnS/A

Even using burst the photographer has to anticipate and pre-frame and
focus.
Post by Mark Brader
It occurs to me that "burst" has essentially the same meaning when the
shots are the kind taken with an applicable type of gun, rather than an
applicable type of camera. I wonder if the camera usage was coined
with that in mind.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2018-01-06 06:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
Cheating, eh? These two shots (different base runners) are a million
to one captures if you shoot one frame. I shoot a burst of six shots
and still miss the moment most of the time.
https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/End-of-the-Season/i-GDc2zDL/A
But... "It's *supposed* to be hard. The 'hard' is what makes it great!"

(Sorry, couldn't resist. Great work as usual!)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "When I wanted to be a sigquote, that wasn't
***@vex.net | the one I was thinking of." --Clive Feather
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-06 11:38:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
Cheating, eh? These two shots (different base runners) are a million
to one captures if you shoot one frame. I shoot a burst of six shots
and still miss the moment most of the time.
https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/End-of-the-Season/i-GDc2zDL/A
A fraction of a second off and the ball is not in the frame. You get
this, and it's not nearly as a good a shot.
Your arithmetic must be off, if taken literally.
If it's a million to one without the burst mode
it should be 15 000 to one with bursts of six.

I can't believe you have been trying that many times,

Jan

PS From elsethread I have concluded that using monospaced thinspaces
as thousands separator is a good idea.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-06 14:03:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
Cheating, eh? These two shots (different base runners) are a million
to one captures if you shoot one frame. I shoot a burst of six shots
and still miss the moment most of the time.
https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/End-of-the-Season/i-GDc2zDL/A
A fraction of a second off and the ball is not in the frame. You get
this, and it's not nearly as a good a shot.
Your arithmetic must be off, if taken literally.
If it's a million to one without the burst mode
it should be 15 000 to one with bursts of six.
You should not take my arithmetic literally *anytime* I use any form
or result of math.

However, the use of "a million to one" is one of those idiomatic
statements that one uses to indicate a near impossibility.
Post by J. J. Lodder
I can't believe you have been trying that many times,
Jan
PS From elsethread I have concluded that using monospaced thinspaces
as thousands separator is a good idea.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-06 14:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
Cheating, eh? These two shots (different base runners) are a million
to one captures if you shoot one frame. I shoot a burst of six shots
and still miss the moment most of the time.
https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/End-of-the-Season/i-GDc2zDL/A
A fraction of a second off and the ball is not in the frame. You get
this, and it's not nearly as a good a shot.
Your arithmetic must be off, if taken literally.
If it's a million to one without the burst mode
it should be 15 000 to one with bursts of six.
You should not take my arithmetic literally *anytime* I use any form
or result of math.
I think we're all forgetting Pratchett's Law:

“... magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.”
HVS
2018-01-06 15:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 09:03:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

-snip -
Post by Tony Cooper
However, the use of "a million to one" is one of those idiomatic
statements that one uses to indicate a near impossibility.
"If I've told you once, I've told you literally a million times: stop
exaggerating."
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-07 11:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves
off the ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still
impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
Cheating, eh? These two shots (different base runners) are a million
to one captures if you shoot one frame. I shoot a burst of six shots
and still miss the moment most of the time.
https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/2017-Baseball/End-of-the-Season/i-GDc2zDL/A
A fraction of a second off and the ball is not in the frame. You get
this, and it's not nearly as a good a shot.
Your arithmetic must be off, if taken literally.
If it's a million to one without the burst mode
it should be 15 000 to one with bursts of six.
You should not take my arithmetic literally *anytime* I use any form
or result of math.
However, the use of "a million to one" is one of those idiomatic
statements that one uses to indicate a near impossibility.
Yes, apart from being proverbial
it is one of the many examples of the human inability
to deal with probabilities in a realistic way.
Or even with just large numbers.

It really takes calculation,

Jan
Quinn C
2018-01-08 18:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS From elsethread I have concluded that using monospaced thinspaces
as thousands separator is a good idea.
I guess you're also using a black-and-white color wheel.
--
The least questioned assumptions are often the most questionable
-- Paul Broca
... who never questioned that men are more intelligent than women
Richard Heathfield
2018-01-06 05:10:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
It occurs to me that "burst" has essentially the same meaning when the
shots are the kind taken with an applicable type of gun, rather than an
applicable type of camera. I wonder if the camera usage was coined
with that in mind.
I'm now on my second and third digital cameras. Without looking, the
best I can tell you is that they're either Canon or Nikon. They, and the
first one I had, all call this feature "sports mode", which suggests
that this is its intended use.

But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie). The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Tony Cooper
2018-01-06 06:02:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 05:10:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
It occurs to me that "burst" has essentially the same meaning when the
shots are the kind taken with an applicable type of gun, rather than an
applicable type of camera. I wonder if the camera usage was coined
with that in mind.
I'm now on my second and third digital cameras. Without looking, the
best I can tell you is that they're either Canon or Nikon. They, and the
first one I had, all call this feature "sports mode", which suggests
that this is its intended use.
"Sports Mode", if the camera has that, also sets the shutter speed,
f/stop, and ISO. The "Continuous" setting sets only the burst rate in
frames-per-second.
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie). The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
The film cameras with a burst mode had a separate attachment: a motor
drive fitted on the bottom of the camera body. It advanced the film to
the next frame instead of requiring the user to move the film advance
lever.

Digital cameras don't require a motor drive as the card doesn't
"advance". Images are captured in the camera's internal memory and
then to the card.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
occam
2018-01-06 11:57:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 05:10:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
It occurs to me that "burst" has essentially the same meaning when the
shots are the kind taken with an applicable type of gun, rather than an
applicable type of camera. I wonder if the camera usage was coined
with that in mind.
I'm now on my second and third digital cameras. Without looking, the
best I can tell you is that they're either Canon or Nikon. They, and the
first one I had, all call this feature "sports mode", which suggests
that this is its intended use.
Not only. Wild-life photograpers also use it to capture the moment of
take off or landing of a bird, a bee hovering over a flower, etc.
Post by Tony Cooper
"Sports Mode", if the camera has that, also sets the shutter speed,
f/stop, and ISO. The "Continuous" setting sets only the burst rate in
frames-per-second.
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie). The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
The film cameras with a burst mode had a separate attachment: a >>rather expensive << motor
drive fitted on the bottom of the camera body. It advanced the film to
the next frame instead of requiring the user to move the film advance
lever.
Digital cameras don't require a motor drive as the card doesn't
"advance". Images are captured in the camera's internal memory and
then to the card.
If I recall, the >>very expensive<< motor drives were not only specific
to a brand, but also could cost as much as the camera itself - putting
it out of the range of the casual photographer. And then there was that
'clink-kaching' repeat noise which said 'professional at work'.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-06 14:10:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 05:10:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
It occurs to me that "burst" has essentially the same meaning when the
shots are the kind taken with an applicable type of gun, rather than an
applicable type of camera. I wonder if the camera usage was coined
with that in mind.
I'm now on my second and third digital cameras. Without looking, the
best I can tell you is that they're either Canon or Nikon. They, and the
first one I had, all call this feature "sports mode", which suggests
that this is its intended use.
Not only. Wild-life photograpers also use it to capture the moment of
take off or landing of a bird, a bee hovering over a flower, etc.
Well, no, they don't. Anyone with a camera with that mode setting can
try for those shots, but the experienced and truly competent wild-life
photographers would not use that setting. That setting sets the
shutter speed, f/stop, ISO and in some cameras the focusing. Those
are settings that the more experienced photograph sets individually
according to conditions. Compare to using a manual transmission
instead of an automatic.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Richard Heathfield
2018-01-06 18:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/01/18 06:02, Tony Cooper wrote:

<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
The film cameras with a burst mode had a separate attachment: a motor
drive fitted on the bottom of the camera body. It advanced the film to
the next frame instead of requiring the user to move the film advance
lever.
Digital cameras don't require a motor drive as the card doesn't
"advance". Images are captured in the camera's internal memory and
then to the card.
Clearly true, yes. Nevertheless [I was going to say, but now am not],
the camera designers clearly like the sound the drive made because they
have simulated it in my camera.

Except that I just checked, and actually they haven't. Perhaps I heard
it from some other camera? I can't be sure now.

(The shutter release sound on my own DSLR is unnecessarily loud, I
think, given that it could probably be completely silent.)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Tony Cooper
2018-01-06 19:24:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:19:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
The film cameras with a burst mode had a separate attachment: a motor
drive fitted on the bottom of the camera body. It advanced the film to
the next frame instead of requiring the user to move the film advance
lever.
Digital cameras don't require a motor drive as the card doesn't
"advance". Images are captured in the camera's internal memory and
then to the card.
Clearly true, yes. Nevertheless [I was going to say, but now am not],
the camera designers clearly like the sound the drive made because they
have simulated it in my camera.
Except that I just checked, and actually they haven't. Perhaps I heard
it from some other camera? I can't be sure now.
(The shutter release sound on my own DSLR is unnecessarily loud, I
think, given that it could probably be completely silent.)
Unless you have one of the mirrorless cameras now on the market, the
sound is "mirror flap" on a dslr camera. Not the shutter.

When you depress the shutter release, the mirror in the camera flips
up to allow light (and the image) to reach the sensor that records the
image. The sound is that mirror flipping back down into place.

That mirror is what allows you see the scene exactly as the lens see
it through your viewfinder or on the live view screen. When the
mirror flips up, that view is temporarily blocked. It's blocked for
such a short time you may not even notice.

The initials "dslr" represent "digital single lens reflex". The word
"reflex" is there because what is seen in the viewfinder is reflected
up by the mirror.

