DPReview relocates - from London, England, to Seattle, WA, USA!

On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
expressed in ms
rather than fractions of a second.......

Wonder no mo the answer is no; fractions more readily convey the
relationship of doubling/halving the light.

--
john mcwilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
expressed in ms
rather than fractions of a second.......

Wonder no mo the answer is no; fractions more readily convey the
relationship of doubling/halving the light.

So don't use decimal. 1 ms, 10 ms, 100 ms. It's perfectly obvious they're a
stop apart.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 21/10/2010 18:23, David J. Littleboy wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
expressed in ms
rather than fractions of a second.......

Wonder no mo the answer is no; fractions more readily convey the
relationship of doubling/halving the light.

So don't use decimal. 1 ms, 10 ms, 100 ms. It's perfectly obvious they're a
stop apart.

There are 10 types of people in the world - those that understand binary
numbers and those that don't. They are a bit clumsy though.

It isn't very helpful when you have to count a large number of zeros to
get eg 1s ~= 10000000000 ms (subject to typos & miscounting).

1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000
is pretty much standard. Fancy shutters can manage down to 1/8000 or so.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 10-10-21 17:05 , Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/10/2010 18:23, David J. Littleboy wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
expressed in ms
rather than fractions of a second.......

Wonder no mo the answer is no; fractions more readily convey the
relationship of doubling/halving the light.

So don't use decimal. 1 ms, 10 ms, 100 ms. It's perfectly obvious
they're a
stop apart.

There are 10 types of people in the world - those that understand binary
numbers and those that don't. They are a bit clumsy though.

It isn't very helpful when you have to count a large number of zeros to
get eg 1s ~= 10000000000 ms (subject to typos & miscounting).

1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000
is pretty much standard. Fancy shutters can manage down to 1/8000 or so.

In mechanical shutters, the speeds are actually 1/16, 1/32, 1/64 ... 1/1024.

Makes no discernible difference in exposure...

My Maxxum 9 has a 1/12,000 shutter speed - though rarely used it.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:15:45 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
: On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
:
:
: But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
: expressed in ms
: rather than fractions of a second.......
:
: Wonder no mo the answer is no; fractions more readily convey the
: relationship of doubling/halving the light.

They do? IOW, it's not obvious that, say, 50ms is half of 100ms? I would have
thought that even the products of the American public school systems would be
able to apprehend that point.

Bob

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:23:52 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
:
: "John McWilliams" wrote in message
: ...
: On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
:
:
: But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
: expressed in ms
: rather than fractions of a second.......
:
: Wonder no mo the answer is no; fractions more readily convey the
: relationship of doubling/halving the light.
:
: So don't use decimal. 1 ms, 10 ms, 100 ms. It's perfectly obvious they're a
: stop apart.

It is?? Have I blundered into a spacetime warp? I could have sworn that the
photographic system of "stops" was based on a log-2, not log-10, progression.
Am I the one who's nuts? You know, I do have a math degree from a recognized
U.S. university. It was long ago, but how much could things have changed? 8^|

Bob

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:39 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 10-10-21 17:05 , Martin Brown wrote:
: On 21/10/2010 18:23, David J. Littleboy wrote:
: "John wrote in message
: ...
: On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
:
: But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
: expressed in ms
: rather than fractions of a second.......
:
: Wonder no mo the answer is no; fractions more readily convey the
: relationship of doubling/halving the light.
:
: So don't use decimal. 1 ms, 10 ms, 100 ms. It's perfectly obvious
: they're a
: stop apart.
:
: There are 10 types of people in the world - those that understand binary
: numbers and those that don't. They are a bit clumsy though.
:
: It isn't very helpful when you have to count a large number of zeros to
: get eg 1s ~= 10000000000 ms (subject to typos & miscounting).
:
: 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000
: is pretty much standard. Fancy shutters can manage down to 1/8000 or so.
:
: In mechanical shutters, the speeds are actually 1/16, 1/32, 1/64 ... 1/1024.
:
: Makes no discernible difference in exposure...
:
: My Maxxum 9 has a 1/12,000 shutter speed - though rarely used it.

Just as well. Nobody on the planet could build a mechanical shutter to that
accuracy.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:23:52 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
:
: "John McWilliams" wrote in message
: ...
: On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
:
:
: But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
: expressed in ms
: rather than fractions of a second.......
:
: Wonder no mo the answer is no; fractions more readily convey the
: relationship of doubling/halving the light.
:
: So don't use decimal. 1 ms, 10 ms, 100 ms. It's perfectly obvious
they're a
: stop apart.

It is?? Have I blundered into a spacetime warp? I could have sworn that
the
photographic system of "stops" was based on a log-2, not log-10,
progression.
Am I the one who's nuts? You know, I do have a math degree from a
recognized
U.S. university. It was long ago, but how much could things have changed?
8^|

Hint: there are 10 types of people: those that understand binary and those
that don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXx2VVSWDMo

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"shiva das" wrote:
:
: On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
:
: But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
: expressed in ms
: rather than fractions of a second.......

Forgetting the idea that anyone who comments about 1s and 0s by
definition "doesn't understand binary", light in photography is
expressed in ratios. Opening up from f/2 to f/2.8 is one full stop
because the aperture is doubled in area.

Not particularly relevant to shutter speeds. We're real good at dealing with
ratios of multiples of 1.4, but only because we get lots of practice at it.

Same goes for the shutter speed - 1/125th of a second opens the shutter
for twice the time as 1/250th.

But there's nothing special about fractions. It's no harder to realize that
256 ms is twice the exposure that 125 ms is than it is to undersand your
example. You've just never even tried tried working with integer and longer
exposure times.

Photography started with very long exposures, measure in hours. And
landscape types are still using exposures in the multiple seconds to
multiple minutes range.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 2010-10-21 18:25:32 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" said:


"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:23:52 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
:
: "John McWilliams" wrote in message
: ...
: On 10/21/10 PDT 8:14 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
:
:
: But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
: expressed in ms
: rather than fractions of a second.......
:
: Wonder no mo the answer is no; fractions more readily convey the
: relationship of doubling/halving the light.
:
: So don't use decimal. 1 ms, 10 ms, 100 ms. It's perfectly obvious
they're a
: stop apart.

It is?? Have I blundered into a spacetime warp? I could have sworn that
the
photographic system of "stops" was based on a log-2, not log-10,
progression.
Am I the one who's nuts? You know, I do have a math degree from a
recognized
U.S. university. It was long ago, but how much could things have changed?
8^|

Hint: there are 10 types of people: those that understand binary and those
that don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXx2VVSWDMo

....and both of them confuse me.

Now if you will excuse me there is a pigeon in dire need of poisoning.

--
Regards,

Savageduck