Forum posts

Yeah I've been looking at a rather large selection of film SLR cameras [They're usually extremely cheap, thus why I'm looking at them] and I believe the AT-1 was on my list, however it had something like 3 lenses with it so it cost something like 160-180$.

Also as for the video camera, well like I said before, I wanted to get a half decent 'photo' camera [Not for the sake of 'getting into photography', to get away from fucking point-and-shoots] and apparently they didn't have the camera in store, and the only other choices were more shitty compact-point-and-shoots, or some decent looking Camcorders.
I wasn't really inclined to just simply leave the store and spend the rest of my birthday searching around for a freaking camera, it didn't matter that bloody much to me. And considering the camcorder first of all looked half decent [All I had for video before that point was my shitty compact Kodak easyshare with a whopping 15 fps 640x480 'movie mode'] and there wasn't much else that was truly useful so I bought it.

I swear to god if somebody compostited a book combining all my posts it would cost 300$ in shipping to buy it.

I don't quite realize why you are now trying really hard to get into photography

Why are you investing in garbage

I don't quite understand your backwards logic.

Very obviously if I was trying to 'get into photography' seriously, then I would not be 'investing into garbage'. I would be investing into the shit you suggest of paying upwards of +500$ for DSLRs I don't need. For me a simple film camera is sufficient so long as it's a SLR, getting a digital is only an added bonus. For me the Minolta is fine just so long as it's cheap enough, and fortunately by some godsend I've found one that is cheap. I'm just trying to get away from this bullshit compact digital camera shit I've been putting up with for how fucking long. Just unusable garbage.

TL;DR: My bitching has very little to do with the lens and everything to do with the brand, Minolta's aren't worth the investment because they don't have the proper support and are usually expensive and difficult to find.

Minolta lenses are just that, lenses. The brand does not automatically define the quality of the glass, however a lens is useless without a camera to use it. Basically, I'm fucked in that respect. Although, after some digging I've found ONE dirt cheap Minolta body for 15$. That's barely more then what the lens cost so fuck it, I'll get that.

Because apparently you lack the requisites to read it properly I'll break it down segment by segment.

Other then the proprietary mount that isn't usable on other cameras via adapters, nothing.

Translation: With Nikon, Canon you can at least get adapters that function properly and allow you to use lenses with different body brands.

Grammatical breakdown:

Other then the proprietary mount that isn't even usable on other cameras via adapters, nothing.

I start with stating that it has a proprietary mount, obviously Nikon and Canon each have their own proprietary mounts as well, however this is not the end of the sentence so this is not a statement and is rather the start of one. I then go on to bring up the specifics of the mount, stating that it is unusable on other cameras using adapters.
The knowledge that Canon and Nikon mounts can be exchanged functionally using adapters is assumed, but if lacked, Canon and Nikon mounts usually have adapters that allow them to be interchanged between separate bodies and brands without troubles.

Looking at images taken with the specific lens they look pretty sharp, the build quality is good, I just need a camera and some film, but I'm disappointed that I'm strictly limited to minoltas considering that they're not cheap.

Translation:
The lens itself is good, irrelevant of the mount type, however I'm disappointed that I can only use minolta's because minolta only makes film cameras and they're expensive.

Grammatical breakdown:

Looking at images taken with the specific lens they look pretty sharp, the build quality is good, I just need a camera and some film, but I'm disappointed that I'm strictly limited to minoltas considering that they're not cheap.

I start by stating that I've seen images taken with the lens I have, noting that they look sharp, then stating the build quality of the physical lens is acceptable. I then state that all I need is a camera and some film, which further implies and references the previously brought up fact that I'm completely restricted to presumably subpar quality film cameras, and also presents the fact that if I wanted to, I would have no choice of using the lens in a digital slr considering that minolta has never made any DSLRs and the only digital cameras you can properly mount the lens to without problems are certain Sony cameras, which are also just as rare as a minolta, and a lot more expensive. I then lastly bring up the pricing of minoltas, unfortunately because they're so dated and by today's standards mostly 'vintage' not many people are willing to sell them cheaply, if you can find anybody selling them at all. I also if you somehow failed to notice, pointed out I intended to buy a SLR, whether or not it's digital or film is irrelevant, the implication that I wish to buy a SLR camera would assume that I might intend to use the lens I already have, but I show dissapointment in the fact that the lens I already have is completely unusable [At least, properly] unless I buy something that is relatively difficult to get and often expensive, whereas if I bought a Nikon or a Canon I'd have a much easier time getting lenses considering that I could safely buy a lens of either brand and use an appropriate adapter, and even if that wasn't an option lenses of both brands are plentiful regardless, whereas buying a minolta restricts you greatly to yet again, difficult to find accessories that most likely will cost even more then the camera itself. [Usually around +$160 or so]

Also I've changed my avatar, I'm sorry I didn't realize it was so unacceptable.