While that little hole you peep through is called the "viewfinder", a
"viewfinder camera" is one that does not have a mirror and the view is
not directly through the lens. The view is slightly different from
the lens will capture. The "Instamatic" types of cameras are
viewfinder cameras.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Richard Heathfield
2018-01-06 19:34:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:19:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
The film cameras with a burst mode had a separate attachment: a motor
drive fitted on the bottom of the camera body. It advanced the film to
the next frame instead of requiring the user to move the film advance
lever.
Digital cameras don't require a motor drive as the card doesn't
"advance". Images are captured in the camera's internal memory and
then to the card.
Clearly true, yes. Nevertheless [I was going to say, but now am not],
the camera designers clearly like the sound the drive made because they
have simulated it in my camera.
Except that I just checked, and actually they haven't. Perhaps I heard
it from some other camera? I can't be sure now.
(The shutter release sound on my own DSLR is unnecessarily loud, I
think, given that it could probably be completely silent.)
Unless you have one of the mirrorless cameras now on the market,
That sounds tempting, since my mirror has some crap on it that I daren't
brush off in case I end up destroying the mirror (I'm told it's
extraordinarily thin).
Post by Tony Cooper
the
sound is "mirror flap" on a dslr camera. Not the shutter.
So I have since learned, yes (probably from you, elsethread). It's very,
very loud (well, probably not really - it just seems louder than it
ought to).

<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Richard Tobin
2018-01-06 19:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Tony Cooper
Digital cameras don't require a motor drive as the card doesn't
"advance". Images are captured in the camera's internal memory and
then to the card.
Clearly true, yes. Nevertheless [I was going to say, but now am not],
the camera designers clearly like the sound the drive made because they
have simulated it in my camera.
Except that I just checked, and actually they haven't. Perhaps I heard
it from some other camera? I can't be sure now.
Often the simulated shutter volume can be adjusted - you might have it
set to zero.

-- Richard
Mark Brader
2018-01-06 06:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
--
Mark Brader | [It was] based on a rather unique interpretation
Toronto | [of the law]... (and, by unique, we mean "wrong")...
***@vex.net | --Mike Masnick
Tony Cooper
2018-01-06 07:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
You know how you watch a movie and some cowboy fires off sixteen shots
with a six-gun without reloading? Photographers had the same reaction
when they watched those movies where some private dick was
photographing someone with a motor drive camera and taking 100 or so
photos without ever changing film.
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
Some DSLR camera makers make the point that their "shutter slap"
(which is actually "mirror flap") is quieter than other cameras. The
noise at a press conference where there are several photographers can
almost drown out the speaker.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-06 11:38:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
You know how you watch a movie and some cowboy fires off sixteen shots
with a six-gun without reloading? Photographers had the same reaction
when they watched those movies where some private dick was
photographing someone with a motor drive camera and taking 100 or so
photos without ever changing film.
The professionals had this kind of thing for it, called a film back.
<http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/filmbac
ks/images/bulkfim750250.jpg>
There was a built in film cutter
that allowed you to take out the days work.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
Some DSLR camera makers make the point that their "shutter slap"
(which is actually "mirror flap") is quieter than other cameras. The
noise at a press conference where there are several photographers can
almost drown out the speaker.
Even so, in some circumstances even the quietest was still too loud.
A friend of mine used to do live theater photgraphy. (long ago)
He had to use Leicas,

Jan
Tak To
2018-01-07 03:32:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
You know how you watch a movie and some cowboy fires off sixteen shots
with a six-gun without reloading? Photographers had the same reaction
when they watched those movies where some private dick was
photographing someone with a motor drive camera and taking 100 or so
photos without ever changing film.
The professionals had this kind of thing for it, called a film back.
<http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/filmbac
ks/images/bulkfim750250.jpg>
There was a built in film cutter
that allowed you to take out the days work.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
Some DSLR camera makers make the point that their "shutter slap"
(which is actually "mirror flap") is quieter than other cameras. The
noise at a press conference where there are several photographers can
almost drown out the speaker.
Even so, in some circumstances even the quietest was still too loud.
A friend of mine used to do live theater photgraphy. (long ago)
He had to use Leicas,
Presumably that was a Leica viewfinder camera, not an SLR.

Nikon had a reputation of being noisy. I did not find mine
(Nikon F2S Photomic) to be case, but it did sound "heavier"
the Canon of a friend.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tak To
2018-01-07 03:43:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
You know how you watch a movie and some cowboy fires off sixteen shots
with a six-gun without reloading? Photographers had the same reaction
when they watched those movies where some private dick was
photographing someone with a motor drive camera and taking 100 or so
photos without ever changing film.
The professionals had this kind of thing for it, called a film back.
<http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/filmbac
ks/images/bulkfim750250.jpg>
There was a built in film cutter
that allowed you to take out the days work.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
Some DSLR camera makers make the point that their "shutter slap"
(which is actually "mirror flap") is quieter than other cameras. The
noise at a press conference where there are several photographers can
almost drown out the speaker.
Even so, in some circumstances even the quietest was still too loud.
A friend of mine used to do live theater photgraphy. (long ago)
He had to use Leicas,
Presumably that was a Leica viewfinder camera, not an SLR.
Correction: rangefinder camera.
Post by Tak To
Nikon had a reputation of being noisy. I did not find mine
(Nikon F2S Photomic) to be case, but it did sound "heavier"
the Canon of a friend.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-07 11:19:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
You know how you watch a movie and some cowboy fires off sixteen shots
with a six-gun without reloading? Photographers had the same reaction
when they watched those movies where some private dick was
photographing someone with a motor drive camera and taking 100 or so
photos without ever changing film.
The professionals had this kind of thing for it, called a film back.
<http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/filmbac
ks/images/bulkfim750250.jpg>
There was a built in film cutter
that allowed you to take out the days work.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
Some DSLR camera makers make the point that their "shutter slap"
(which is actually "mirror flap") is quieter than other cameras. The
noise at a press conference where there are several photographers can
almost drown out the speaker.
Even so, in some circumstances even the quietest was still too loud.
A friend of mine used to do live theater photgraphy. (long ago)
He had to use Leicas,
Presumably that was a Leica viewfinder camera, not an SLR.
Leica SRLs never amounted to anything.
A typical case of too little, too late.
Apart from that they were Minolta clones, mostly.
Professionals generally didn't use them.

Jan
occam
2018-01-06 12:03:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
You know how you watch a movie and some cowboy fires off sixteen shots
with a six-gun without reloading? Photographers had the same reaction
when they watched those movies where some private dick was
photographing someone with a motor drive camera and taking 100 or so
photos without ever changing film.
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
Some DSLR camera makers make the point that their "shutter slap"
(which is actually "mirror flap") is quieter than other cameras. The
noise at a press conference where there are several photographers can
almost drown out the speaker.
In my son's latest mirrorless digital camera - where there is no shutter
slap at all - he has the option of adding a 'shutter noise' to emulate
classic cameras. A bit like adding simulated static noise to digital
music to give the impression of an LP vinyl record.
Rich Ulrich
2018-01-06 18:32:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
You know how you watch a movie and some cowboy fires off sixteen shots
with a six-gun without reloading? Photographers had the same reaction
when they watched those movies where some private dick was
photographing someone with a motor drive camera and taking 100 or so
photos without ever changing film.
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
Some DSLR camera makers make the point that their "shutter slap"
(which is actually "mirror flap") is quieter than other cameras. The
noise at a press conference where there are several photographers can
almost drown out the speaker.
In my son's latest mirrorless digital camera - where there is no shutter
slap at all - he has the option of adding a 'shutter noise' to emulate
classic cameras. A bit like adding simulated static noise to digital
music to give the impression of an LP vinyl record.
I think it might be useful, like adding a keystroke-noise to a virtual
keyboard.
--
Rich Ulrich
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-06 11:38:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
They even sell electric cars
with speakers for the VROOOM-VROOM sound,

Jan
occam
2018-01-06 12:06:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
They even sell electric cars
with speakers for the VROOOM-VROOM sound,
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
Lewis
2018-01-06 13:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
They even sell electric cars
with speakers for the VROOOM-VROOM sound,
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
I only ever installed that one OTHER PEOPLE'S computers. Nearly as
amusing as having a modem carrier tone as one's rintone.
--
Hudd: 'I've just done this radio show where I never met any of the other
actors and I didn't understand what any of it was about' Moore: 'Ah, yes
I expect that's the thing I'm in.'
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-06 15:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by J. J. Lodder
They even sell electric cars
with speakers for the VROOOM-VROOM sound,
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
Tom Hanks (the actor), a typewriter enthusiast, markets/ed a 99c app to do that.
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-06 20:08:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
They even sell electric cars
with speakers for the VROOOM-VROOM sound,
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
IIRC this was rather common, in the MacPlus era,
when computers making real life sounds was a novelty,

Jan
Mark Brader
2018-01-06 21:18:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
Well, yeah. Everyone knows the "ding" is supposed to come *before* you
return the carriage.
--
Mark Brader | "If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent...
Toronto | the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly
***@vex.net | the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."
--David Dunning
Quinn C
2018-01-08 18:42:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by occam
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
Well, yeah. Everyone knows the "ding" is supposed to come *before* you
return the carriage.
Google posters could definitely use that.
--
If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go
to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get
political asylum. -- Reed Brody, special counsel
for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch
Snidely
2018-01-09 07:36:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Quinn C suggested that ...
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mark Brader
Post by occam
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
Well, yeah. Everyone knows the "ding" is supposed to come *before* you
return the carriage.
Google posters could definitely use that.
They can youtube it:


