HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnson@sleipnir.pb.wes.mot.com (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: midnight/noon AM/PM?
Reply-To: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Wireless Enterprises, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:15:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.213608.7935@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, tipley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Roger Tipley) writes:
=)This question has been bandied about our hall for a few weeks. 
=)Perhaps this august group could give us a definitive answer.  
=)
=)We all agree which day the times 23:59:59.9 and 00:00:00.1 belong
=)to (the first is obviously P.M. of one day and the second is A.M.
=)of the next day).  The argument is about which day the instant of
=)midnight (24:00:00.000..) would be associated with.
=)
=)The dictionary definition of A.M. and P.M. would lead me to equate
=)noon with "M", so it wasn't of much help.  Please help us out.  I
=)want to know if I will be accused of subjecting people to a 14 hour
=)meeting or a 2 hour meeting by scheduling the meeting from 10-12
=)A.M.  I don't necessarily consider the time-of-day algorithm in my
=)computer to reflect the right answer either.
=)
=)Thanks in advance for your replies,
=)
=)Roger E. Tipley
=)tipley@twisto.compaq.com
=)
The convention is that noon is 12:00 PM, and midnight is 12:00 AM.
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Johnson"                              |Just because you're paranoid doesn't|
| johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com |   mean they're not out to get you. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Let's face it; if our lawyers knew what went on here, they'd shut us down.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:24:09 GMT

dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs) writes:
>Every major advance in the world of science and art has come from a few
>brave people rejecting the hand that fed them. Okay, too strong, most
>major advances. My philosophy is not BLIND nor VINDICTIVE but it certainly
>is selfish. I am not altruistic, nor do I wish to come in contact with
>people who believe themselves to be altruistic. A totally unselfish act,
>if there is such a thing, scares the hell out of me. 
Why is that?  

>Someone working for the "good" of others is the dangerous person. As an
>example I site prohibition. For everyone's good the government outlawwed 
>booze. What a "good deal" that was. 
That, I argue, was a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Not altruistic at all.  Now
Ghandi leading India, on the other hand...

>I agree that blind emotional reaction to a stimulus can, and possilby will,
>be dangerous. But thoughtful, rational reaction to a stimulus is absolutely
>necessary to the continued existence of the rational brain. Otherwise, the
>higher order functions would have no survival factor and would slowly
>be replaced by some aspect of humanness that has a higher survival factor.
>Blind faith, maybe?
Well, you're logic I cannot question.  I do have a query (nothing masty 
intended) for you.  Do you believe your life has meaning?  If not, what makes 
you go on?  If so, what gives it its meaning?

>Lynn Bruce Dobbs
>The belief in a supreme being IS A SELFISH ACT. 
By what logic?  Can you prove that about me?

Matt I.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: midnight/noon AM/PM?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:42:37 GMT

tipley@solo.eng.hou.compaq.com (Roger Tipley) writes:

>We all agree which day the times 23:59:59.9 and 00:00:00.1 belong
>to (the first is obviously P.M. of one day and the second is A.M.
>of the next day).  The argument is about which day the instant of
>midnight (24:00:00.000..) would be associated with.

>The dictionary definition of A.M. and P.M. would lead me to equate
>noon with "M", so it wasn't of much help.  Please help us out.  I
>want to know if I will be accused of subjecting people to a 14 hour
>meeting or a 2 hour meeting by scheduling the meeting from 10-12
>A.M.  I don't necessarily consider the time-of-day algorithm in my
>computer to reflect the right answer either.

