John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4af2c78c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>
> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
> not IQ.
The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <etiaet@somewhere.net> wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2009 02:02:28 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens
>>is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to
>>lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the
>>widest aperture is sharpest.
> Go educate your useless **** of an ignorant moron troll self. Resolution
> increases with objective optics diameter. IF those optics are of
> diffraction limited quality.
But as you keep pointing out, DSLR lenses are not of diffraction
limited quality and we're discussing DSLR lenses here!
If you actually uderstood what you're talking about you'd realise that
that makes half your comments in this thread nonsense. You're arguing
two logically incompatible positions at the same time.
Is the amount of swearing and cursing you do when trying to educate
others a reflection of how your own teachers treated you when they
they were trying to teach you? :-)
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4af37455$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>
>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>
>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed, not
>> IQ.
>
> The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as
> well.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
On 6 Nov 2009 02:51:17 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <etiaet@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> On 5 Nov 2009 02:02:28 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens
>>>is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to
>>>lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the
>>>widest aperture is sharpest.
>
>> Go educate your useless **** of an ignorant moron troll self. Resolution
>> increases with objective optics diameter. IF those optics are of
>> diffraction limited quality.
>
>But as you keep pointing out, DSLR lenses are not of diffraction
>limited quality and we're discussing DSLR lenses here!
What part of; that's exactly why you can't determine what aperture reveals
diffraction being an imaging problem because your lenses are not figured
accurately enough to cause observable diffraction, it's all optics figure
error; do you fail to comprehend?
Time to go educate your useless troll-*** of a self.
>
>If you actually uderstood what you're talking about you'd realise that
>that makes half your comments in this thread nonsense. You're arguing
>two logically incompatible positions at the same time.
>
>Is the amount of swearing and cursing you do when trying to educate
>others a reflection of how your own teachers treated you when they
>they were trying to teach you? :-)
I'll leave you to your ****ingly pathetic trolls' ignorance, only for you
to wake up one day (or not) realizing just how amazingly stupid you were
with your words and reasoning on this day. Just another day of many
thousands where you have done exactly the same. Garbage in, garbage out.
Trolls is FUN! <otis@trollouters.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>>
>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
>>> not IQ.
>>
>>The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>
>Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
>Trolls is FUN! <otis@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>>
>>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>>>
>>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
>>>> not IQ.
>>>
>>>The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>>
>>Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
>
>Don't use words you don't understand, troll.
Good thing I didn't share the names of the plugins (yes, plural, more than
one do this) that I've used to design my own bokeh effects by defining lens
aperture patterns. Then applied to the gaussian-blur depth-map masks that
they use. Perhaps he is upset that he had to go look up what a depth-map
mask is?
3 bladed (sided) irises, 4, 6, 7, 8-sided irises for star-filter bokeh
effects, 12, 19, etc., elliptical, whatever. Also design the diameter, edge
softness, and annulus width for catadioptric lens bokeh emulations, the
works. Nearly any bokeh that is created by any lens design can be emulated
with this software, as well as bokeh effects that can't even be created in
optical lens designs.
Heaven forbid that someone should share truly helpful and easily accessible
information with troll idiots like you running around ruining it for
everyone.
YOUR LOSS!
And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has
to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description.
Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described
above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls
taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long
as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and
pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at
pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately
see the trolls for what they truly are.
Trolls is FUN! <otis@trollouters.org> wrote:
>On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Trolls is FUN! <otis@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
>>>>> not IQ.
>>>>
>>>>The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>>>
>>>Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
>>
>>Don't use words you don't understand, troll.
>
>Good thing I didn't share the names of the plugins (yes, plural, more than
Trolls is FUN! wrote:
> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<snip prespoterous claims>
>
> YOUR LOSS!
>
> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has
> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description.
> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described
> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls
> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long
> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and
> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at
> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately
> see the trolls for what they truly are.
I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
Ofnuts wrote:
> Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> <snip prespoterous claims>
>
>>
>> YOUR LOSS!
>>
>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has
>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description.
>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as
>> described
>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless
>> trolls
>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as
>> long
>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and
>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be
>> better at
>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't
>> immediately
>> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>
> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
Google is your friend.
One such plugin is even unimaginatively called "Bokeh". I don't like the
results but then I have never been into lenses smeared in vaseline etc. eg.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:50:52 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
wrote:
>Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
><snip prespoterous claims>
>
>>
>> YOUR LOSS!
>>
>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has
>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description.
>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described
>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls
>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long
>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and
>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at
>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately
>> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>
>I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
I suppose I could upload two sample images, one without and one with a
depth-map catadioptric-lens annulus bokeh applied to it, but ... why waste
my time doing that for useless trolls?
Why should I even prove you wrong? You love being right! Don't you?
Whether you believe I am telling the truth or not is of zero importance to
me. I enjoy using that software occasionally when needed. My favorite one
does a remarkable job of emulating any lens bokeh that you can think of or
have ever seen before. The only difference is that you have no knowledge of
its existence, until now. Oh well! Unimportant to me.
Should I tell you the names for the plugins so role-playing trolls can
learn to be better trolls? Just like the only contact they ever have with
cameras is from downloading free camera manuals. They'd then have some
advanced plugin information so they can pretend to be decent graphic
editors too. They're so ****ingly transparent to someone like me when they
pretend to be photographers in these news-groups. They just refuse to
understand that yet, or they'd go play their silly pretend-expert games
elsewhere.
Go forth and search! You have enough information in the previous post to
find what you seek.
Blame all the useless resident-trolls that you support (or are one
yourself) for not having the information just handed to you for free. Now
you have to do some work to go find the software. Be extremely grateful
that I was kind enough to tell you that software of that nature even
exists.
Have fun!
(Awaiting your next, or some other troll's, pathetic manipulation
attempt--to get some help that you don't even deserve, for free.)
Re: small aperture test 
Linear Mode
