Sunday, 21 May 2017

Getting DoF at a distance

one of my pet "disturbances" is people taking pictures of a tiny toy on their keyboard from 5cm away and going on about the DoF and Bokeh of their new lens, especially when its clearly going to be useless at "normal focal distances"

The only way to get DoF is by pupil diameter, not "f stop" ... the bigger the pupil the shallower the DoF

Of course to get that pupil bigger for the same angle of view one needs either a bigger f stop OR a larger format. For instance a 50mm lens on a FullFrame camera has a pupil diameter that's about 25mm at f2 ... while the pupil diameter of a 25mm lens on a 43rds camera (capturing the same view from the same spot)  will be 12mm. Meaning less DoF

So I thought that (not having a full frame or a good 50mm f1.4 lens handy) that using my 45mm f1.7 would do the job at imaging my favourte tree if I stitched together an array of 4 shots (as it would approximate a 50mm on a full frame single frame grab).

Here that is:



Seems that while its better than my earlier attempt with the 20f1.7 (single shot with m43) it looks like its not really doing what I want ... a pixel peep (or a big print) shows that it does indeed have better DoF popping it out of the background, but not as much as my 4x5 had (standing pretty much in the same spot).


Well its better and shows more "separation" from the background.

So, I was right but there was a lesson to be learned

On a larger (again) format (like what is called Large Format) a "normal lens" (like the 50mm) is a 180mm lens and (my f5.6) lens yeilds 32mm at "wide open".

Perhaps a Full Frame with a 50mm @ f1.8 (using a 1.4 lens so as to not get too much corner darkness) would do it. However when one is using even 100ISO full sunlight will require super short shutters (or a ND filter) if you're using f1.8 ... Then there is the highlight clipping to deal with...

I still keep my 4x5 camera and some chemistry around for just this sort of specalised thing (and its cheaper than a Sony A7).


way to precious


WARNING: This may have content which is offensive to some. Please read no further if you're that precious.


The "Alt Right" tends to label the "Alt Left" as Snow Flakes ... not the least because they vanish when there is any pressure.

Today I get an email notification that a friend of mine on on Twitter (who hardly ever says much) has retweeted something. So I go and look ... to find this:



I wondered what "horrors" lay there that this sensitive material bore hiding from a sentient adult. Scenes of torture and human dismemberment? Pictures of Donald Trump masturbating nude?

So I went to review my settings and it still didn't show ... so I had to actually uncheck the "Hide Sensitive Content" under "Safety"

to reveal:



FFS people : grow up

Friday, 12 May 2017

Electric Cars ... one day

I just couldn't resist posting this

..as usual, Elon Musk managed to fool those who were only focusing on the headline numbers, which were both good and bad: while TSLA missed earnings, reporting a (non-GAAP) 4Q loss per share of $1.33, or $215 million, far worse than the consensus estimate loss of $0.82. On a GAAP basis, the company reported a loss of $330 million, or $2.04 per share, compared with a loss of $283 million or $2.13 a share in the year-earlier quarter. This amount to a loss of over $13,000 for each of the 25,051 cars delivered in the quarter.


As I've said many times before if it worked it would be working already (oh, but I fogot about the conspiracy theories)

As I've also said, if we want to use electricity to power vehicles we need to change the paradigm entirely. Stop making them as heavy as vehicles are today (because the power needed is related to the weight, turns out Newton is still right) and start making urban environments that don't need cars to simply get you from where you live to where you work / shop.

I know people can't grasp numbers, but hopefully those don't read my blog (or if they do then just accept that this is right).

From this Tesla source: https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/battery-size-base-model

What will the battery size be for the base model that provides <= 215 miles of range? A 70D is 240 miles, and a 70 is 230 miles. A 60 was about 210. Since the 3 is 20% smaller, does that imply it would get about 20% more range for a given battery size, or is it non-linear? 
Seems like they should be able to pull off 215 miles with a 50kWh battery on Model 3.
If you think about that number and what it means, I used a total of 800kWh in my whole house for the entire quater which was winter (in Australia so not super cold).