I believe that 00:00:00 is usually referred to as 12:00 A.M. and 12:00:00 
as 12:00 P.M., but I've always just referred to them as midnight and noon.
The easy solution to your problem is never schedule meetings for the middle
of the night or at lunch time.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Lead Scout for the Baby Boomers    | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:04:16 GMT

In <PD.92Dec12030333@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.134623.13231@progress.com> matth@progress.COM (Matthew J. Harper) writes:

>>  One other thing to consider is whether or not you are willing to
>>purchase used lenses.  There are a hell of a lot more used Nikon lenses
>>available than Canon lenses 'cause Cannon did everyone that favor a few years
>>back and changed the mount.  If you're patient and willing to wait you can get
>>deals like the 35-135 AF 4.5 for $250 like I did.  :-)

>Since Canon and Nikon started making AF lenses at about the same time,
>I don't see how the fact that Canon changed from FD mount to EF mount
>could have any effect on the number of used AF lenses around for
>sale.
>The only reason for there being more used Nikon AF lenses around
>would be the fact that more have been manufactured and sold.

A while back, I actually lamented the lack of availability of used EOS
stuff in a local camera store.  The salesman said, "Maybe it's because
Canon owners are happy with the product and don't want to sell?".

I *like* this response!  :-)  :-)  :-)

Seriously though, it depends on the dealership.  Some tend to attract
EOS stuff.  Others don't.  Others get it, but sell it quickly.  Go
figure.

>--
>Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
>Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
From: pharris@ucscm.ucsc.edu (Peter Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Enlarger's for Color?
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:03:55 GMT
Organization: University of California Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: twilight-mac07.ucsc.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d13
X-XXMessage-ID: <A754DAE550050257@twilight-mac07.ucsc.edu>
X-XXDate: Wed, 16 Dec 92 22:08:53 GMT

With all due respect, there seems to be an error
in this thread:

CC stands for COLOR CORRECTING. CC filters may
be placed in the image path (e.g. between lens
and paper.) CP stands for COLOR PRINTING. These
filters must not be placed in the image path,
and must be placed between the lamphouse and the
film. You will also need an infra-red filter and
a piece of heat absorbing glass to place above
the neg stage. Have fun.

 >Path:
darkstar.UCSC.EDU!agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.co
!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!c
Peter Harris
University of California Santa Cruz
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ehr@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Ernest H. Robl)
Subject: Re: N800*s, FM2 or EOS RT : advice needed
Summary: 8008 comments, etc.
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:41:53 GMT



{[comments and questions about camera choices deleted]

I own two Nikon 8008 bodies and a variety of lenses.  You can get
an electronic remote release (wire) from Nikon.  If you cut this
cable you can splice in connectors and add an additional length
of cable.

I've also used these cameras with a radio remote control (3rd party,
not the Nikon version, which is much more expensive).  Both types
of remotes work fine -- just as they probably would for any of the
cameras you mentioned.


My basic piece of advice on camera selection, which is often
overlooked:  Check what system(s) your acquaintances/friends/
colleagues, etc. are using.  This can be invaluable in getting
advice from others on using your equipment.  With each type of
equipment, there are many tricks and features which are not 
necessarily covered in manuals.  Also, if you go for the same
system that someone else -- you can interchange equipment and
accessories.

Also, look at which systems your local camera store(s) provide(s)
good support for.  This can be particularly important for a
beginner.  It becomes less important once you have more 
experience.

-- Ernest
-- 
"My other computers are Nikon N8008s and an SB25." -- Ernest H. Robl
Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax)  Durham, NC, USA   +1  919   286-3845
                                         FAX:  +1  919   286-1696
This .signature meets plate C specifications (for rec.railroad fans)
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: shutter speed (again)??
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:43:54 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <MAS.92Dec14094932@porgy.jpl.nasa.gov> mas@porgy.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc A. Sarrel) writes:
>Well, thanks to all who responded to my earlier posting about wether
>shutter speeds were really powers of two.  I did some tests on my
>8008s and I found that when I set it to 30 sec in manual mode, the
>shutter stays open for 32 secs (as timed by my watch).  Set at 15 sec,
>the shutter actually stays open for 16 sec (again, my seiko comes
>through).  It's not conclusive, but one might infer that they made the
>same adjustment to real powers of two for shutter speeds less that one
>second.  Maybe I'll give Nikon a call...
>
>--marc

So, your shutter speed is actually calibrated in powers of two.  Is that
bad?  I wouldn't think so.  Historically, the common shutter speed
sequence comes from roughly doubling the amount of exposure at each step:
1/1000, 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, 1/60, 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8,
15, 30, etc.  Each number in the sequence is approximately double the one
before it.  I'd imagine that before the advent of cheap fancy electronics,
the timings on mechanical shutters were not only not that accurate, but also
tended to change over time as the mechanisms aged.  So, to say that a shutter
speed was 1/32 or 1/64 second was meaningless since they couldn't guarantee
the accuracy over the life of the camera.

