On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:19:49 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>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?
I didn't expect it to...to you.
>>
>> 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.
Sufficient, if you followed the link, to define that a focal plane is
not a surface.
> 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?
Read the definitions that I linked to.
>
>> >> 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?
Giggle.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
|