/dps
--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
occam
2018-01-09 11:28:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Quinn C suggested that ...
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
Well, yeah.  Everyone knows the "ding" is supposed to come *before* you
return the carriage.
Google posters could definitely use that.
http://youtu.be/g2LJ1i7222c
Thank you for that. Very entertaining. However, either the video is
mirror imaged, or the guy is using a left-hand typewriter. Are there
such things? The barrel is going right to left as he types, being pushed
to the right at the end of a line.
occam
2018-01-09 11:34:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Snidely
Quinn C suggested that ...
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
Well, yeah.  Everyone knows the "ding" is supposed to come *before* you
return the carriage.
Google posters could definitely use that.
http://youtu.be/g2LJ1i7222c
Thank you for that. Very entertaining. However, either the video is
mirror imaged, or the guy is using a left-hand typewriter. Are there
such things? The barrel is going right to left as he types, being pushed
to the right at the end of a line.
I take that back. It is the right way around. For some reason my memory
of mechanical typewriters said (falsely) that the barrel is forced back
using the right hand.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-09 11:58:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by occam
Post by Snidely
Quinn C suggested that ...
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
Well, yeah.  Everyone knows the "ding" is supposed to come *before* you
return the carriage.
Google posters could definitely use that.
http://youtu.be/g2LJ1i7222c
Thank you for that. Very entertaining. However, either the video is
mirror imaged, or the guy is using a left-hand typewriter. Are there
such things? The barrel is going right to left as he types, being pushed
to the right at the end of a line.
I take that back. It is the right way around. For some reason my memory
of mechanical typewriters said (falsely) that the barrel is forced back
using the right hand.
If I'd not thought about it for a few seconds I'd have had the same
false memory and I'm old enough to have used a mechanical for
work. I guess it comes from using the computer keyboard exclusively
for a couple of decades where the return key is, of course, on the right.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-09 12:35:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by occam
Post by Snidely
Quinn C suggested that ...
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard /sound/
like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the keyboard, including a
'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press. Extremely annoying to other users
in the room.
Well, yeah.  Everyone knows the "ding" is supposed to come *before* you
return the carriage.
Google posters could definitely use that.
http://youtu.be/g2LJ1i7222c
Thank you for that. Very entertaining. However, either the video is
mirror imaged, or the guy is using a left-hand typewriter. Are there
such things? The barrel is going right to left as he types, being pushed
to the right at the end of a line.
I take that back. It is the right way around. For some reason my memory
of mechanical typewriters said (falsely) that the barrel is forced back
using the right hand.
Strange! My memory said the same thing. I have a portable typewriter
(Olivetti Lettera 22) which I haven't used for decdes, so I got it out
and checked.

I wonder whether the memory has been affected by the fact that when
using a computer keyboard the equivalent of moving the barrel (carriage
return and linefeed) is done by hitting the Enter key with a finger of
the right hand?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
HVS
2018-01-09 12:57:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by occam
Post by occam
Post by Snidely
Quinn C suggested that ...
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
I remember using an add-on which would make a computer keyboard
/sound/ like a classic typewriter - the tapety-tap of the
keyboard, including a 'ding' at the end of a 'Return' press.
Extremely annoying to other users in the room.
Well, yeah.  Everyone knows the "ding" is supposed to come *before*
you return the carriage.
Google posters could definitely use that.
http://youtu.be/g2LJ1i7222c
Thank you for that. Very entertaining. However, either the video is
mirror imaged, or the guy is using a left-hand typewriter. Are there
such things? The barrel is going right to left as he types, being
pushed to the right at the end of a line.
I take that back. It is the right way around. For some reason my memory
of mechanical typewriters said (falsely) that the barrel is forced back
using the right hand.
Strange! My memory said the same thing.
+1; very odd. I learned to type when I was 11 or 12, and used
manual typewriters for many years, so it should have been ingrained.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I have a portable typewriter (Olivetti Lettera 22) which I haven't used
for decdes, so I got it out and checked.
I wonder whether the memory has been affected by the fact that when
using a computer keyboard the equivalent of moving the barrel (carriage
return and linefeed) is done by hitting the Enter key with a finger of
the right hand?
Sounds likely.

-- Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs),
indiscriminately mixed
Mark Brader
2018-01-09 13:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
For some reason my memory of mechanical typewriters said (falsely)
that the barrel is forced back using the right hand.
Strange! My memory said the same thing.
I wonder whether the memory has been affected by the fact that when
using a computer keyboard the equivalent of moving the barrel (carriage
return and linefeed) is done by hitting the Enter key with a finger of
the right hand?
Or you're thinking of typeball or daisy-wheel typewriters, like the
IBM Selectric, where the stationery remains stationary while typing a
line, and the carrier does return from right to left as the paper
advances.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Domine, defende nos
***@vex.net | Contra hos motores bos!" -- A. D. Godley

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Moylan
2018-01-07 10:33:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
They even sell electric cars
with speakers for the VROOOM-VROOM sound,
"The Marching Morons".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
occam
2018-01-07 12:15:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Richard Heathfield
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie).
Just so. But he'd run out of film in seconds if he kept doing it.
Post by Richard Heathfield
The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
No quotation marks needed; that would be a motor drive. And the past
tense is wrong too -- you *still* hear that sound effect whether it
makes sense or not.
They even sell electric cars
with speakers for the VROOOM-VROOM sound,
Just electric cars? I remember an old episode of Top Gear (with the
Clarkson team) where one car had a noise device - with settings to make
the car sound as one of several models e.g a 'Maserati', 'Porsche',
'Ferrari' etc.
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-06 11:38:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
A "burst" is when the camera is set to take multiple photographs with
the shutter release held down.... Action scenes are often taken with
the camera set to burst. It may result in six shots, and one of the
six - if the photographer is lucky - might have a capture that catches
the action just right.
Ah, more cheating. :-) I wondered if it might be that.
It occurs to me that "burst" has essentially the same meaning when the
shots are the kind taken with an applicable type of gun, rather than an
applicable type of camera. I wonder if the camera usage was coined
with that in mind.
I'm now on my second and third digital cameras. Without looking, the
best I can tell you is that they're either Canon or Nikon. They, and the
first one I had, all call this feature "sports mode", which suggests
that this is its intended use.
But the feature certainly dates back to analogue SLRs. No 1970s private
eye drama was complete without some chap in a suit firing off half a
dozen photographs in the course of a second or so from the safety of a
car across the road from the goodie (or, as the case might be, the
baddie). The sound of the camera's "motor" was most distinctive.
In the olden days they couldn't afford too,
but modern digital SLRs are quite limited
in the number of 'clicks' they can do.
(as low as 50 000 on some 'professional' cameras)

If you use burst mode all the time
(or long term time lapse)
you will literally wear out the camera.
Do check the shutter count when buying second hand,

Jan
ErrolC
2018-01-06 18:55:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 7 January 2018 00:38:20 UTC+13, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
Post by J. J. Lodder
In the olden days they couldn't afford too,
but modern digital SLRs are quite limited
in the number of 'clicks' they can do.
(as low as 50 000 on some 'professional' cameras)
If you use burst mode all the time
(or long term time lapse)
you will literally wear out the camera.
Do check the shutter count when buying second hand,
Normally when doing aviation photography my camera (a pro-sumer Nikon D7200)
is set to 3fps (frames per second). I increase it to the max 6fps in some
instances to increase the chances of getting pleasing interactions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/errolgc/33525426196/in/album-72157678319624773/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/errolgc/16932118021/in/album-72157651113533637/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/errolgc/33871994242/in/album-72157681109145120/

--
Errol Cavit
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-06 02:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by HVS
I liked the way that the horse picture catches the front hooves off the
ground -- undoubtedly done in a burst, but still impressive.
Undoubtedly what?
Is that a question of the construction of the sentence vs AUE standards,
or of "what" was done in "what"? The latter is answered by un-eliding
"taking the picture" and "sequence using the camera's burst mode or motor drive".

<URL:camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Film_advance>
(they shudda made "Motor Drive" an anchor as well as an H3)

/dps
b***@gmail.com
2018-01-07 20:09:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/77feqi6c7325ogk/camels.jpg?dl=0
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here first
Stefan Ram
2018-01-07 20:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm
going to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you
heard it here first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up?
Jackie: Uh huh!

(from "Roseanne")
Peter Moylan
2018-01-08 04:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Yates
2018-01-08 04:50:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:41:30 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Yup (the first). And the three "uh"s have voiced glottal stops. Kind
of a grunt.
Quinn C
2018-01-08 18:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:41:30 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Yup (the first). And the three "uh"s have voiced glottal stops. Kind
of a grunt.
It's pretty close to German, except that in German, the positive
one is usually done with a closed mouth (mhm), and the negative
one can be (not sure how to write that).

If other Englishes don't use this, is it a German influence in
AmE?
--
...an explanatory principle - like "gravity" or "instinct" -
really explains nothing. It’s a sort of conventional agreement
between scientists to stop trying to explain things at a
certain point. -- Gregory Bateson
Tak To
2018-01-08 22:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Richard Yates
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:41:30 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Yup (the first). And the three "uh"s have voiced glottal stops. Kind
of a grunt.
It's pretty close to German, except that in German, the positive
one is usually done with a closed mouth (mhm), and the negative
one can be (not sure how to write that).
If other Englishes don't use this, is it a German influence in
AmE?
Can someone post the pitch contours?
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Stefan Ram
2018-01-08 23:21:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
Can someone post the pitch contours?
I was surprised by the richness of the measured contours.

