We seem to have changed subjects:) Fine then! If you can make the same camera, or a better one using less lenses, you win.
I'm a fan of the Hasselblad design. The detachable back end opens up a lot of possibilities. One possibility is to take test shots with the Polaroid back end, for e.g. a quick lighting test before moving on to the expensive film that goes into the standard back, wherein you can't even see what you've shot until you've developed it, which necessarily can't happen until after the shoot. Here's why this is on topic: if we can make a camera that's completely understandable by a single individual, but can't shoot anything but black and white (bear with me, I'm playing with words and concepts a bit) because development of color photos takes too long to be practical, with a design analogous to a Hasselblad, we can just swap out the back and end up with the FONC idea that optimizations can be kept separate from meaning and the math of the meaning in a modular way, and... Now I'm going to do something which is arguably a bit mean: for as many lenses as your SLR eschews, is it easier for you to explain concretely to a novice (for example, a small child) what your SLR does than it is for me to explain how my Hasselblad works? I have a feeling that explaining the actual optical chip is going to be something that's very difficult. Probably, if I tried to teach a kid how a camera works, my victim would have a working camera years before yours would have a real chip that could recognize a single pixel, and my game is mostly made out of a small hole in a milk carton. For all of humankind doing decades of this stuff, I really wish it was the other way around. You should let me play with your SLR sometime:) but I'd honestly rather die developing film in a poorly ventilated darkroom than shoot with a camera that I am neither able, nor allowed to, understand. Does that make sense? Casey P.S. This is one of the better metaphors that I've seen on the list. Awesome! On Dec 5, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Randy MacDonald <array...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > If you can span the same space with fewer tools, that is good. If you need > >1 lens to cover all subjects, so be it. It sounds like it is a problem of > fit, not something independent of the problem space. No need to discuss the > benefits of SLR's, that is just stretching the analogy. > > > > On 12/4/2012 10:16 PM, John Carlson wrote: >> Wouldn't it be best to make programming a bit like single lens photography >> instead of dual (or triple) lens photography? It would seem like the fewer >> lenses you use, the less likely it would be for one of them to be scratched. >> Unless somehow there was a compensating factor in the lenses. >> >> My 2 bits. Metaphor isn't quite right, but perhaps you see my point. >> >> Where's my post-mature optimization? >> >> John "Damn the torpedos, we're going full speed ahead and getting nowhere" >> Carlson >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > |\/| Randy A MacDonald | If the string is too tight, it will snap > |\\| array...@ns.sympatico.ca| If it is too loose, it won't play... > BSc(Math) UNBF '83 | APL: If you can say it, it's done. > Natural Born APL'er | I use Real J > Experimental webserver > ------------------------------------------------<-NTP>----{ gnat }- > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
