On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:55:46 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>In article <k665045j8pmrmhqonoqrs09o3d3rnobe18@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tony cooper
>tony_cooper213@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:29:17 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You seem to be missing the fundamental point even though it's stated
in
>> >the definition you quoted - a plane is a surface, two-dimensional,
>> >having width and length, while a line is 1-dimensional, having no
width.
>>
>> And you miss the fundamental point that a plane forms a line that we
>> use in descriptions. In the sentence quoted, it's perfectly clear
>> that the plane is being extended in the form of a line.
>>
>It's perfectly clear that you are happy to use vague and incorrect
>terminology - how do you "extend" a two dimensional object to produce a
>one-dimensional object?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? There are no objects involved in
the focal plane other than the point on the camera where the focal
plane is determined. That is a point, and not a surface. The plane
is not an object and the line is not an object. The plane is based on
an intersection point.
You extend a line by visualization. A "line of sight", for example,
is a visualization and can be extended to the maximum of sight.
The plane, in this case, is not a surface. Read the definitions of
"focal plane" at
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A++focal+plane&btnG=Google+Search
and see how many examples where you can find the focal plane being a
surface.
>> >> The poster is seeking information and admits that he has a hard time
>> >> understanding it. His intention is to obtain more information.
>> >> Criticizing how he forms the question does not provide that.
>> >>
>> >I didn't criticise the OP's question, because the words he posted were
>> >not his but a quote from something that he did not understand.
>>
>> True, he did not understand what he was quoting. That's why he asked
>> for help. There was no reason for you to point out that he didn't
>> understand because he *told* you he didn't understand. Obviously, you
>> didn't understand it either. So why bother writing a snarky reply?
>>
>Read what I wrote and tell me where I pointed out that the OP didn't
>understand. Obviously I didn't understand it either, that's why I said
>I'd like to see more context.
You wouldn't know what to do with context if you had it. It would
just be more "gobbledegook" to you.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
|
