Forum posts

I believe it was a leica 50mm prime. Damn impressive 0.95.

Was it a prime or a zoom?

1.8 in a 85mm for 400$? Jesus.
Also, this camera is really starting to make me rip my fucking hair out with it's lack of a DOF preview button.

Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III LensNext week maybe I'll try out the EF 18-55mm [The one I used with the T2i], this is just a kit lens.

My only problem with autofocus is just that particularly on older cameras [Such as this one] it tends to be somewhat hit and miss at times, I don't know why it bugs me as I'm not a snapshot person, but I never use high end [Or even entry level] camera equipment so that's why I despise AF.

Also I've already gotten film, the school payed for it so that works out for me. Run about 5 rolls through the FT QL and I have 5 left.

Got the Rebel G now. Absolutely loving EF lenses, even though I hate autofocus with a passion.Also got a Minolta body, guy threw it in extra, don't know why but hey, he's a nice fucking guy.
Yeah I know, my lighting is terrible, I need to mess around some more.

The trial off of autodesks website is your best bet, your second best bet is to use GMAX, it's pretty good for modelling also.

He made a mature and reasonable post and your response was completely uncalled for.

Read your own posts and learn how not to express yourself like an elitist dickhead.

Hah, look who's talking.

Oh not another shitstorm.

Well I'm actually not getting a EOS DSLR, I'm just replacing my FT QL with a Canon EOS Rebel G, so I'm not concerned about EF\-S lenses as there are so many of both types the difference is probably negligible. [Although, I do remember somebody buying a Canon SLR and then asking if it was full frame, haha.]

Either way I might be able to get a DSLR through the school, but that's way up in the air right now... Looking at a D70.

Jesus, EOS was introduced in the 90's? I thought it was at least introduced in the 80's. But yes, I'm replacing my FT QL because there aren't any current-production lenses for it, whereas a EOS camera will take all current autofocus lenses, of which I imagine there are hundreds and thousands of lenses.

Yeah, depth of field is definitely affected by sensor size, and a larger sensor size of course does better in low light and soforth, but you still have to actually put the effort into it, so I'm just pulling Striker's leg a bit because he's complaining about his small sensor size, by telling him a small sensor size can still accomplish a lot. [Protip: Replace sensor with penis. :)] And yes, I do indeed make use of the larger sensor, the EF 18-55 kit lens on the T2i has shallower focus at 18mm then my shitty kodak has at 102mm...

Ah fuck, what. Asked the guy who owned it if it was full frame and he said yes, my bad... Still, the point stands, even a APS-C sensor is pretty fucking massive compared to a 1/2.5" sensor, and I'm not seeing any magical radical improvements from the sensor size alone. You could of course easily make great photographs using a DSLR as it's so powerful, but don't just act as though 1/2.5 is really limiting you THAT much... Like a DSLR you have to actually WORK with the equipment to get great results. Look at my T2i pictures for an example of how you can still very easily get poor results, the large sensor isn't going to negate or fix that.

Too much talking.
Today I got to use the T2i again [Obviously], but instead of the 18-55mm kit lens I got to use a 55-250 lens. Jesus christ it's a fucking canon. [No pun intended...]Tomorrow I'll be getting an EOS system camera so I won't be using the FT QL anymore. I'm going to miss it but oh well, EOS.

Also by definition a pedantic is already an ass so adding ass to the end is a little excessive, like calling somebody a moron idiot... Just saying.

Unfortunately the quality isn't that great even full res if yo have a monstruos monitor. They look fine on my 19 inch monitor though.
The limitationsxof a 1/2.3' CMOS sensor... I want a DSLR so badly

Striker, I just used a full frame DSLR and it didn't exactly give this 'great full res quality' that you say DSLR's have... I'm on a 1280x1024 monitor... Are you sure just simply buying a DSLR is going to just work in that manner?

EDIT: I just shot raw for the absolute first time... 25MB? I think I'm going to go into the next room and have a breakdown.

Got to hold a Rebel T2i for an entirety of two seconds, and of course I manage to make it look like shit.And my last attempt at getting half decent shallow focus with shitty 1/2.5" sensor cameras.umad disco?

spend less time sucking dick and more time thinking about your theme.

Do it.

I am borrowing it from my grandmother.

I wish I had awesome grandparents that had SLR's like that.

My camera died. I partially blame my friend, but mostly me for lending it to him. Goodbye expensive hobby.

Is this your D90 that died? Fuuuuuuuuck...

EDIT: Question Brendan, for your camera


Did the school supply it or did you buy it? If so, what'd it cost?

Yes, we have indeed moved on from the Sourcesdk incident a while back, but I'm not talking about the sourcesdk incident, I'm talking about the attitude against me, and only using the SDK incident merely as an example, apologies for not clarifying that correctly.

