In article <rsn504hpg7u76h9e0dt6100o75b0qg8ldo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tony cooper
tony_cooper213@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> 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.
OK, lets try again. You know that little mark on the top of your
camera, a circle with a line through it? Extend the line to the width
of the camera, then move it vertically to the bottom of the camera. The
points through which the line passes make up part of the focal plane.
Open up the camera and what do you find there? A film or image sensor.
A real actual 2-dimensional surface that coincides with the focal plane
you just extrapolated from the little symbol on the top.
> >>
> >> 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.
Let's see: "A plane perpendicular to the axis of the lens on which an
image appears to focus". So a focal plane is a plane, unsurprisingly
enough. Then check for definitions of plane, and you'll find things
like "a two-dimensional manifold or surface that is perfectly flat".
>
> > 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.
You still 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.
>
That would be a nervous giggle then?
|