Now, with cheap, powerful, digital control, that can be corrected.  When you
want double an exposure of 8 seconds, you want 16 seconds, not 15.  Similarly,
when you want half an exposure of 1/8 second, you want 1/16 second, not 1/15.
A modern camera might have the sequence:  1/1024, 1/512, 1/256, 1/128, 1/64,
1/32, 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32.

Yes, it appears Nikon did make an adjustment to give real powers of two, since
that is the basis of the photographic exposure sequence.  The only thing you
could perhaps criticize them for is not telling anyone about it, but as far
as the intent, the sequence is valid, more so than the 8-15-30 sequence. 

Now, if only someone would come out with a lens that uses the real square root
of 2 (1.414213...) between f-stops...

Mike

-- 
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: prodger@leland.Stanford.EDU (phillip prodger)
Subject: Re: Picture matting/Framing
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 22:32:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.025813.29526@tvnews.tv.tek.com> shuju@morocco.tv.tek.com (Shu-Ju Wang) writes:

>In the discussions that I've seen on the topic of drymounting, here
>is a problem that I haven't seen mentioned.  You should consider this
>before you decide on your personal preference.

>My photography teacher at Oregon School of Arts and Crafts had an exhibit
>in Japan some years ago.  All her prints were drymounted.  The curator (?)
>of the exhibit decided that they wanted the mounted prints to be a different 
>size.  They re-cut her mats (with the prints mounted on) without consulting
>her!  On top of that, some of the prints were cut unevenly.  

>So she doesn't drymount her prints anymore.

The people in Japan should NEVER have done that without consulting the artist.
That's about the most intrusive thing I can imagine a curator doing, and it's
grounds for legitimate complaint.

I doubt that you will find very many art professionals taking this liberty...
In fact, artists often drymount exactly for the reason that they can influence
the size of the frame their prints are seen in.

If I were her and I liked drymounting I'd keep doing it, but wouldn't work with
that gallery anymore.


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: "martin tai" <martin.tai@canrem.com>
Subject: i give film  about 7-10
Reply-To: "martin tai" <martin.tai@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 12 Dec 92 07:20:19 EST

The  prediction that  film will mostly disapper  will not happen
It is  all  a  question of resolution and  can  electronics
means  match the resolution.  For  HR film, at  160 line/mm, 35mm
format film is equivalent  to  24 x 160, 36 x160  that is
3840 x 5760 .  Now  NTSC  TV  is  only   about  500 lines
vertical.  Why   8mm  movie  disappeared and taken over by
camcorders ?  It is again resolution.  10 years ago, there was
not  HR film, the average resolution is  100 line/mm , 8 mm
film  provide  800 lines which  is  about the resolution of
television.  Given the convenience of  TV camera,  there is
good reason for  8mm movie camera to disappear?
   Now the question?  How long will cam corders  reach the
resolution of  3840 x 5760 ?.
   The  NTSC standard or  PAL or SECAM  have been in existance
for  many  DECADES. The  next big jump will be to  HDTV, high
definition TV. which is  about twice the resolution of the current
system; that is still  aroud  1000 x  1300. Once the  HDTV become
a standard, WHICH  WILL TAKE  ABOUT  7-10 years, it will stay
for  ANOTHER  50 YEARS.  That is to say,  not until the next
decade, around  year 2030, there will not be another move
to higher definition than  HDTV.
   Hollywood requirement for  high resolution domininates
the 35mm film industry.  While  TV industry  supports the
camcorder business.  If for  the next 50 years, there is not
higher definition than  HDTV, than  film will still the dominant
medium for  Movie industry, hence  FILM WILL STILL BE DOMINANT
FOR ABOUT  ANOTHER  HALF A CENTURY.
  No people will make  any camcorder or  Electronics Camera
which  is  beyond  HDTV, there is no market for it.
  Further more,  by the turn of next century, film resolution
SHALL BE  300 lines/mm, for  35mm format , that is 7200 x 10800
resolution.  To have a  television standard at that resolution
shall be  year  2100.
  Filmless  photograph  shall be  a  groundless prediction
just as the prediction of  paperless  newsprints.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hsong@ardour.bellcore.com (G. Hugh Song)
Subject: Re: Color balance setups for specific films
Reply-To: hsong@ardour.bellcore.com (G. Hugh Song)
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 23:15:41 GMT

