# [PICS] frustration of hummingbirds

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by jimkramer, Aug 23, 2008.

1. ### Annika1980Guest

We have learned at least two things so far in this thread.
You are mathematically challenged and you can't keep up.

Let me try to school your dumb ass once more.
Eric Miller explains it much better on his website:
http://www.dyesscreek.com/miscellaneous_pages/howto_1.html

Eric writes:
"Let me explain the math. The wings on a ruby throated hummingbird
beat at approximately 50-60 beats per second. With a wingspan that
varies between birds from 3-4 inches or so, that means that the
wingtips travel from front to back about 6-8 inches, more or less.
This means that the wings travel between 300 and 500 inches per
second. So a 1/1000 second shutter speed will catch a wing movement of
about 1/2 inch or so, i.e., a complete blur. Of course, the 1/2 inch
distance is not always true because the wings don't actually move at a
constant speed. Instead, they move through one beat, stop (or slow
down greatly) and then move in the opposite direction, but you get the
idea. In order to see detail in the wings you would need a faster
shutter speed than you will find on most any good SLR. Catching the
wing near either end of a beat will help a lot too."

Hope that helps.
Damn, try to keep up. EXAMPLES OF FREEZING A HUMMERS WINGS WITHOUT
By "high-speed flash" I am of course talking about a flash duration
much shorter than the usual 1/1000 second.

Annika1980, Aug 29, 2008

2. ### Scott WGuest

You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?

Scott

Scott W, Aug 29, 2008

3. ### NoonsGuest

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM:

No. And that is much faster than the wings of
ANY bird, including stuffed ones.

Noons, Aug 29, 2008
4. ### NoonsGuest

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:13 AM:
You don't have a clue what the short exposure of
a flash does to a wing beat and you are a complete liar.
Yes, we know that.

I wish he'd make up his mind: is it a "complete blur"
or is it 1/2 inch distance blur or is it a full stroke
blur like in your shots? One wonders...

Yeah, I get the idea your shots have fake wings:
they show a full stroke of blur with a flash burst
on the body.

Fantastic! Thanks for proving my point.
So, when you use a short flash burst, you get wings
that look blurred? Like: in YOUR obviously FAKE
shots?

Cripes, Bret: are you making a special effort
to show yourself as a complete idiot?

you CANNOT have a flash-frozen body of a bird
and at the same time blurred wings, like you do

Got it, you blithering moron? What you just
provided in this stupidly moronic post of yours
is complete proof of what *I* said since the start.

Of course: being the complete idiotic arse you really
in some confused understanding of yours.
Yes, like what you get when a flash cuts out:
as short as 1/15000. Plenty short to "freeze"
ANY bird's wings.

So, HOW COME YOUR SHOTS WITH SUCH A FLASH SHOW
A COMPLETE, FULL STROKE BLURRED WING BEAT AND
A "FLASH-FROZEN" BODY AT THE SAME TIME?

Got it now, diddums?

Hey, knock yourself out: it's only your reputation
completely in tatters yet again, you stupid moron!

Noons, Aug 29, 2008
5. ### Annika1980Guest

No confusion there, except by you. The wings are moving up to 1/2
inch duing the exposure. That creates a blur. What is so difficult
to understand?

Not a full stroke. Probably only 1/2 or so.
Of course you can, idiot. The body of the bird is moving slowly
compared to the wings. Have you never seen a photo of a flying plane
or copter with the blurred props?

Oh really? Seems like you are the only one here who doesn't get it.

It's a type of magic.

Moron!

Annika1980, Aug 29, 2008
6. ### NoonsGuest

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 1:23 AM:
A full stroke blur like in your FAKE shots?
Yeah that is indeed difficult to understand.
But only if one wants to keep the illusion of
credibility: which you exhausted ages ago...
A very clear full stroke, dickhead.

what, that your shots are complete FAKES?

It's called a FAKE, moron.

Noons, Aug 29, 2008
7. ### Scott WGuest

You said

"Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
a spinning propeller"

Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM.

Scott

Scott W, Aug 29, 2008
8. ### Alan LeHunGuest

I think he was querying your assertion that "Hummingbirds beat their
wings much, much slower than a spinning propeller, at around 60Hz"

Generally, it's the other way around. Propellers are usually around 30Hz
max, although there are, of course, exceptions.

Alan LeHun, Aug 29, 2008
9. ### NoonsGuest

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM:
Sheesh, took you a loooong time for that one...

Except propellers have usually 3, and
quite often 4 blades. Birds have one wing
blade to beat with. That would be 180Hz or
even 240 against 60. Rather different, not?

Noons, Aug 29, 2008
10. ### NoonsGuest

Alan LeHun wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:16 AM:
of interjecting with nonsense.

Noons, Aug 29, 2008
11. ### Scott WGuest

You might want to read this.
http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.asp

Scott

Scott W, Aug 29, 2008
12. ### NoonsGuest

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:37 AM:
Can you stop idiotic quotes of out of
context sites?