So in short, fuck Minolta lenses. Buying a Minolta lens and then realizing you have to buy a Minolta along with all it's accessories is like buying a old mouse and finding out you have to buy a Apple II and all it's proprietary shit. Expensive, and not fucking worth it. I could sell it but to be honest I'll just buy a Nikon and Nikkor lenses, and keep the Minolta as a vintage item, I'm sure 10 years down the line it'll be worth a couple thousand dollars. Or maybe it'll be worth 2 cents at the bargain bin. Whatever.

Just made a small map, enclosed a couple scientists with clip boxing, attempted to 'use' them and they all refused to move. Will try a scripted event to see if they can walk through a clip brush on their own.

You can use adapters that actually function properly on more standardized lenses. Don't be a prick.

It doesn't prove anything.

It's pink.

No a clip blocks both players and npcs, whereas fun_monsterclip only blocks npcs.

Other then the proprietary mount that isn't usable on other cameras via adapters, nothing. Looking at images taken with the specific lens they look pretty sharp, the build quality is good, I just need a camera and some film, but I'm disappointed that I'm strictly limited to minoltas considering that they're not cheap.

How about instead of trying to poke as many holes as you possibly can in the rules and constantly pissing everybody off, you all [Who are complaining, not everybody] could have made three fucking maps in the time it's taken you to ask questions that have been answered thirty times already.

Also laughed at doggy, congratulations at putting a comedic twist on the situation, something makes me think that he is going to be the first valid contributor to the competition.

Flatbed scanners are pretty much the only method worth using, you can usually get them dirt cheap or even free if you look around for used ones.

You're right, the best way to model a weapon is in parts, never model manifold unless you're only just starting, because it causes much more harm then good.

Fucking Minolta lenses.

That depends on the woman.

Used to have it, lost it and everything else in my "Interest" mod back in 09.

No, scaling down big textures causes worse performance then having a existing smaller texture at normal scale.

Looks pretty good. PMG is so damned fun to fuck about with.

You're using a illegal copy of the SourceSDK, that's what's going on.

For the stdio.dll error, add -steam to the end of the shortcut.

Actually doodle raises a good point, in order for it to be more thematic, a custom sky texture for the pack wouldn't hurt.

Disco is really bad in the sense that he often forgets to add smileys to the end of his posts.

It's not just a matter of the admins, more has to do with the people [Who aren't necessarily staff members] who review the maps getting more busy and not being able to review maps as often or on time.

I don't get the hate for it, first of all the guy playing is terrible, and is most likely playing on easy with god mode turned on, and second of all, it's incomplete, of course the animations are going to be unpolished.
SC:C looked like absolute shit when they released the first trailers and I hated that game up until it got released and I played it, now it's the one and only game I look up to for a example of proper third person mechanics.

That being said the game looks good, and like L4D, would definitely be fun when played with some good friends.

I should have expected this.

Should have.

You are the most arrogant, ignorant and self-entitled member we've had here in a while.

Hi.

I don't think anybody here is stupid enough to actually try cheating that way.

I slightly agree, but keep in mind it's the other way around, TF2 is based off of industrialized content. It's kind of like saying a car model for HL2 reminds you of NFS.

My bad, my shots are always post processed a little but I usually don't add a lot of contrast, I'm extremely nazified about crushing blacks and overblowing whites.

1024 Cube Space

Donno, I just like the 'limited aspects' system, the 30 brush compo was fun.

Scared the shit out of me.

A lego-esque game with character polygons borderlining 100 at most scared the shit out of you? :/

JJ Abrams would be so proud.

if you are so smart, crollo, then why in Ultimate SSDK's game launcher there ISN'T a parameter of this kind? Cause' it works just like steam!

Because it isn't steam, it's an illegal copy of the SourceSDK which also isn't even remotely close to working like steam.

Played some more KF.

There are no parameters that steam cannot recognize, steam has nothing to do with the parameters, it's simply passing them onto the game executable.

Don't port models from other games without a license to do so.

I played your mod and enjoyed it so welcome back.

I love how this implies had you not enjoyed it you wouldn't have welcomed him back.

Fuck STs, it's the best goddamn show ever made, period.

It's more addicting then... Sunglasses Methamphetamine.

Welcome.

It's called generating interest, if enough people want to see how something is done he'll show how, why waste time posting something if nobody is interested?

He does overreact at times but only because all you guys do is discourage him and discredit him. Grow the fuck up.

He means HL textures

Don't shit in his food.

Originally posted by The_(c)Striker
It's 4k.

What is this, 1953?

Also, you gotta work on your 3D some more Striker.

Actually I think that was posted in the photos thread...

I'd rather castrate myself with a butter knife then play that piece of shit for 2 minutes.

Not sure if Sirius...

Why so punny?

My Ghetto Camcorder.Loving the Dirty-Anamorphic style lens flaresAlso made a small monocular, it's not very powerful but it works:

Yeah but maya models are too detailed to be imported into a game straight off, you'd have to recreate them in 3ds max.

Uh, no. Maya is just a modelling package like 3DS Max, the only package that would really make models too detailed for game engine use is a sculpting package, the artist is the one who makes the detailing when it comes to Max and Maya.

Had the displeasure of completely dis-assembling and then completely re-assembling an entire lens assembly.