[PICS] frustration of hummingbirds

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

  1. jimkramer

    Annika1980 Guest

    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
    USING HIGH-SPEED FLASH, dickhead.
    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
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. jimkramer

    Scott W Guest

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

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 29, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    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.
    Exactly what was your point?
     
    Noons, Aug 29, 2008
    #23
  4. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    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?

    Get this very simply, dickhead:
    you CANNOT have a flash-frozen body of a bird
    and at the same time blurred wings, like you do
    in your fakes!

    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
    are, instead of READING my original post you charged along
    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
    #24
  5. jimkramer

    Annika1980 Guest

    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
    #25
  6. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    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
    #26
  7. jimkramer

    Scott W Guest

    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
    #27
  8. jimkramer

    Alan LeHun Guest

    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
    #28
  9. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    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?
    Once again: your point?
     
    Noons, Aug 29, 2008
    #29
  10. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    Alan LeHun wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:16 AM:
    Of course. Now: read my reply to him instead
    of interjecting with nonsense.
     
    Noons, Aug 29, 2008
    #30
  11. jimkramer

    Scott W Guest

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

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 29, 2008
    #31
  12. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    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
    through your brain:

    "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
    #32
  13. jimkramer

    Annika1980 Guest

    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
    #33
  14. jimkramer

    Scott W Guest

    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
    #34
  15. jimkramer

    Walter Banks Guest

    I had forgotten about noons (I filtered him out at the
    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
    noons replaced it with adrenaline.

    w..
     
    Walter Banks, Aug 29, 2008
    #35
  16. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    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
    #36
  17. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    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
    #37
  18. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    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
    #38
  19. jimkramer

    Annika1980 Guest

    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
    made it out of grade school.

    Sucks to be you, Loony Noony!
     
    Annika1980, Aug 30, 2008
    #39
  20. jimkramer

    Noons Guest

    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
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.