The Random Pictures Thread. Only Rule: Post here more and entertain me. - Page 189 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-26-2011, 07:05 PM   #3761
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post
Edit: Thought I'd comment after posting this. That is a $30,000 machine gun and the ammo it fires is about $3.00 a round. At that price a 500 round tin would run you about $1500.00.. Just food for thought considering he fired off an entire tin of ammo.
He did a great job of firing way too long. Either way great video though. Love that guy.
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 09:23 PM   #3762
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (18)
 
olderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 4,275
Total Cats: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post
*********** at youtube terminated the account of the last video. So here is another upload...

Redneck Math Fail:


I don't care if you love him or hate him. I want this kids ******* dayjob:



Edit: Thought I'd comment after posting this. That is a $30,000 machine gun and the ammo it fires is about $3.00 a round. At that price a 500 round tin would run you about $1500.00.. Just food for thought considering he fired off an entire tin of ammo.
Take a good look at the background. Video was shot in New Jersey.
olderguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 10:46 PM   #3763
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun View Post
You can start begging.
I shot this with the camera built into my Android phone, handheld. It's a tad blurrier than usual, as I was naked, freezing, covered in tequila, and blind drunk at the time, so my hands were shaking quite a bit.

Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 10:59 PM   #3764
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
I shot this with the camera built into my Android phone, handheld. It's a tad blurrier than usual, as I was naked, freezing, covered in tequila, and blind drunk at the time, so my hands were shaking quite a bit.
Well ****, sounds like you need to go spot some UFOs so we can clear up the whole blurry thing (even though we were talking about video not photo).
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 11:03 PM   #3765
Elite Member
iTrader: (10)
 
soviet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 3,509
Total Cats: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
I shot this with the camera built into my Android phone, handheld. It's a tad blurrier than usual, as I was naked, freezing, covered in tequila, and blind drunk at the time, so my hands were shaking quite a bit.
my god, it's full of starts.
that's an *amazing* shot for a phone.
soviet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 11:06 PM   #3766
Elite Member
iTrader: (10)
 
soviet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 3,509
Total Cats: 248
Default

jk, bitch you be trollin
soviet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 11:10 PM   #3767
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

You needed google to tell you that?
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 11:12 PM   #3768
Elite Member
iTrader: (10)
 
soviet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 3,509
Total Cats: 248
Default

I'm shitfaced

me, 40 minutes ago
soviet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 11:14 PM   #3769
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

I'm down about 6 beers. **** San Angelo, can't go out because I run into students, too much shti this weekend to go to Austin. So I sit here and post on MT.net lululul
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 11:19 PM   #3770
Elite Member
iTrader: (10)
 
soviet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 3,509
Total Cats: 248
Default

I had that glass of that tequila, followed by 2 beers. It was a difficult Friday.
soviet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 11:25 PM   #3771
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

I don't have to work again until Monday night...

Lots of **** to get done though.

Here's a picture:
Attached Thumbnails
The Random Pictures Thread. Only Rule: Post here more and entertain me.-sixth-sense-thumb_e3a5f0_2534592.jpg  
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2011, 11:54 PM   #3772
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,382
Total Cats: 43
Default

Nice pl0x Joe!! What model do you have? I'm guessing one of the newer Moto Droids?
(Edit: Joe you bastard...)

TBH, I was impressed at the video capture of the fireworks. Didn't believe it so I checked out some other videos. Pretty crazy for what amounts to a 2mm CCD camera!


I've got an HTC EVO and it took pretty decent pictures at first. Noticed as of late the quality has really gone down hill. Someone suggested that my lens was scratched which would affect the pictures quality. It is indeed scratched up pretty bad. I realize none of these are particurally great, but not bad for a 3 year old phone.







I've been playing with a new ROM lately and found several things wrong with it, one of which is unable to tap to focus the camera.. I'm sure that has some negative affect also.


More random pictures from my phone:


This is my old man's pickup. 1996 Ford Ranger 2.3L 5 speed. Aside from brakes, tires, oil, filters, and gasoline it's 100% stock as delivered from Kentucky. Never in my wildest dreams would've imagined this. Too bad it gets 9mpg on the highway now.








elesjuan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 01:51 AM   #3773
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
 
pusha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 7,363
Total Cats: -28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post
This is my old man's pickup. 1996 Ford Ranger 2.3L 5 speed. Aside from brakes, tires, oil, filters, and gasoline it's 100% stock as delivered from Kentucky. Never in my wildest dreams would've imagined this. Too bad it gets 9mpg on the highway now.
This was taken just over two weeks ago. I'm sitting at 381k currently. Most of these miles were with some primitive turbo kit that made pretty good power but **** fuel economy but it's all back to stock now. I average around 17 mpg on the highway.

