In article <3do604p6e1rl6631ca79a8lc7vjvlatagj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tony cooper
tony_cooper213@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:42:31 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> >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 are getting close, but still not quite there.
I've not moved - I was in the right place to start with.
> There is a surface
> within the camera, but the plane passes across that surface just as
> the line extends.
That's why I said that the surface I described was "part of the focal
plane".
> The focal plane is still the focal plane where it
> is not passing across the surface. You are making progress because
> you originally said "Possibly because it's bollocks. For a start, a
> plane is a plane, not a line" and now you've extended your thinking to
> include the concept of a line.
>
Bollocks again. A plane still isn't a point or a line, no matter what
you claim. It /is/ by definition a flat surface, despite your
protestations to the contrary. This is really basic geometry.
BTW you forgot to respond to some of my points earlier, so I'll repeat
them here to save you having to look back through old posts.
Where did I "point out that he didn't understand" to the OP?
How do you "extend" a two dimensional object to produce a
one-dimensional object?
Why don't you show me something that shows that a plane (focal or
otherwise) is not a surface?
|