I am well aware of my 'history' on this site, I have never forgotten that, however holding my 'history' against me now is like those dumbfuck Americans that don't want to send help to Japan because of Pearl Harbor. If i post something stupid then of course I'm going to get shit, I'm not saying everybody should love me, but it's when I get bashed without reason or proper cause is when it's not a matter of just 'history', Strider.
(EDIT: Actually I suppose I'm twisting your words a bit now too... Apologies.)

I'm sorry for talking in such a negative tone towards you but honestly, Thehalflifedude was a long time ago. Why does it have to be held against me now? I feel as though PB let's me stay on the site only because he thinks I'll just rejoin if he bans me, and this is incorrect. I rejoined to apologize for my behavior and beyond that point my membership served no purpose. He very easily could have banned me and that would be the end of it.

TL;DR because I'm shit at wording and examples:
I've got no problem with people disliking me, but it's when I get shit for posting something that was not intended in any negative light whatsoever and was simply done out of hatred towards me, (be it due to my history or other things) is when I'm going to start getting annoyed.
Much like with Dimbark, I really don't see how some of you fucktards can just dump on him and bash him just because you dislike him, instead of bashing him because he actually posted something offensive or stupid, does it make you feel empowered? Somehow better?

I'm just saying, this double standard [Oh crollo posted it, it must be wrong] is getting old and here has just gotten to a completely idiotic level.

I am seriously growing tired of this, it was fun at first watching how everybody felt entitled and glorious that it's perfectly okay to just dump on me for no reason, but it's when Aaron posted something that defended me everybody suddenly stopped bashing and my 'idiotic', 'moronic' 'bullshit' argument was suddenly a completely valid one to everybody?

Yeah, sometimes I do post offensive or negative things, but it's when I post something that has no offense to it whatsoever, and just because it's posted by me everybody twists my words and mis-comprehends the meaning behind what I'm saying and uses that as leverage to bash me just because they don't like me, and yet I can't do anything but just 'accept' this as it is because if I so much as say one thing back, I get moderated on the spot.

What relevance does any of this have to the thread? Think about the fact that Dimbark DID in fact just post "my viewports are black" and it's 'accepted', but I couldn't 'prove' it dispite having concrete evidence on several occasions.

Back sometime earlier in 2011 or maybe late 2010, I originally posted 2 links, one of them was THIRTY PAGES of people reporting the exact same thing, that hammer [And sourcesdk entirely] was completely unusable, but contempt the notion it was, that hammer has always had 'little bugs', dispite the fact that the ENTIRE SOURCESDK WAS UNUSABLE, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the 'small bugs' that always plague hammer.

But now, now that Dimbark, possibly the second lowest respected member on the site just simply posts posts that he's 'having problems with hammer', suddenly everybody rolls over and just believes that the sourcesdk is actually broken? Seriously, what the fuck.

I don't get it, I get called an idiot when SourceSDK broke the last time, so where's rabidmonkey and everybody else to stir up shit this time? On vacation by chance?

Went to Wild play, was fun.

There is no source code for the game, there is only the mod source code.

Oh for christ sake, Not again. Come on Valve, get your shit in gear.

I'm supposed to care?

I mean really, why would you expect something like that?

I think you misunderstood the concept of using DSLRs to shoot video.

DSLR's are completely photo-based tools that usually can have decent video modes, and while it's not particularly the recommendation, I would probably shoot video with a DSLR anyways.

How strange, I said the same thing to your mother last night trapt, but she just kept going.

That... Does not work.

Yeah, nighttime is casual chat time, daytime is sleeping time, fap time is notime.

I'll just stop arguing with you

I'm not even going to argue with you.

Okay then.

ITT: Crollo waves his e-penis around.

But isn't that every thread?

Some shots from a test video.

I've posted plenty of straight-out-of-the-camera photos that are just perfect - look at page 10 for example.

Is that so? Perfect, as in, post production could not improve them any further, correct?













Looking at these images raw it feels as though you've put a colored filter over the entire image, the images sometimes are severely flat.

And here are images that don't have enough detail for decent contrast, and get destroyed through the process of post production. Maybe you should learn the basics of photography yourself, because this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about:



26 of your photos on page 10 required post production work for bearable contrast, vs 6 photo's that already had decent contrast. I'm not seeing 'plentiful' figures here Disco, so before you insult my photographic ability, how about getting yours in check first, okay.

No thanks, I don't take photography seriously so I don't feel inclined to 'learn the basics'.

