In article <2dg50411fl4pdfkajovcppqqpbbelhnp3a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tony cooper
tony_cooper213@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:55:46 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> 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.
Is that supposed to make sense?
>
> 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.
Your Google abilities seem a little lacking. I'm starting to wonder if
there's any point trying to have a sensible conversation with you about
this when you seem to have the basic concepts so muddled, yet are so
convinced that you're talking sense. Why don't you show me something
that shows that a plane (focal or otherwise) is not a surface?
>
> >> 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.
You forgot to answer this question.
> 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.
>
Oh dear, a personal attack. You realise that doesn't look good for your
case, don't you?
|