I thought it would be just "---" and "¯¯ __", but it is:

*** Saying "Mmh" and "Mh mh" in German ***
*** From the voice of Stefan Ram ***

"Mmh..." | "Mh ..." "... mh"
(meaning: "Yes, I listen.") | ("Mh mh!", meaning: "No.")
|
464 ms | 604 ms
|
130 Hz
.+ | .....
,X.| .,-:::,
=H.| -;+$$$/,
:X | ,/***@MMMX:.
/% | .:XM####M%,
.$/ | .-$M#***@H@M@:
,H: | ,/@MH$++%HM+
.=@- | .;X#H+:--=/@$ ,.
.,,. .,,=+@, | ,$M@+-,...-$$ .;=.
,;;-.. ..-;/%HX. | =MM$-. .;+ -X+-.
:XX/--,. ......-:+***@M+ | +MH:. ,= =M@/-... ....
+MMH+/:-. .,=,--=/$@MM#M: |.X@/, .. -M#H/-,,..,----,.
%M#***@H$+:,..-/%///+HM#MMMX, |.H%-. ,XMMH+;/:::////:-.
+HHM#MM@$:-:+***@HHH@M#MHX$/. |.X:. .;XMMHXH$$$HHHH$+- .
://XMM##M$+$HM#MMM#M@$/;:- |./, ,;XM#MMMMMMMMMMH;.,
,--;$***@M#MH@#MMMMMMX%:-,.. | =. ,/HMMM###MMMM##$-;.
...,:;+$@###MH$HXX$;=,. | . .-/$HH@@@***@M@/X,
.,,-:%@***@X/:/;::,. | .-://+++;::;+XMHM-
.,=%$%;-.-,,.. | .,-----,,,,-;@#M-
.=:=,. . 100 Hz ..... .,%#X,
... | ;H/.
| ,/-
| .-.

.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:.

This message was written to be viewed with a fixed-width
(monospaced) font and verbatim rendition of spaces and line
breaks. The two "T" in the following two lines should be
at the same horizontal position.

IIIIIII...........|||||||||||||||"T"
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM"T"

Lines with up to 78 characters should not be wrapped
automatically, so there should be exactly two lines
following this paragraph, where each line ends with an "I",
and the two "I" are directly on top of each other:

WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WWWW WI
WI

The following lines are indented, one exactly one space
more than the preceding line. When this message is viewed
or quoted, this property should be retained. The uppercase
I should be aligned directly on top of each other.

not indented I
indented by 1 space I
indented by 2 spaces I
indented by 3 spaces I
0123 I

not indented I

indented by 1 space I

indented by 2 spaces I

indented by 3 spaces I

0123 I
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-08 05:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Both syllables of the negative must be nasalized, one or both syllables of
the positive may be nasalized.

New episodes of *Roseanne*, with all the original cast (they say, which seems
problematic because Laurie Metcalf has been starring in an unbroken series of
plays on Broadway this season, and which Becky?), will begin to be aired in
February. Roseanne Barr (she's using the last name again) and John Goodman
presented together at the Golden Globes this evening, and both are looking
surprisingly svelte.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-08 11:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Both syllables of the negative must be nasalized, one or both syllables of
the positive may be nasalized.
New episodes of *Roseanne*, with all the original cast (they say, which seems
problematic because Laurie Metcalf has been starring in an unbroken series of
plays on Broadway this season, and which Becky?), will begin to be aired in
February. Roseanne Barr (she's using the last name again) and John Goodman
presented together at the Golden Globes this evening, and both are looking
surprisingly svelte.
Laurie Metcalf was in the cast photo so I assume she knows what she's
doing. Perhaps they'll do the show in New York?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-08 12:43:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Both syllables of the negative must be nasalized, one or both syllables of
the positive may be nasalized.
New episodes of *Roseanne*, with all the original cast (they say, which seems
problematic because Laurie Metcalf has been starring in an unbroken series of
plays on Broadway this season, and which Becky?), will begin to be aired in
February. Roseanne Barr (she's using the last name again) and John Goodman
presented together at the Golden Globes this evening, and both are looking
surprisingly svelte.
Laurie Metcalf was in the cast photo so I assume she knows what she's
doing. Perhaps they'll do the show in New York?
It was done months and months ago; they had promos last summer but it didn't make it onto
the fall schedule. In recent *BBT*s she's mostly been seen on Skype (as Christine Baranski
mostly was during the run of *The Good Wife*).
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-08 13:03:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Both syllables of the negative must be nasalized, one or both syllables of
the positive may be nasalized.
New episodes of *Roseanne*, with all the original cast (they say, which seems
problematic because Laurie Metcalf has been starring in an unbroken series of
plays on Broadway this season, and which Becky?), will begin to be aired in
February. Roseanne Barr (she's using the last name again) and John Goodman
presented together at the Golden Globes this evening, and both are looking
surprisingly svelte.
Laurie Metcalf was in the cast photo so I assume she knows what she's
doing. Perhaps they'll do the show in New York?
It was done months and months ago; they had promos last summer but it didn't make it onto
the fall schedule. In recent *BBT*s she's mostly been seen on Skype (as Christine Baranski
mostly was during the run of *The Good Wife*).
Further research tells me they wrapped filming on December 15th.
I'd hardly call that months and months ago. As the series order was
only confirmed in May, I very much doubt that anyone was
anticipating it being in the Fall schedule. It is due to premiere on
27th March.

As both Metcalf and Baranski play characters in BBT who live
long distances from the main characters it would be rather
surprising if they were to appear any other way than via
Skype for the most part would it not?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-08 13:14:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Both syllables of the negative must be nasalized, one or both syllables of
the positive may be nasalized.
New episodes of *Roseanne*, with all the original cast (they say, which seems
problematic because Laurie Metcalf has been starring in an unbroken series of
plays on Broadway this season, and which Becky?), will begin to be aired in
February. Roseanne Barr (she's using the last name again) and John Goodman
presented together at the Golden Globes this evening, and both are looking
surprisingly svelte.
Laurie Metcalf was in the cast photo so I assume she knows what she's
doing. Perhaps they'll do the show in New York?
It was done months and months ago; they had promos last summer but it didn't make it onto
the fall schedule. In recent *BBT*s she's mostly been seen on Skype (as Christine Baranski
mostly was during the run of *The Good Wife*).
Further research tells me they wrapped filming on December 15th.
I'd hardly call that months and months ago. As the series order was
only confirmed in May, I very much doubt that anyone was
anticipating it being in the Fall schedule. It is due to premiere on
27th March.
TV Guide was. The networks -- ABC in this case -- would jump at the chance to
get _anything_ with Roseanne, and a reboot of one of the greatest hits in TV
history was clearly a no-brainer for the execs. If they made an initial order
of 13 episodes wrapping in December, they were shooting from August on, which
I think was when Laurie was doing an 8-times-a-week play.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
As both Metcalf and Baranski play characters in BBT who live
long distances from the main characters it would be rather
surprising if they were to appear any other way than via
Skype for the most part would it not?
They were apparently moms of means and showed up in Pasadena fairly often in
earlier seasons when they didn't have other commitments. That requires almost
a week's activity, if they participated in table reads, blocking rehearsals,
etc.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-08 14:43:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Both syllables of the negative must be nasalized, one or both syllables of
the positive may be nasalized.
New episodes of *Roseanne*, with all the original cast (they say, which seems
problematic because Laurie Metcalf has been starring in an unbroken series of
plays on Broadway this season, and which Becky?), will begin to be aired in
February. Roseanne Barr (she's using the last name again) and John Goodman
presented together at the Golden Globes this evening, and both are looking
surprisingly svelte.
Laurie Metcalf was in the cast photo so I assume she knows what she's
doing. Perhaps they'll do the show in New York?
It was done months and months ago; they had promos last summer but it didn't make it onto
the fall schedule. In recent *BBT*s she's mostly been seen on Skype (as Christine Baranski
mostly was during the run of *The Good Wife*).
Further research tells me they wrapped filming on December 15th.
I'd hardly call that months and months ago. As the series order was
only confirmed in May, I very much doubt that anyone was
anticipating it being in the Fall schedule. It is due to premiere on
27th March.
TV Guide was. The networks -- ABC in this case -- would jump at the chance to
get _anything_ with Roseanne, and a reboot of one of the greatest hits in TV
history was clearly a no-brainer for the execs. If they made an initial order
of 13 episodes wrapping in December, they were shooting from August on, which
I think was when Laurie was doing an 8-times-a-week play.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
As both Metcalf and Baranski play characters in BBT who live
long distances from the main characters it would be rather
surprising if they were to appear any other way than via
Skype for the most part would it not?
They were apparently moms of means and showed up in Pasadena fairly often in
earlier seasons when they didn't have other commitments. That requires almost
a week's activity, if they participated in table reads, blocking rehearsals,
etc.
"Fairly often" is a bit of a stretch. Metcalf has 13 credits (one of which is voice only) and Baranski 12 total over the 11 series and in both cases that includes 3 consecutive episodes in the crossover from series 9 to 10. Also Good Wife started the same year as BBT so all Baranski's appearances occurred alongside that commitment prior to last year.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-08 14:45:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by b***@gmail.com
in honor of the National Geographic photo of the camels, I'm going
to coin the expression "casting a long shadow" — you heard it here
first
Jackie: You know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one
step. Becky: Awesome! Did you make that up? Jackie: Uh huh!
(from "Roseanne")
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
Both syllables of the negative must be nasalized, one or both syllables of
the positive may be nasalized.
New episodes of *Roseanne*, with all the original cast (they say, which seems
problematic because Laurie Metcalf has been starring in an unbroken series of
plays on Broadway this season, and which Becky?), will begin to be aired in
February. Roseanne Barr (she's using the last name again) and John Goodman
presented together at the Golden Globes this evening, and both are looking
surprisingly svelte.
Laurie Metcalf was in the cast photo so I assume she knows what she's
doing. Perhaps they'll do the show in New York?
It was done months and months ago; they had promos last summer but it didn't make it onto
the fall schedule. In recent *BBT*s she's mostly been seen on Skype (as Christine Baranski
mostly was during the run of *The Good Wife*).
Further research tells me they wrapped filming on December 15th.
I'd hardly call that months and months ago. As the series order was
only confirmed in May, I very much doubt that anyone was
anticipating it being in the Fall schedule. It is due to premiere on
27th March.
TV Guide was. The networks -- ABC in this case -- would jump at the chance to
get _anything_ with Roseanne, and a reboot of one of the greatest hits in TV
history was clearly a no-brainer for the execs. If they made an initial order
of 13 episodes wrapping in December, they were shooting from August on, which
I think was when Laurie was doing an 8-times-a-week play.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
As both Metcalf and Baranski play characters in BBT who live
long distances from the main characters it would be rather
surprising if they were to appear any other way than via
Skype for the most part would it not?
They were apparently moms of means and showed up in Pasadena fairly often in
earlier seasons when they didn't have other commitments. That requires almost
a week's activity, if they participated in table reads, blocking rehearsals,
etc.
"Fairly often" is a bit of a stretch. Metcalf has 13 credits
(one of which is voice only) and Baranski 12 total over
the 11 series and in both cases that includes 3 consecutive
episodes in the crossover from series 9 to 10. Also Good Wife
started the same year as BBT so all Baranski's appearances
occurred alongside that commitment prior to last year.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-08 16:00:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
New episodes of *Roseanne*, with all the original cast (they say, which seems
problematic because Laurie Metcalf has been starring in an unbroken series of
plays on Broadway this season, and which Becky?), will begin to be aired in
February. Roseanne Barr (she's using the last name again) and John Goodman
presented together at the Golden Globes this evening, and both are looking
surprisingly svelte.
Laurie Metcalf was in the cast photo so I assume she knows what she's
doing. Perhaps they'll do the show in New York?
It was done months and months ago; they had promos last summer but it didn't make it onto
the fall schedule. In recent *BBT*s she's mostly been seen on Skype (as Christine Baranski
mostly was during the run of *The Good Wife*).
Further research tells me they wrapped filming on December 15th.
I'd hardly call that months and months ago. As the series order was
only confirmed in May, I very much doubt that anyone was
anticipating it being in the Fall schedule. It is due to premiere on
27th March.
TV Guide was. The networks -- ABC in this case -- would jump at the chance to
get _anything_ with Roseanne, and a reboot of one of the greatest hits in TV
history was clearly a no-brainer for the execs. If they made an initial order
of 13 episodes wrapping in December, they were shooting from August on, which
I think was when Laurie was doing an 8-times-a-week play.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
As both Metcalf and Baranski play characters in BBT who live
long distances from the main characters it would be rather
surprising if they were to appear any other way than via
Skype for the most part would it not?
They were apparently moms of means and showed up in Pasadena fairly often in
earlier seasons when they didn't have other commitments. That requires almost
a week's activity, if they participated in table reads, blocking rehearsals,
etc.
"Fairly often" is a bit of a stretch. Metcalf has 13 credits
(one of which is voice only) and Baranski 12 total over
the 11 series and in both cases that includes 3 consecutive
episodes in the crossover from series 9 to 10. Also Good Wife
started the same year as BBT so all Baranski's appearances
occurred alongside that commitment prior to last year.
I was astonished to discover that Paul Lynde appeared as Uncle Arthur in only a dozen or so episodes in the run of *Bewitched*. Great character actors cast a
long shadow. BTW they are "seasons"; only now is there a new series, *Young
Sheldon*, and while there is an intergenerational crossover -- Laurie Metcalf's
daughter plays Mary as the younger mother -- the only actual crossover is Jim
Parsons's [hah!] voiceover as Memory. But that role has diminished greatly over
the half-dozen episodes, such that it was rather jarring when it came in at
the last scene of the latest episode. (Maybe as producer he realized that his
contribution as actor was not needed; and even in this short time *Young Sheldon*
seems to have diverged from some of the anecdotes we'd heard for ten years.)
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2018-01-08 17:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Incorrigible off-topic drooler PeteY "Genital Herpes" Daniels wrote:
[I snipped again a shitload of boooring off-topic PeteY-shit
and Madrigal-merde.]
"Look who's posting off-topic irrelevant shit now."
--PeteY Daniels, 22 Nov 2017