1997 Ford F250 7.3L 4x4



I'm always trying to kill it



I keep my bed loaded down

pusha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 02:30 AM   #3774
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post
Nice pl0x Joe!! What model do you have? I'm guessing one of the newer Moto Droids?
(Edit: Joe you bastard...)
Hahaha.

It is impressive, you must admit, to compare what is actually possible with your average cell phone today as compared to a midrange digital camera of just 8 or 10 years ago. Remember when they used floppies? Of course, one thing you'll never get in a phone-sized camera is a decent lens, and a 100MP sensor is for **** if it's got crappy optics in front of it.


There is one thing which really bugs me about every cell-phone camera I've seen, and it's something that would be really quite trivial to fix. There's no way to control the shutter speed.

By definition, a cell-phone camera is always going to be hand-held. So why is it even possible for them to shoot any slower than, say, 1/30? The automatic controls always seem to be hyper-fixated on getting a good exposure, but why? I can fix an underexposed low-light shot in PaintShop, but there's absolutely nothing I can do about a properly-exposed but blurry shot.

This is all just software anyway, so why the hell is there no camera app that lets me manually set the exposure time? Let me decide if I want to sacrifice exposure in exchange for a shot which can be pushed later.

Most point-n-shoot models have this same flaw. My old CoolPix 4300 allowed SLR-style manual shutter and aperture control, and when it came time to replace it, I searched for months to find a modern camera with the same functionality (thank you Canon for producing the S90.)



Unrelated, F2.8 at 500mm:



(No, that isn't photoshopped. It's a real lens.)










Why do you need such a thing? Well, what if you want to photograph a small bird from a quarter-mile away?



Only $25,999 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DG.html
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 03:00 AM   #3775
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,382
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pusha View Post
1997 Ford F250 7.3L 4x4

Yeah I remember this picture from a few weeks ago. See, I EXPECT a diesel to live past 250k miles bone stock on the low end. Granted, the Ford Lima 2.3 is one of the most durable 4 cylinder engines (though absolutely gutless without boost) ever created, I'm still shocked its lasted this long and lacking any sort of problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Hahaha.

It is impressive, you must admit, to compare what is actually possible with your average cell phone today as compared to a midrange digital camera of just 8 or 10 years ago. Remember when they used floppies? Of course, one thing you'll never get in a phone-sized camera is a decent lens, and a 100MP sensor is for **** if it's got crappy optics in front of it.


There is one thing which really bugs me about every cell-phone camera I've seen, and it's something that would be really quite trivial to fix. There's no way to control the shutter speed.

By definition, a cell-phone camera is always going to be hand-held. So why is it even possible for them to shoot any slower than, say, 1/30? The automatic controls always seem to be hyper-fixated on getting a good exposure, but why? I can fix an underexposed low-light shot in PaintShop, but there's absolutely nothing I can do about a properly-exposed but blurry shot.

This is all just software anyway, so why the hell is there no camera app that lets me manually set the exposure time? Let me decide if I want to sacrifice exposure in exchange for a shot which can be pushed later.

Most point-n-shoot models have this same flaw. My old CoolPix 4300 allowed SLR-style manual shutter and aperture control, and when it came time to replace it, I searched for months to find a modern camera with the same functionality (thank you Canon for producing the S90.)



****, my cell phone is better than some digital point and shoot cameras on the market currently! Granted that category is typically full of sub-$100.00 cameras..

You're correct about both exposure and lens. I've seen some silly magnetic "slip on" lens upgrades, which I've been interested in trying. Not practical to mount something like this full time, though.



Still thinking about buying a set just for grins. First I'm going to replace my lens cover on the back of the phone..



Don't own a macro lens so its pretty difficult to photograph the scratches. They're pretty bad and I kinda hope that's the cause of my problem. If not, maybe the EVO replacement will have a better camera. *shrug*


My real complaint is the absolute lack of proper ******* white balance in most cameras on the market. My 40D has great automatic balance but the manual ability is fantastic..


Random picture of a block I'm working on.

elesjuan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 03:55 AM   #3776
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Sentic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 413
Total Cats: 5
Default

Seriously, load up your truck with this stuff instead


If you're gonna do snus, do the swedish original
Sentic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 12:26 PM   #3777
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,047
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post
Wow, Really?? Are you that ignorant??

