On 12/5/2012 4:34 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
We seem to have changed subjects:)
Fine then! If you can make the same camera, or a better one using less
lenses, you win.
Thank you for your apology.
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.
A lot of manipulation, now we have to factor in the experience of the
user, and introduce a lot of artifacts that are germane to the process,
not the subject. The chemical nature of the development process gets
brought in, for example.
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!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | If the string is too tight, it will snap
|\\| [email protected]| 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 <http://mormac.homeftp.net/?source=190907>
------------------------------------------------<-NTP>----{ gnat }-
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