"Since this 'newsgroup [is] dedicated to the Usage of English,'
what the fuck is this shit doing here?" --PeteY, 25 Mar 2017

See the incorrigible off-topic drooler:
Loading Image...
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
RH Draney
2018-01-08 20:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I was astonished to discover that Paul Lynde appeared as Uncle Arthur in only a dozen or so episodes in the run of *Bewitched*.
Howard Morris appeared as Ernest T Bass in only eight episodes of "The
Andy Griffith Show", an average of once per season for the entire
run...that's the same number of appearances as Allan Melvin, who played
a different character each time he showed up....r
Joy Beeson
2018-01-09 04:18:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:41:30 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
That unbeggingly raises a question about AmE that I never got around to
asking. Is it true that "uh huh" means "yes" and "uh uh" means "no", or
is it the other way around?
For yes, the second "uh" is higher pitched. For no, the grunts are
equal, and more sharply defined, perhaps shorter in duration.

I find it difficult to say "uh uh" without an abbreviated shake of the
head. I can say "umhuh" without dipping and lifting my chin, but it
seems natural to do so.

Oh, there's an emphatic uh-uh: hnnn-hh! Seldom issued in isolation,
and usually accompanied by gestures.

And now I feel like the centipede who ended up on his back with his
legs tied in knots after being asked how he managed so many. I'm not
sure of ANYTHING.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Stefan Ram
2018-01-09 06:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joy Beeson
For yes, the second "uh" is higher pitched. For no, the grunts are
equal, and more sharply defined, perhaps shorter in duration.
I analyzed "Jackie" (Laurie Metcalf) as she says "uh hu":

The "uh" starts at 180 Hz and ends at 165 Hz. Duration: 123 ms.

The "hu" has three parts of approximate equal duration:

- It starts higher than the "uh", at 211 Hz and then
slightly decays to 197 Hz. The whole utterance already
sounds like "uh hu" at this point. What follows might
be an idiosyncrasy, maybe gender-specific?

- then it seems to make a fast movement towards
a higher pitch. This is so fast that the software
cannot trace the frequency during this movement.

- The movement seems to end at 479 Hz, from where it
then slightly decreases to 469 Hz and then ends.

Total duration of the "hu": 182 ms.

Total duration of the "uh hu": 305 ms.
Stefan Ram
2018-01-09 07:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stefan Ram
The "uh" starts at 180 Hz and ends at 165 Hz. Duration: 123 ms.
After listening again to the sound in slow motion, it seems
to me that my description contained too many details:

One can simply say: In the confirming "uh hu", the pitch
of the "uh" is slightly decreasing, and then the "hu" starts
clearly higher than the "uh" and after a short delay start
to increase rapidly.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-05 16:40:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
HVS
2018-01-05 18:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:40:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
It's probably very well known, but I first saw it yesterday, and was
immediately taken with it.
Ross
2018-01-05 19:45:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:40:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish
I'd taken.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by HVS
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
It's probably very well known, but I first saw it yesterday, and was
immediately taken with it.
I like the photo, but I like "eventing event" even more.
Snidely
2018-01-06 09:08:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by HVS
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:40:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd
taken. (It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
It's probably very well known, but I first saw it yesterday, and was
immediately taken with it.
I like the photo, but I like "eventing event" even more.
This photo was also taken at an "eventing event" ... Sydney 2000, so
not too far from you. Note that the photo catches the horse with all
feet off the ground.

<URL:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/307230005821555509>

And this, also:

<URL:Loading Image...>
Well, maybe not ... that might be the "cross country event".

And this one has the horse 3/4 off the ground:
<URL:Loading Image...>
but this is a less eventful event ... "dressage", where precision is
more important that speed or elevation.

/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
m***@att.net
2018-01-06 19:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Ross
Post by HVS
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:40:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd
taken. (It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
It's probably very well known, but I first saw it yesterday, and was
immediately taken with it.
I like the photo, but I like "eventing event" even more.
This photo was also taken at an "eventing event" ... Sydney 2000, so
not too far from you. Note that the photo catches the horse with all
feet off the ground.
<URL:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/307230005821555509>
<URL:https://www.an-eventful-life.com.au/files/editorial/2016/Olympics/Stuart-Tinney-Jeepster-Sydney2000-Barbara-Thomson.jpg>
Well, maybe not ... that might be the "cross country event".
<URL:http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9b203ebf837a4bb4a5d9dc2861b000e9/olympic-games-sydney-2000-elena-sidneva-rus-riding-podkhod-h66nnr.jpg>
but this is a less eventful event ... "dressage", where precision is
more important that speed or elevation.
/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
Not being much of an equestrian event fan, I supposed the term eventing
might have been a spellcheck mis-correction of equestrian. I see what it
is, and apparently 'eventing' is referred to as an event by people who do
it. But isn't is called eventing because they do the 3 common equestrian
events? Does it really make sense to talk about an eventing event?
Tony Cooper
2018-01-06 20:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@att.net
Post by Snidely
Post by Ross
Post by HVS
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:40:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd
taken. (It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
It's probably very well known, but I first saw it yesterday, and was
immediately taken with it.
I like the photo, but I like "eventing event" even more.
This photo was also taken at an "eventing event" ... Sydney 2000, so
not too far from you. Note that the photo catches the horse with all
feet off the ground.
<URL:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/307230005821555509>
<URL:https://www.an-eventful-life.com.au/files/editorial/2016/Olympics/Stuart-Tinney-Jeepster-Sydney2000-Barbara-Thomson.jpg>
Well, maybe not ... that might be the "cross country event".
<URL:http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9b203ebf837a4bb4a5d9dc2861b000e9/olympic-games-sydney-2000-elena-sidneva-rus-riding-podkhod-h66nnr.jpg>
but this is a less eventful event ... "dressage", where precision is
more important that speed or elevation.
/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
Not being much of an equestrian event fan, I supposed the term eventing
might have been a spellcheck mis-correction of equestrian. I see what it
is, and apparently 'eventing' is referred to as an event by people who do
it. But isn't is called eventing because they do the 3 common equestrian
events? Does it really make sense to talk about an eventing event?
Since they are usually judged, you could call them eventing
competitions. However, they are usually described as "eventings".