In article <BzD8qI.7Bt@javelin.sim.es.com>, rspeirs@javelin.sim.es.com (Ron Speirs) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec11.122720.5941@sys.sweden.dg.com> robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
|> >
|> >More sophisticated and automated. Each neg is individually analysed by a
|> >built-in color analyser and the filtration is adjusted accordingly. This
|> >is why no individual settings for each film is needed.
|> 
|> In my opinion, this is one of the reasons that so many of people's lab-
|> produced prints look so BAD.  The built-in analyzer makes an assumption that
|> the frame should average to gray.  It then dumps in a LOT of correction when
|> it sees a predominant color in the frame.

So, isn't it a good idea to have a standard filter setup for some of your favorite
films and to get rid of that analyzer?   What do you do in your home darkroom?
Most of you do not have an analyser in your home darkroom, do you?

|>   Eight identical rolls (same date code) of Kodacolor Gold 100 were
|> exposed to a variety of subjects using the same lens and manual exposure
|> control.    These eight
|> rolls were then taken to eight different photofinishers around town,
|> representing one-hour labs, supermarket labs, Qualex, a local wholesale
|> lab, a professional lab.
|> [....deleted]

So which lab was the best in your test?  

|> But by far the most SHOCKING result of the test was a contact proof sheet
|> of the first 5 frames of each of the 8 rolls.   I had always thought that
|> C-41 was C-41, and that most labs kept their C-41 processing lines in
|> tight control.  NOT SO!

Maybe they used different filter setups without bothering to check whether 
there was a filter inside or not. I assume they have to turn off the
analyzer.

Seems like I have to build a home darkroom someday when my kids grow up.

	Hugh
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Eeyore's Evil Twin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Minolta 7xi v/s 5xi. Recommendations?
Date: 21 Dec 92 05:32:36 GMT
Organization: Pooh Corner Country Club -- A Planned Community

rohit@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Rohit Chandra) writes:

>I am trying to decide between the Minolta 7xi and the 5xi,
>and would welcome opinions/suggestions from people on the net.
>The 5xi is cheaper, but I haven't fully understood the features
>that it lacks w.r.t. the 7xi.

I don't have the feature list handy, but when I looked at them side by side,
I felt that anyone willing to buy a 5xi should just spend the extra $75 or
so (street price) to upgrade to the 7xi. Better AF, better control, more
functions and less need for those neat little (expensive) cards. 

I'd rather buy a 7xi used than a 5xi new, and the cost wouldn't be
significantly different from what I've seen.

chuq (thinking about a second 7xi body...)
-- 
            Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX)
                      Member, SFWA =+= Editor, OtherRealms
                chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ 

                       Sterling Holloway: We'll miss you.
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Mirror lock-up, Has anybody really tested?
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:30:07 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Dec15.043822.24808@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>There were some tests of mirror lock in _Shutterbug_ a few months ago.
>The author found that it helps, but not as much as people suppose.
>(Bear in mind that most of the vibration that you feel and hear is _after_
>the exposure, not before it.)