But let's indulge the stupidity anyway.
From *your* quoted site, this:

"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

Did you get that?

"PLENTY" of stopping ability.

Once more, to see if it gets

"That's plenty of stopping ability"

OK. Got it? So, now:
how come Bret's shots have a bird with
a flash-ed body and blurred wings?
With exif info saying the flash fired?

What, *another* "pbase exif bug"?

Does it even reach your brain that an
electronic flash firing at close distance
shows PRECISELY and EXACTLY the "plenty of
stopping ability" mentioned above? And
therefore it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for
the wings to be blurred to the extent he
fabricates in his images?

So, once again: exactly what is your
point? *IF* you have one, other than
out of context insinuations?

Noons, Aug 29, 2008
13. ### Annika1980Guest

Because I didn't use High-speed sync at 1/32 or 1/64 power.
Dumbass.

I could use that setting on my Speedlights, but I'd need to have the
flash very close to the bird because of the greatly reduced light
output.

Annika1980, Aug 29, 2008
14. ### Scott WGuest

What qoutes? I simply posted link to a site that goes into some
detail on what you need to do to get the flash fast enough to freeze a
hummingbird's wings.

He stated that you need a duration as short as 1/5,00 to 1/20,000 sec.

Scott

Scott W, Aug 29, 2008
15. ### Walter BanksGuest

beginning of the summer) seems clear that physics is not
his strong suite. I will make it simple for him

1) Propellers are turning in revolutions per minute (RPM) and
hummingbirds wings are in beats per second (Hz). There is
a factor of 60 between the two units. Typical numbers
are 2000 RPM for aircraft engines, helicopter blades
are 300 RPM and humming
birds 60 beats per second.

2) Hummingbirds have two wings.

3) Three or four blades will change the phase component
and harmonic content of the noise but not the frequency.

4) Airplanes are photographed at a distance, humming bird
can't be seen in a distance. Propellers move a few pixels/grains
on aircraft photos. Humming birds wings move in a significant
percentage of body size.

Sorry Scott, I ran out of coffee a couple hours ago and

w..

Walter Banks, Aug 29, 2008
16. ### NoonsGuest

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 4:32 AM:
and that proves exactly WHAT?
Can you actually post TWICE on topic ANYWHERE?

Noons, Aug 30, 2008
17. ### NoonsGuest

Walter Banks wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 5:13 AM:

Apparently, you have forgotten about reality.
That's what happens to the twits running around
yelling lah-lah-lah with a killfile around their ears
"statements of fact" snipped, to improve the noise.

"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

Still waiting for your "explanation" to that,
arsehole.

Noons, Aug 30, 2008
18. ### NoonsGuest

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 4:20 AM:
You had the flash on auto, of course.
We know that, it's how you take most of your
shots anyway, relying on photoslop to fix the errors.
What do you think auto does to modulate the power, dickhead?
It CUTS the time, you moron!
That's why you get freeze action, which you then blur
the shit off in your fake shots.

You use auto flash which does exactly the same, moron.
But only an ignorant dickhead like you would pretend
it doesn't.

Noons, Aug 30, 2008
19. ### Annika1980Guest

I'm still waiting for your explanation for how a flash duration of
1/1000 can freeze a hummer's wings when every other source quoted says
that you have to have a much shorter flash duration to freeze them.

First you wrote this pearl of wisdom:
"Last time I looked, the exposure time of a flash burst will freeze
solid any moving wings."

That was pretty funny and we all had a good laugh at that one.

Then you compounded your foolishness with this gem:
"If you used the default synch speed of your camera of around 1/200,
the wings would be nearly frozen solid."

My stomach actually hurt from the laughing pains after that one.

When I said that you'd need a flash with about a 1/15000 duration you
tried to mock me as being an idiot. More than once.

Scott posted a link that said the same thing:
"To freeze all motion in a hummingbird's wings, you need a duration as
short as 1/5,000 to 1/20,000 of a second (50-200 microseconds)."

Gee, sounds like what I said!
And now all you can say is, " and that proves exactly WHAT? "

What it proves is that you are a clueless buffoon who obviously never

Sucks to be you, Loony Noony!

Annika1980, Aug 30, 2008
20. ### NoonsGuest

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 5:30 AM:
Thank you! At last, a single post with a smidgeon
of photo information. Instead of the usual idiotic
off-topic bullshit about theory of flight of the
bumblebee on steroids. Or whatever...

That's what folks do who don't use multiple flash
setups. It's hard as nuts to get a well placed
wing, as Jim showed in the originals. On top of that,
hummies will often beat the wings out of synch to control
the hovering. Pot luck shot at best.

This is where a dslr comes in handy: take a shot, check,
delete if no good, rinse and repeat. Perfect tool for the
job.

Of course to then go and deface a good shot
with photoslop-blurred wings is the tip of the
fake expert. But those are spotted a mile away.
Except by the idiot trolls and scammers.
And that's why they recommend multiple flashes.
String a couple and you got twice the power
at same fast speed.

Noons, Aug 30, 2008