The sentence in question could be written as "This photo was also
taken at one of the eventings at Sydney 2000..." pr "This photo was
taken at an equestrian event at Sydney 2000".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-06 23:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@att.net
Post by Snidely
Post by Ross
Post by HVS
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:40:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd
taken. (It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
It's probably very well known, but I first saw it yesterday, and was
immediately taken with it.
I like the photo, but I like "eventing event" even more.
This photo was also taken at an "eventing event" ... Sydney 2000, so
not too far from you. Note that the photo catches the horse with all
feet off the ground.
<URL:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/307230005821555509>
<URL:https://www.an-eventful-life.com.au/files/editorial/2016/Olympics/Stuart-Tinney-Jeepster-Sydney2000-Barbara-Thomson.jpg>
Well, maybe not ... that might be the "cross country event".
<URL:http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9b203ebf837a4bb4a5d9dc2861b000e9/olympic-games-sydney-2000-elena-sidneva-rus-riding-podkhod-h66nnr.jpg>
but this is a less eventful event ... "dressage", where precision is
more important that speed or elevation.
/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
Not being much of an equestrian event fan, I supposed the term eventing
might have been a spellcheck mis-correction of equestrian. I see what it
is, and apparently 'eventing' is referred to as an event by people who do
it. But isn't is called eventing because they do the 3 common equestrian
events?
Those are usually referred to a equestrian "sports" or "disciplines".
The combination of them is known as "horse trials" [1] which may be "a
three day event", "a two day event" or "a one day event", when the 3
disciplines are spread over 3, 2 or 1 days. The event is the whole of
what the OED describes as a "tripartite equestrian competition".
Post by m***@att.net
Does it really make sense to talk about an eventing event?
Yes. At least playfully.

The word "eventing" seems to be a colloquialism derived from the older
phrase "the day event". It means [OED]:

The act or practice of competing in horse trials (one-, two-, or
three-day events).

So an eventing event is an event which is an eventing competition.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-06 23:28:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 23:17:23 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by m***@att.net
Post by Snidely
Post by Ross
Post by HVS
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:40:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd
taken. (It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
It's probably very well known, but I first saw it yesterday, and was
immediately taken with it.
I like the photo, but I like "eventing event" even more.
This photo was also taken at an "eventing event" ... Sydney 2000, so
not too far from you. Note that the photo catches the horse with all
feet off the ground.
<URL:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/307230005821555509>
<URL:https://www.an-eventful-life.com.au/files/editorial/2016/Olympics/Stuart-Tinney-Jeepster-Sydney2000-Barbara-Thomson.jpg>
Well, maybe not ... that might be the "cross country event".
<URL:http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9b203ebf837a4bb4a5d9dc2861b000e9/olympic-games-sydney-2000-elena-sidneva-rus-riding-podkhod-h66nnr.jpg>
but this is a less eventful event ... "dressage", where precision is
more important that speed or elevation.
/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
Not being much of an equestrian event fan, I supposed the term eventing
might have been a spellcheck mis-correction of equestrian. I see what it
is, and apparently 'eventing' is referred to as an event by people who do
it. But isn't is called eventing because they do the 3 common equestrian
events?
Those are usually referred to a equestrian "sports" or "disciplines".
The combination of them is known as "horse trials" [1] which may be "a
three day event", "a two day event" or "a one day event", when the 3
disciplines are spread over 3, 2 or 1 days. The event is the whole of
what the OED describes as a "tripartite equestrian competition".
Post by m***@att.net
Does it really make sense to talk about an eventing event?
Yes. At least playfully.
The word "eventing" seems to be a colloquialism derived from the older
...phrase "three day event"...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The act or practice of competing in horse trials (one-, two-, or
three-day events).
So an eventing event is an event which is an eventing competition.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
2018-01-07 02:21:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Ross
Post by HVS
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:40:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd
taken. (It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
It's probably very well known, but I first saw it yesterday, and was
immediately taken with it.
I like the photo, but I like "eventing event" even more.
This photo was also taken at an "eventing event" ... Sydney 2000, so
not too far from you. Note that the photo catches the horse with all
feet off the ground.
The series of photographs by Eadweard Muybridge provided evidence that
all four of a horse's hooves are off the ground at some point when the
horse is galloping. That evidence was a big deal in the late 1800s.

It's not a big deal, though, with a modern camera. Muybridge's
project involved 12 cameras and trip wires. Any modern camera with a
reasonably fast shutter speed setting can do this.

Loading Image...

The above photo is a young boy in a youth rodeo bulldogging event. The
photo below is a trotter on a training track and not going that fast.

Loading Image...
I've never had a chance to photograph a flat racer at full gallop on a
track.

Muybridge's project started when he was hired by Leland Stanford in
1872. Stanford had made a bet that all four of a galloping horse's
hooves are off the ground simultaneously. The first series was
inconclusive and Muybridge's photography career was halted for a bit
while he went on trial for the murder of his wife's lover. He was
acquitted and went on to eventually come up with a set of photographs
that proved the point.

Loading Image...
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Snidely
2018-01-07 07:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Snidely
Post by Ross
Post by HVS
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:40:41 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd
taken. (It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
You are not alone in liking that photo.
It's probably very well known, but I first saw it yesterday, and was
immediately taken with it.
I like the photo, but I like "eventing event" even more.
This photo was also taken at an "eventing event" ... Sydney 2000, so
not too far from you. Note that the photo catches the horse with all
feet off the ground.
The series of photographs by Eadweard Muybridge provided evidence that
all four of a horse's hooves are off the ground at some point when the
horse is galloping. That evidence was a big deal in the late 1800s.
My comment was a bit on the wry side.

/dps
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Snidely
2018-01-06 10:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
HVS is guilty of <***@178.63.61.145> as of 1/5/2018
7:58:00 AM
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
When my daughters were in the hunter/jumper crowd, I managed to get a
number of photos 1 frame too late, with the horse already descending.

But I digress. Here's another great shadow picture.
<URL:Loading Image...>

/dps
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
J. J. Lodder
2018-01-06 12:21:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
7:58:00 AM
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
When my daughters were in the hunter/jumper crowd, I managed to get a
number of photos 1 frame too late, with the horse already descending.
But I digress. Here's another great shadow picture.
<URL:http://autooverload.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2-1.jpg>
Someone should do a time lapse on this one
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/7kyubi7/11370530875>

Unknown to Amercans, who don't know about the real West,
Lucky Luke is the cowboy who can shoot faster than his shadow,

Jan
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-06 14:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 7:21:12 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
Unknown to Amercans, who don't know about the real West,
Of course we do. We read about it in Karl May.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Lucky Luke is the cowboy who can shoot faster than his shadow,
--
Jerry Friedman
David Kleinecke
2018-01-06 18:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
Unknown to Amercans, who don't know about the real West,
Of course we do. We read about it in Karl May.
One can go further west than Jerry but that west is not
as west as New Mexico. Except, of course, to Puccini.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-06 20:37:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by J. J. Lodder
Unknown to Amercans, who don't know about the real West,
Of course we do. We read about it in Karl May.
One can go further west than Jerry but that west is not
as west as New Mexico. Except, of course, to Puccini.
David Belasco, actually. A bona fide American playwright.

"Drifting a bit," the great Orientalist and Aramaist Theodor Nöldeke died
peacefully in his sleep in 1930 at the age of 96 with a volume of Karl May
beside him.
Tak To
2018-01-07 04:05:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?

- The horse's nose is slightly to the right (picture right) of
its shadow. The romp is quite a bit to the right of its shadow.

- The shadows of the spectators cast to the right. The shadow of
the horse (and the jockey) casts to the left.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Richard Yates
2018-01-07 05:10:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
- The horse's nose is slightly to the right (picture right) of
its shadow. The romp is quite a bit to the right of its shadow.
- The shadows of the spectators cast to the right. The shadow of
the horse (and the jockey) casts to the left.
Clearly Photoshopped. In addition to the above observations, the
shadow of horse is narrower than the horse and is an undistorted
silhouette. There is no angle of the sun and placement of the camera
that would make it look that way.
Richard Yates
2018-01-07 05:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0800, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
- The horse's nose is slightly to the right (picture right) of
its shadow. The romp is quite a bit to the right of its shadow.
- The shadows of the spectators cast to the right. The shadow of
the horse (and the jockey) casts to the left.
Clearly Photoshopped. In addition to the above observations, the
shadow of horse is narrower than the horse and is an undistorted
silhouette. There is no angle of the sun and placement of the camera
that would make it look that way.
Hmmm, I found some others from the same angle and the sources seem to
be legitimate. Need to rethink this.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-07 06:07:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:26:36 -0800, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0800, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
- The horse's nose is slightly to the right (picture right) of
its shadow. The romp is quite a bit to the right of its shadow.
- The shadows of the spectators cast to the right. The shadow of
the horse (and the jockey) casts to the left.
Clearly Photoshopped. In addition to the above observations, the
shadow of horse is narrower than the horse and is an undistorted
silhouette. There is no angle of the sun and placement of the camera
that would make it look that way.
Hmmm, I found some others from the same angle and the sources seem to
be legitimate. Need to rethink this.
The photo was taken by Adrian Dennis and is available on Getty Images.
The horse is Twizzel and the rider is William Coleman of the US. The
photograph won the "Photograph of the Year" award: "His photograph
from the Olympic Equestrian cross-country has been named Photograph of
the Year (The Press Photographer’s Year 2013). The photograph won 1st
Place at the International SportFolio Festival (France) and 1st Place
Olympic Feature in the US’ National Press Photographers Association’s
Best of Photojournalism 2013.