So to drive for a week (or in reality probably less) a Tesla will use about what I need for my house (fridge, freezer, hotwater, lights ...) in the same period. Oh and that assumes charging is 100% efficient (which it isn't) and you don't tear off at the lights or drive in hilly areas.

Get a grip folks ... where the hell is that energy coming from and how will you get it there?

If you want to be green and sustainable - ride an electric bicycle or better yet pedal the thing and get some exersize too.

Stop paying to be serviced by a service industry which sees you like the way Pastoralists use the term service.



Wednesday, 10 May 2017

An open letter to Sophie

Dear Sophie

I fully concur with your position that being a widow is nothing like being divorced (which is a kind of breakup).

I listened to your audio "standup" and would have laughed more if it wasn't for the fact that it didn't seem like comedy so much as a documentary.

I think your main point of focus should be that you still love your husband (just as I still love my wife) and that should form the basis of all your decisions. I believe that even in their absence your knowing what they would have wanted can help guide you.

You need to take your time and be cautious about your desire to "step out" (laudable) or "listen to friends" who tell you about what you need (when they barely understand your situation). Of course you need socialization, but as you've found out the "dating game" is actually a horror show with the potential to strike deeper wounds into an already hurting heart.

Back in 2013 I wrote this blog post, where I compared the situation I was in (similar to that you are in) to being cast into a pit. Just as I too was climbing out of my pit others around me were also climbing. While we may or may not have the same destination in mind one needs to be mindful that they don't see you as a disposable handhold on "their way up" and not mind if you get knocked back.


While I'm not saying to "withdraw and not take risks" I am saying to be wary of the risks. A good climber knows to take their time (and use a safety line).

You've already seen that the "dating game" isn't far from the "gladitorial game" and it seems that players are in it to "win" not form partnerships (and I seriously doubt many even know what that means).

To my mind people in that "game" are like serially abused victims. People who have been in and out of "love" and been hurt so many times that they have both barriers and baggage.

Of course we all come with baggage ... recognition of that is important. But (without knowing) I'd say that 2 years is still "early" and that while you may have desires you need to also temper them with your capacity and your fragility.

Having joined a forum or two on grief when I first found myself this way (a widower) I read of enough cautionary tales about people (with kids) moving into relationships and (for instance) having the new partner resent the partner who had passed on and even tried to re-establish themselves as the "new mummy" for the kids. Dreadful stuff.

Myself I feel that the bond between myself and Anita was special and I remain unwilling to allow that to be destroyed or injured by an uncaring person.

Give yourself time and be reflective. You had a love and a life and you need to probably spend time in grocking that more. I've put great emphasis in the last years into learning everything I could from the many lessons that Anita was teaching me (well, that we were teaching each other). I've wanted to do that because

  1. I liked the person I was becoming with her influence
  2. I respected and cared deeply for her, in her absence all I had was that
I have a number of posts on my blog about my approach to reconciliation with her loss. I have put a "tag" in the topic cloud on Grief which mainly deals with my feelings and my observations. It is unfortunately presented in "newest first" order (so looking backwards from my time perspective) but there may be something of benefit for you in there (link), who knows.

One of the strong "mother figures" in my life lost her husband with two girls (of high school age) back when I was in primary school. I've known her my entire life more or less. She eventually remarried to a fine (migrant German) man who I am also very fond of. We were neighbours when I was a child and again neighbours when Anita and I moved back into my childhood home.

The importance of that relationship is that she was (after many dark years) able to allow someone into her life and he was (being divorced) able to accept that she loved both him and her deceased husband. Equally and with no favourites. Just like it is with the children you have - love is love and it is unconditional
Lastly we are of different ages and so perhaps we have entirely different goals. As a man who is 53 I am too young to just die (like my grandfather did) at the loss of my wife and old enough to recognise that the sort of relationships I had as a younger man are just that ... the sort of things done in youth.

I know that the road will be long, and I know that there will be more dark nights and tears shed, but that's not something to be afraid of.(see "the crying"). You have lost something which was a part of you, not unlike losing your legs. You will always feel phantom pains from lost limbs (so I'm told by many who have lost them) and so your loss is not just "some one" it is indeed part of yourself that has died too.

... I can only wish you strength.

Best Wishes