FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

He did a great job of firing way too long. Either way great video though. Love that guy.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

Take a good look at the background. Video was shot in New Jersey.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

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).

soviet

iTrader: (10)

my god, it's full of starts.
that's an *amazing* shot for a phone.

soviet

iTrader: (10)

jk, bitch you be trollin

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

You needed google to tell you that?

soviet

iTrader: (10)

I'm shitfaced

me, 40 minutes ago

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

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

soviet

iTrader: (10)

I had that glass of that tequila, followed by 2 beers. It was a difficult Friday.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

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

Lots of **** to get done though.

Here's a picture:

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

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.

pusha

iTrader: (5)

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

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

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.

****, 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.

Sentic

iTrader: (1)

Seriously, load up your truck with this stuff instead


If you're gonna do snus, do the swedish original

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

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":

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

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.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

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.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

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.