Adrian Dennis is a highly respected photographer with a number of
awards and honors. Getty Images is not an outfit that will buy a pup.

http://adriandennis.com/about/ (The photograph can been seen by going
to the Olympics link and going through the slideshow.)

The real crime here is that image linked was cropped to eliminate
attribution. The original shows: "Adrian Dennis for AFP" (AFP =
Agence France-Presse where he was on staff)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Stefan Ram
2018-01-07 06:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
to the Olympics link and going through the slideshow.)
us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uplo

ads/2006/09/camelshadows.jpg
Mark Brader
2018-01-07 09:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
Clearly Photoshopped.
Hmmm... Need to rethink this.
The photo was taken by Adrian Dennis and is available on Getty Images.
The horse is Twizzel and the rider is William Coleman of the US. The
photograph won the "Photograph of the Year" award: "His photograph
from the Olympic Equestrian cross-country has been named Photograph of
the Year (The Press Photographer's Year 2013). The photograph won 1st
Place at the International SportFolio Festival (France) and 1st Place
Olympic Feature in the US' National Press Photographers Association's
Best of Photojournalism 2013.
Adrian Dennis is a highly respected photographer with a number of
awards and honors. Getty Images is not an outfit that will buy a pup.
Thanks.
Post by Tony Cooper
http://adriandennis.com/about/ (The photograph can been seen by going
to the Olympics link and going through the slideshow.)
The image in the slideshow is at:

Loading Image...
Post by Tony Cooper
The real crime here is that image linked was cropped to eliminate
attribution.
It may have been.
Post by Tony Cooper
The original shows: "Adrian Dennis for AFP"...
No, the version in Dennis's slideshow has had those words (as well as
a white border) *added*. Therefore it clearly is *not* the original,
but has been modified (legitimately) by him or by AFP to do add this.

Dennis's slideshow version also has significantly better color
rendition than the version Harvey posted, suggesting that Dennis
postprocessed it to enhance the color. (Also legitimate, but it
does make it inappropriate to call it the original.)

As well as the general appearance, look at the white saddle in the
two versions. In the one Harvey posted, a small dark rectangle can
be seen the shady side (above the rider in the photo), possibly the
place where the strap retains the saddle in place. There is also
a dark outline just inside the edge of the saddle. But the other
side (below the rider) is washed out by the sunlight. In Dennis'
slideshow version, though, these markings are visible on both sides
(above and below the rider).

I carefully compared the difference in cropping of the two versions.
It does look as though the one Harvey posted was cropped from one
that had a credit line addeed in the same place as in Dennis's
slideshow version, but it clearly wasn't taken from that version.
In fact it looks like a degraded copy of this one that TinEye found
on AFP's web site:

Loading Image...

The cropping appears to be identical, and that last version has color
quality in between the two others.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Good Lord, it's not a locomotive.
***@vex.net | --Tony Cooper

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-07 15:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
Clearly Photoshopped.
Hmmm... Need to rethink this.
The photo was taken by Adrian Dennis and is available on Getty Images.
The horse is Twizzel and the rider is William Coleman of the US. The
photograph won the "Photograph of the Year" award: "His photograph
from the Olympic Equestrian cross-country has been named Photograph of
the Year (The Press Photographer's Year 2013). The photograph won 1st
Place at the International SportFolio Festival (France) and 1st Place
Olympic Feature in the US' National Press Photographers Association's
Best of Photojournalism 2013.
Adrian Dennis is a highly respected photographer with a number of
awards and honors. Getty Images is not an outfit that will buy a pup.
Thanks.
Post by Tony Cooper
http://adriandennis.com/about/ (The photograph can been seen by going
to the Olympics link and going through the slideshow.)
http://adriandennis.com/wp-content/uploads/slideshow-gallery/OLYMPIC-HORSE-SHADOW-1.jpg
Post by Tony Cooper
The real crime here is that image linked was cropped to eliminate
attribution.
It may have been.
Post by Tony Cooper
The original shows: "Adrian Dennis for AFP"...
No, the version in Dennis's slideshow has had those words (as well as
a white border) *added*. Therefore it clearly is *not* the original,
but has been modified (legitimately) by him or by AFP to do add this.
Dennis's slideshow version also has significantly better color
rendition than the version Harvey posted, suggesting that Dennis
postprocessed it to enhance the color. (Also legitimate, but it
does make it inappropriate to call it the original.)
I wouldn't make that assumption. Instead, consider where Harvey's
version originated. It may have been a scan or a grab from a low
resolution copy...a download of an uploaded download. Then there is
the colorspace change possibility. Images that were CMYK for magazine
use converted to sRGB Adobe RGB can flatten out and lose color and
detail so a copy of a magazine version will not be the same as the
original. Resolution loss is detail loss.

There are two ways to look at it: 1) The slideshow version was
enhanced, or 2) the copy has degraded.

I favor 2) because photojournalists at Dennis's level are very careful
about not "enhancing" a photograph. An award-winning photographer's
work is scrutinized by his peers and the professional organizations to
which he belongs. All it takes is one report saying the stadium dirt
is not that color to ruin a reputation.

Ask Steve McCurry. He's the photographer who took that famous
photograph of the Afghan girl that appeared on the cover of _National
Geographic_. He's been accused of enhancing the photo, and it has
killed his reputation.

McCurry is the Kellyanne Conway of the photojournalist world. He has
described photo enhancement as "visual storytelling", and that - to
the photojournalist world - is "alternative facts".

As to the crop, it took a great deal of hunting on my part to find a
copy of the photo with the attribution. Denying attribution is wrong,
and - in some cases - a copyright violation.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
HVS
2018-01-07 17:24:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
Clearly Photoshopped.
Hmmm... Need to rethink this.
The photo was taken by Adrian Dennis and is available on Getty Images.
The horse is Twizzel and the rider is William Coleman of the US. The
photograph won the "Photograph of the Year" award: "His photograph
from the Olympic Equestrian cross-country has been named Photograph of
the Year (The Press Photographer's Year 2013). The photograph won 1st
Place at the International SportFolio Festival (France) and 1st Place
Olympic Feature in the US' National Press Photographers Association's
Best of Photojournalism 2013.
Adrian Dennis is a highly respected photographer with a number of
awards and honors. Getty Images is not an outfit that will buy a pup.
Thanks.
Post by Tony Cooper
http://adriandennis.com/about/ (The photograph can been seen by going
to the Olympics link and going through the slideshow.)
http://adriandennis.com/wp-content/uploads/slideshow-gallery/OLYMPIC-HOR
SE-SHADOW-1.jpg
Post by Tony Cooper
The real crime here is that image linked was cropped to eliminate
attribution.
It may have been.
Post by Tony Cooper
The original shows: "Adrian Dennis for AFP"...
No, the version in Dennis's slideshow has had those words (as well as
a white border) *added*. Therefore it clearly is *not* the original,
but has been modified (legitimately) by him or by AFP to do add this.
Dennis's slideshow version also has significantly better color
rendition than the version Harvey posted, suggesting that Dennis
postprocessed it to enhance the color. (Also legitimate, but it
does make it inappropriate to call it the original.)
I wouldn't make that assumption. Instead, consider where Harvey's
version originated. It may have been a scan or a grab from a low
resolution copy...a download of an uploaded download. Then there is
the colorspace change possibility. Images that were CMYK for magazine
use converted to sRGB Adobe RGB can flatten out and lose color and
detail so a copy of a magazine version will not be the same as the
original. Resolution loss is detail loss.
There are two ways to look at it: 1) The slideshow version was
enhanced, or 2) the copy has degraded.
I favor 2) because photojournalists at Dennis's level are very careful
about not "enhancing" a photograph.
That's undoubtedly right: I've posted the source and the capture sequence
(a high-falutin' phrase for "right click > save image") in response to
Mark's post.

-snip-
Post by Tony Cooper
As to the crop, it took a great deal of hunting on my part to find a
copy of the photo with the attribution. Denying attribution is wrong,
and - in some cases - a copyright violation.
Presumably online news sites should either make the image "non-saveable" or
include the attribution as part of the image (rather than just on the same
page), but I don't think many sites do that.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Mark Brader
2018-01-08 05:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Dennis's slideshow version also has significantly better color
rendition than the version Harvey posted, suggesting that Dennis
postprocessed it to enhance the color. (Also legitimate, but it
does make it inappropriate to call it the original.)
I wouldn't make that assumption. Instead, consider where Harvey's
version originated. It may have been a scan or a grab from a low
resolution copy...a download of an uploaded download. Then there is
the colorspace change possibility...
Good points.
Post by Tony Cooper
There are two ways to look at it: 1) The slideshow version was
enhanced, or 2) the copy has degraded.
I favor 2) because photojournalists at Dennis's level are very careful
about not "enhancing" a photograph.
I am delighted to hear it; I was assuming that my attitude was obsolete
and they would feel the same way as you've said you do about your own
(non-journalistic) photos.
Post by Tony Cooper
Ask Steve McCurry. He's the photographer who took that famous
photograph of the Afghan girl that appeared on the cover of _National
Geographic_. He's been accused of enhancing the photo, and it has
killed his reputation.
Oh no -- say it ain't so!
--
Mark Brader "In fact I am thinking of adopting a religion
Toronto that forbids the use of non-electric tools."
***@vex.net --Theodore W. Gray

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-08 06:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Dennis's slideshow version also has significantly better color
rendition than the version Harvey posted, suggesting that Dennis
postprocessed it to enhance the color. (Also legitimate, but it
does make it inappropriate to call it the original.)
I wouldn't make that assumption. Instead, consider where Harvey's
version originated. It may have been a scan or a grab from a low
resolution copy...a download of an uploaded download. Then there is
the colorspace change possibility...
Good points.
Post by Tony Cooper
There are two ways to look at it: 1) The slideshow version was
enhanced, or 2) the copy has degraded.
I favor 2) because photojournalists at Dennis's level are very careful
about not "enhancing" a photograph.
I am delighted to hear it; I was assuming that my attitude was obsolete
and they would feel the same way as you've said you do about your own
(non-journalistic) photos.
Dennis is a photojournalist and subscribes to a level of ethics that I
am not required to adhere to. I do Photoshop images, but I have my
own personal level of ethics. In my baseball shots, for example, I'll
clone out a distracting element like a trash can that does not alter
the reality of the sport aspect of the shot but does improve the
visual aspect of the shot. But, I would never Photoshop a ball into
the image to make it look like the ball is coming off the bat or into
the glove. But my shots are primarily for family records and done for
my own enjoyment.