Not on a Hasselblad...;-)
Well, not on a 500-series Hasselblad, to be precise...

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen)
Subject: Re: Bayonet mount strength of Canon EOS10s and the rest
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:00:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.231455.25728@walter.bellcore.com> hsong@ardour.bellcore.com (Hugh) writes:

   irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe) once wrote:
   >Subject: Re: advice wanted on the Pentax PZ1 vs the Canon EOS 10s
   >Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:43:56 GMT
   >I have two Canon EOS-10s bodies and have been seriously
   >disappointed in their apparent flimsiness.  The lens mount is a
   >metal "ring" seated into the plastic body by friction-fit only, it
   >would appear, and even moderate accidental side-pressure on a long
   >lens is enough to disturb the fit and cause the lens mount to no
   >longer be parallel to the film plane.
   >
   >This happened to me with each body.  In one case, the movement was

[Stuff deleted: anecdote about shifted lens mount on a 10s]

   Are other EOS bodies, Elan, A2, 630 any better than 10s in this respect?
   Or are they all the same?

I haven't had any problems with the lensmounts on EOS bodies.  I have
both a 10s and a 630.  Both get used with the 80-200f2.8L, which is no
small tele zoom.  I've had the 10s for over a year and a half, and it
has served me well, over 250 rolls worth.  I don't exactly baby the
cameras, either.

Admittedly, the EF mount is not as solid as the FD breech-mount...but
then again nothing is.

-Ben
--

|| Benson Wen
|| ben_wen@athena.mit.edu
|| queeph@hing.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rdb1@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ronald.j.deblock..jr)
Subject: Re: Prints from Slides
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:58:06 GMT

Follow up questions to Barry Sherman's informative post:

1. How easy/difficult is it to process Cibachrome at home?

2. How does one create a contrast mask?

3. Once the contrast mask is created, how does one ensure that it is properly
   aligned with the original transparency?

Thanks!
-- 
Ron DeBlock  rdb1@homxb.att.com  (that's a number 1 in rdb1, not letter l)
AT&T Bell Labs   Somerset, NJ  USA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing your gear 
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
	<1992Dec10.062901.24048@colorado.edu>
	<1992Dec16.083419.3494@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:30:50 GMT


I just love these small equipment wars. :-)

In article <1992Dec16.083419.3494@netcom.com> micki@netcom.com (Michelle Stone) writes:

>When I decided to upgrade to AF, Minolta had left me in the dust
>by obsoleting all of my equipment.   I moved to the only manufacturer
>who had maintained upgradability throughout their line of lenses,
>flash, and cameras.   Nikon.

Why? You didn't have any Nikon gear to be compatible with, so it
couldn't have been an important factor in your decision. Surely a lot
of other things about Nikon equipment must have been more important to
you?
BTW: Nikon isn't the only manufacturer with backwards compatibility in
the lens mount (and not complete compatibility either). Pentax has
done it too, and better, with their K-mount.

>Thank you Nikon for building a machine that can take the worst.

*That* certainly should be something important to consider when
choosing new equipment.

Cheers!

PD
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
From: dtalmage@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Price of Nikon F head?
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:40:05 GMT
Organization: Georgetown University

What's a reasonable price to pay for a working metered head for a 
Nikon F?  If I can't find an F head, can I put an F2 head on an F body 
and expect them to work and play well together?

I'll check Shutterbug ads for prices, of course, but I don't expect to 
find anything.
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Zone VI 4x5 view comments ?
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:40:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24447
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <1gsva4INNjhe@hp-col.col.hp.com> sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks) writes:

> This is wrong.  The Zone VI camera does have an interchangable bellows.
> With a bag bellows, you can probably use a 58mm or 65mm.  However using
> lenses shorter than about 100mm at infinity requires moving the front
> standard closer to the film plane than is possible with the len standard
> vertical.

More recent cameras allow the standards to get close enough to work with
a 90mm lens while keeping them both vertical.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com