Horsepower means ****. Its nothing more than a mathematical calculation of TORQUE and engine RPM. There mere dictionary definition of the word "horsepower" pretty much speaks it all:

horse·pow·er   [hawrs-pou-er]
noun
1. a foot-pound-second unit of power, equivalent to 550 foot-pounds per second, or 745.7 watts.


The formula is something along the lines of 2π(force * radius)(RPM)/33,000 ft-lb/min = HP

Without mechanical torque and James Watt your precious horsepower would simply not exist so GTFO with your "Listen to Carol Shelby too much" bullshit. By the way, how many professional race series have you won? How many cars have you designed and built from the ground up? Yeah, none.
Can't tell if serious.

If serious, *you* are that ignorant.

You see, "TORQUE" is completely useless without a little sumpin-sumpin we call "RPM".

Horsepower is the actual measure of useable power that we get from our engine. Horsepower does "work", Torque does not.

It's identical to saying that your solar panel system is better than mine because it produces twice as many Amps, when in reality, my system produces 1.5 times as many watts as yours does. Sure, you can't get to a meaningful number of my watts without having your amps, but saying that amps are a better unit of measure completely bypasses the fact that you also need volts to produce power.

A car with 200 TQ/500 HP will completely destroy a similar car with 500 TQ/200 HP.



An example of "amps":
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 01:02 PM   #3778
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fooger03 View Post
A car with 200 TQ/500 HP will completely destroy a similar car with 500 TQ/200 HP.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that will depend on the application right?

I mean, having 500 ft/lbs of torque would be great at pushing/pulling **** around, vs something with 200 ft/lbs of torque and the moar horse power.
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 01:48 PM   #3779
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elesjuan View Post
You're correct about both exposure and lens. I've seen some silly magnetic "slip on" lens upgrades, which I've been interested in trying. Not practical to mount something like this full time, though.
I've seen a lot of those lens adapters around. Never used one on a cell-phone, though I did buy a couple of wide-angle lens adapters for my old Coolpix camera.

Frankly, they were crap. Beyond the obvious barrel distortion, which I can fix in software, they exhibited significant chromatic aberration and softening of the image which got progressively worse towards the edges of the frame. They might be ok for clipping onto the front of a camcorder, but on a high-resolution still camera, they're worse than nothing.

Cheap lenses are cheap. That's really what it boils down to. And no add-on lens is going to improve the quality of crappy built-in optics pointed at a tiny imaging sensor.


I just wish the shutter speed could be controlled. That's really all it would take to make me happy. Give me the option to take a sharp but underexposed photo instead of forcing me to end up with correctly-exposed but blurry shots.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2011, 02:22 PM   #3780
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,047
Total Cats: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that will depend on the application right?

I mean, having 500 ft/lbs of torque would be great at pushing/pulling **** around, vs something with 200 ft/lbs of torque and the moar horse power.
It's all about gearing. You can gear anything to produce 100x more torque than it normally does, but gearing will never change the amount of horsepower. I could easily gear the 200ft/lb engine to produce 1000 ft/lb of torque, and it would still be producing 500hp. I could also easily gear the 500ft/lb engine to produce that same 1000ft/lb of torque....and it would still be producing only 200hp.

You now have 2 engines producing 1000 ft/lb of torque. Given flat torque curves, one of them (the 200hp engine) Now spins up to 1050 RPM, while the other engine (the 500hp engine) will spin up to 2625 RPM.

So if this engine, with the above mentioned gearing in place was directly turning the wheels without any more additional gearing (a.k.a. transmission), the question is: Do you want a car that will produce 1000ft/lb of torque up to 71.6 MPH (200hp), or do you want the car that will produce that exact same amount of torque up to 178.9 MPH (500hp)

How does gearing affect you? A stock 1994 5-speed Miata is geared to put over 1400 FT/LB of torque to the road in first gear....think about that.
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 53 12-07-2016 05:52 PM
1991 special edition with hard top full part out JC, NJ russian Miata parts for sale/trade 6 10-08-2015 04:01 PM
wiring wideband ground to battery terminal btabor ECUs and Tuning 10 09-28-2015 06:33 PM


Tags
bbbjtcws, fap damage critical, fapanoidus, fapanomanon, furious fap damage, joe perez, mlp porn, mods' asleep; post ponies, pirate treasure, redhead fine art, wetwork, where's my pants

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 PM.