In this shot, there was a backpack on the bench at the back, several
bits of litter, and a couple of empty cans on the ground that were
taken out in post.

Loading Image...
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2018-01-08 11:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
I am delighted to hear it; I was assuming that my attitude was obsolete
and they would feel the same way as you've said you do about your own
(non-journalistic) photos.
Dennis is a photojournalist and subscribes to a level of ethics that I
am not required to adhere to.
I believe I was acknowledging that.
Post by Tony Cooper
In my baseball shots, for example, I'll clone out a distracting
element like a trash can that does not alter the reality of the sport
aspect of the shot but does improve the visual aspect of the shot.
But, I would never Photoshop a ball into the image to make it look
like the ball is coming off the bat or into the glove.
Now we know.
Post by Tony Cooper
In this shot, there was a backpack on the bench at the back, several
bits of litter, and a couple of empty cans on the ground that were
taken out in post.
https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports-and-Games/i-tGgK496/0/f604bcf4/L/2009-02-10-1-L.jpg
And I wish I *didn't* know.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Yes, you're very smart. Shut up."
***@vex.net --The Princess Bride
Tony Cooper
2018-01-07 15:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The real crime here is that image linked was cropped to eliminate
attribution.
It may have been.
Post by Tony Cooper
The original shows: "Adrian Dennis for AFP"...
No, the version in Dennis's slideshow has had those words (as well as
a white border) *added*. Therefore it clearly is *not* the original,
but has been modified (legitimately) by him or by AFP to do add this.
That's an interesting point on its own. A photograph out-of-camera
cannot include attribution display* like a copyright line or a
watermark. It has to be added in post. All photographs are
post-processed. Film is developed and printed and digital images are
transferred from the camera. These are steps of "post" since that
includes everything done after capturing the image.

So what's "the original"? Is it what comes out of the camera or what
is presented? If the processing includes adding attribution in some
way, and that's the image submitted, isn't that "the original"?

*Information is included in the EXIF data embedded in the image, but
this is not displayed information. EXIF information is often stripped
away when the image is copied.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
HVS
2018-01-07 17:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
Clearly Photoshopped.
Hmmm... Need to rethink this.
The photo was taken by Adrian Dennis and is available on Getty Images.
The horse is Twizzel and the rider is William Coleman of the US. The
photograph won the "Photograph of the Year" award: "His photograph
from the Olympic Equestrian cross-country has been named Photograph of
the Year (The Press Photographer's Year 2013). The photograph won 1st
Place at the International SportFolio Festival (France) and 1st Place
Olympic Feature in the US' National Press Photographers Association's
Best of Photojournalism 2013.
Adrian Dennis is a highly respected photographer with a number of
awards and honors. Getty Images is not an outfit that will buy a pup.
Thanks.
Post by Tony Cooper
http://adriandennis.com/about/ (The photograph can been seen by going
to the Olympics link and going through the slideshow.)
http://adriandennis.com/wp-content/uploads/slideshow-gallery/OLYMPIC-HO
RSE-SHADOW-1.jpg
Post by Tony Cooper
The real crime here is that image linked was cropped to eliminate
attribution.
It may have been.
That was down to me: I saw the image in a gallery of 29 "overhead" sports
photos on the Guardian site ("Hitting the heights: Sports from above - in
pictures"), all of which were properly attributed.

I right-clicked and saved the web image -- resolution was 72 pixels per
inch -- which didn't include the attribution.

(The dimensions were too large, so I resized it before uploading.)
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The original shows: "Adrian Dennis for AFP"...
No, the version in Dennis's slideshow has had those words (as well as
a white border) *added*. Therefore it clearly is *not* the original,
but has been modified (legitimately) by him or by AFP to do add this.
Dennis's slideshow version also has significantly better color
rendition than the version Harvey posted, suggesting that Dennis
postprocessed it to enhance the color. (Also legitimate, but it
does make it inappropriate to call it the original.)
There would have been a lot of degradation from the number of steps
involved: Dennis's original > AFP library version > Guardian web
optimising > my saved image > resizing to upload.

FWIW, the article/gallery where I saw it is at http://tinyurl.com/ycc3opfc

which points to:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2018/jan/04/hitting-the-heights-
sport-from-above-in-pictures
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed
Tak To
2018-01-07 18:02:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
Clearly Photoshopped.
Hmmm... Need to rethink this.
The photo was taken by Adrian Dennis and is available on Getty Images.
The horse is Twizzel and the rider is William Coleman of the US. The
photograph won the "Photograph of the Year" award: "His photograph
from the Olympic Equestrian cross-country has been named Photograph of
the Year (The Press Photographer's Year 2013). The photograph won 1st
Place at the International SportFolio Festival (France) and 1st Place
Olympic Feature in the US' National Press Photographers Association's
Best of Photojournalism 2013.
Adrian Dennis is a highly respected photographer with a number of
awards and honors. Getty Images is not an outfit that will buy a pup.
Thanks.
Post by Tony Cooper
http://adriandennis.com/about/ (The photograph can been seen by going
to the Olympics link and going through the slideshow.)
http://adriandennis.com/wp-content/uploads/slideshow-gallery/OLYMPIC-HORSE-SHADOW-1.jpg
Post by Tony Cooper
The real crime here is that image linked was cropped to eliminate
attribution.
It may have been.
Post by Tony Cooper
The original shows: "Adrian Dennis for AFP"...
No, the version in Dennis's slideshow has had those words (as well as
a white border) *added*. Therefore it clearly is *not* the original,
but has been modified (legitimately) by him or by AFP to do add this.
Dennis's slideshow version also has significantly better color
rendition than the version Harvey posted, suggesting that Dennis
postprocessed it to enhance the color. (Also legitimate, but it
does make it inappropriate to call it the original.)
Another big difference is that the ground in Dennis's versions
is not uniformly lit as in Harvey's version. This immediately
suggests that there were two light sources, one for the
shadow of the crowd, one for the shadow of the horse and jockey.
Perhaps the latter was a strobe light that was deliberately
placed below the crowd to get the effect in the picture. This
would also explain Problem #2 in my previous post (but not
Problem #1).

----- -----
Post by Mark Brader
As well as the general appearance, look at the white saddle in the
two versions. In the one Harvey posted, a small dark rectangle can
be seen the shady side (above the rider in the photo), possibly the
place where the strap retains the saddle in place. There is also
a dark outline just inside the edge of the saddle. But the other
side (below the rider) is washed out by the sunlight. In Dennis'
slideshow version, though, these markings are visible on both sides
(above and below the rider).
I carefully compared the difference in cropping of the two versions.
It does look as though the one Harvey posted was cropped from one
that had a credit line addeed in the same place as in Dennis's
slideshow version, but it clearly wasn't taken from that version.
In fact it looks like a degraded copy of this one that TinEye found
http://www.afp.com/communication/imgs/adrian-dennis/000_DV1236825.jpg
The cropping appears to be identical, and that last version has color
quality in between the two others.
There is almost no gradation of the brightness of the ground, just
like Harvey's version and not like Dennis version at all.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Richard Yates
2018-01-07 14:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:26:36 -0800, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0800, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
- The horse's nose is slightly to the right (picture right) of
its shadow. The romp is quite a bit to the right of its shadow.
- The shadows of the spectators cast to the right. The shadow of
the horse (and the jockey) casts to the left.
Clearly Photoshopped. In addition to the above observations, the
shadow of horse is narrower than the horse and is an undistorted
silhouette. There is no angle of the sun and placement of the camera
that would make it look that way.
Hmmm, I found some others from the same angle and the sources seem to
be legitimate. Need to rethink this.
The *image* of the horse's shadow could be narrower than the image of
the horse. The shadow is farther away from the camera than the horse
and so foreshortening would make it smaller, especially if the camera
is not too high and is using a wide angle lens (which is a likely
choice in that situation).
Tak To
2018-01-07 18:08:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:26:36 -0800, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0800, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Tak To
Post by HVS
This isn't a funny photo, just one that I really admire, and wish I'd taken.
(It was during the eventing event at the 2012 Olympics.)
http://whhvs.co.uk/temp/ShadowHorseB.jpg
No one else has any suspicion?
- The horse's nose is slightly to the right (picture right) of
its shadow. The romp is quite a bit to the right of its shadow.
- The shadows of the spectators cast to the right. The shadow of
the horse (and the jockey) casts to the left.
Clearly Photoshopped. In addition to the above observations, the
shadow of horse is narrower than the horse and is an undistorted
silhouette. There is no angle of the sun and placement of the camera
that would make it look that way.
Hmmm, I found some others from the same angle and the sources seem to
be legitimate. Need to rethink this.
The *image* of the horse's shadow could be narrower than the image of
the horse. The shadow is farther away from the camera than the horse
and so foreshortening would make it smaller, especially if the camera
is not too high and is using a wide angle lens (which is a likely
choice in that situation).
Good point. This would also explains the shadows of the
spectators in the middle being generally taller than those
to the sides.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Loading...