The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed
The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed
The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed

Better? Despite showing the raw image it does not show you whether or not your image with be usable when shoved through post processing. Oh hey as it turns out this lighting setup is completely unusable [when worked with digitally, it appears perfectly fine when looking through the viewfinder!], so I waste a bunch of negatives, only to find out that increasing the contrast post production only degrades the quality. I also love how you suggest I just buy 'cheap' film when I can do the exact same fucking thing completely free of any charge or problems whatsoever, that's not solving the problem, it's sidestepping it.

I'm not sure if you really realize this or not, but I don't post raw images. They almost always HAVE to have a contrast increase [Ask Archie, actually don't, he doesn't really give a shit], maybe some lighting correction [Tungsten lights], always cropping to avoid having useless space in the image, they're never just straight off the camera, or in this case film. I've wasted enough DIGITAL SPACE taking pictures that looked perfectly fine until I attempted to change it digitally.

Why not just post the raw images? Well while I'm sure film churns out some pretty good raw images, there is ALWAYS room for digital improvement. And more importantly there is usually a lot of wasted space in the raw that I often crop off, I fucking hate shooting anything with a square format.

The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed or cropped or anything like that. It shows you what the raw image will look like.

Film isn't reusable, so I take some [LQ] digital images at different angles, etc, then go through them all, and pick the best one, post process it, and if it looks good in the end I'll use the film. If there are severe problems processing it, then oh well, just delete the image from the memory card and start over. But if you did that with film, you've just wasted however many shots.

Am I being over-thorough? Probably. But you're paying +15$ a roll so I don't exactly feel inclined to shoot something and go "Aw fuck it'd look a lot better if I shot it at this angle!"

Yeah it's kind of a double edged thing, taking [digital] through the viewfinder allows me to get a very rough idea of how the final image would come out should I shoot it on film, and of course film looks a lot better, but has to be developed before you can see whether or not the shot you took is shit. Still, the camera has a metering system built in so I'm not particularly concerned about wrecking images.

Loving the shallow depth of field.
And before you prissy thrift throw your fizzy fits Disco, these are only test shots, although I do kind of like them as actual 'photos'.




[TWIMC: These shots are not completely representative of the film quality or the camera quality, as these are taken through the viewfinder so the quality may be affected and the hud elements remain.]

hahahahahahha.

So happy together....

I'm not sure if March 2010 really counts as 'recent'.

Do you not have any labs that can develop film for you? It really isn't exactly what I would call expensive unless you're developing it yourself.

I think it's something like 3$ a roll, including digital copies [scans] of the developed photos.

Ah yes, bridge cameras were definitely an option, but I would personally PREFER a SLR for the interchangeable lenses and the optical viewfinder, I fucking hate focusing using a LCD. If I couldn't get a SLR I definitely would have gotten a bridge.
You should try a film slr sometime Striker, they're extremely cheap and I think you could come up with some great photos given the massive 'sensor' size and vast choices of lenses.

Why is this entire page discussing me. :<

Too much talk, not enough photos

I can't even take those types of photographs due to the focusing range not being short enough, but I mean everybody suggesting me to get a DSLR when I'm very clearly extremely amateurish is like suggesting buying a 13 year old a RED ONE when he asks for a video camera. Whatever, not trying to stir shit up it just seems odd to me.

With that aside, this thing is fucking amazing, for somebody who's only ever used a piece of shit Kodak Easyshare his entire life this thing is, to me, on par of getting a RED EPIC.
This is vintage 66' but it still works perfectly, completely mechanical minus the meter, so you never have to worry about batteries. The longer I go without stuffing some freaking film in this thing the closer I get to killing myself by dry firing it constantly.

I don't get it, if all I take are bad [presumed] photos, then why the fuck'd I get a SLR? Not being hostile, just wondering.

Indeed. No idea who he is though, "J. Dobson" is either James or John Dobson, and both of them are Europeans, nobody local. So how the hell did I get a J. Dobson's camera in a local thrift store?

[I'm relatively certain that J. Dobson is James or John because they're the only two I could find after 5 pages of searching for generic J. Dobson photographer.]

Fuck point-and-shoots.

Yeah intel integrated is easily the shittiest you can possibly get.

It has nothing to do with how he's creating the world, it has everything to do with him using a shitty integrated graphics unit. Get a new machine.

Come on guys, I can't be the only fucking person here to be able to spot that from three miles away.

Oh shit my bad Ninja, when I read that I thought you were saying you expected the wad fix to work without setting render settings, and you fixed it by setting the render mode to solid and 255.

Also color would probably go well too, unless you're aiming for a strictly vintage look.

It's a SLR so it's pretty set that should churn out photos on par with Striker's and Boomer's, but for the most part all you truly need is good composition.

You're also going to need to have a decent piece of glass in front of the film too, cheaper glass means less sharpness and worse quality.

Please don't tell me that's your justification for RAW, there's block compression artifacts everywhere.