As promised, here is a photo taken in macro mode at four inches. It is
the bottom side of a IBM Deskstar DTLA-307030 hard drive.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:19:02 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

As promised, here is a photo taken in macro mode at four inches. It is
the bottom side of a IBM Deskstar DTLA-307030 hard drive.

I have that same camera, two of them in fact. It seems fine for
vacation type pictures, but the autofocus is erratic, manual focus is
useless, and macro doesn't seem to do much of anything. And the menus
and manual are a mess. The popup flash is most annoying. I just got a
Sony 7mpix camera that seems better, with its own quirks of course.

John

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:59:23 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:19:02 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

As promised, here is a photo taken in macro mode at four inches. It is
the bottom side of a IBM Deskstar DTLA-307030 hard drive.

I have that same camera, two of them in fact. It seems fine for
vacation type pictures, but the autofocus is erratic, manual focus is
useless, and macro doesn't seem to do much of anything. And the menus
and manual are a mess. The popup flash is most annoying. I just got a
Sony 7mpix camera that seems better, with its own quirks of course.

John

I have a feeling that you try to compose a macro shot, but place the
camera closer than the minimum focal length.

The other thing to avoid is moving beyond the physical zoom limit
into digital zoom realm.

Also, holding down the popup flash by hand will force a non flash
composition on most cameras.

MassiveProng wrote:

Also, holding down the popup flash by hand will force a non flash
composition on most cameras.


It can be turned off in the camera's menu with a couple clicks. Why
damage it with brute force?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:43:18 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:

Also, holding down the popup flash by hand will force a non flash
composition on most cameras.


It can be turned off in the camera's menu with a couple clicks. Why
damage it with brute force?

The Fuji doesn't seem to respect my wishes in that regard. The
"natural light" mode does kill the flash, but that imposes limits of
its own.

John

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:43:18 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:

Also, holding down the popup flash by hand will force a non flash
composition on most cameras.


It can be turned off in the camera's menu with a couple clicks. Why
damage it with brute force?

The Fuji doesn't seem to respect my wishes in that regard. The
"natural light" mode does kill the flash, but that imposes limits of
its own.

John


There is an inhibit flash, available in any mode I've tried. Turn
the camera on to take a picture. The four way ring switch on the menu
button shows a lightning bolt on the right side. Click it till the
lightning bolt appears. The next click will show the bolt with a circle
with a slash over it. That disables the flash, and leaves all other
settings the same.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:43:18 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:


It can be turned off in the camera's menu with a couple clicks. Why
damage it with brute force?


It is spring loaded, you dopey ****tard. Holding it down does
nothing to damage a goddamned thing, and does turn it off, reverting
the camera back to non-flash automatically.

But mentioning it sure seems to have further damaged your already
low intellect.

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:43:18 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:


It can be turned off in the camera's menu with a couple clicks. Why
damage it with brute force?


It is spring loaded, you dopey ****tard. Holding it down does
nothing to damage a goddamned thing, and does turn it off, reverting
the camera back to non-flash automatically.

But mentioning it sure seems to have further damaged your already
low intellect.


YAWN.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:19:02 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

As promised, here is a photo taken in macro mode at four inches. It is
the bottom side of a IBM Deskstar DTLA-307030 hard drive.

I have that same camera, two of them in fact. It seems fine for
vacation type pictures, but the autofocus is erratic, manual focus is
useless, and macro doesn't seem to do much of anything. And the menus
and manual are a mess. The popup flash is most annoying. I just got a
Sony 7mpix camera that seems better, with its own quirks of course.


It is a huge improvement over the Kodak C320 or Aiptek M5100 that I
already had. The Kodak was fixed focus at infinity, and the closest you
could focus the Aiptek in macro mode was 12 feet.

The new camera is intended for gathering photos for Veterans events
for the new "Marion County, Fl. Veteran's News & Information" website.
There won't be a lot of call for the Macro function for these types of
photos, but it is nice to have. Most shots will be of events at the
Veteran's Park, the various Veteran's groups and events like the 3/5
scale model of "The Wall" that has all the names of those lost during
Vietnam. The new moving wall was here last weekend, and the restored
WWII War birds that were here a few weeks earlier.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:19:02 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:

As promised, here is a photo taken in macro mode at four inches. It is
the bottom side of a IBM Deskstar DTLA-307030 hard drive.


Need to close the aperture to get more depth of field. That focus is
sad.

Lemmie guess... the primary lens on that camera is less than a half
inch in diameter!

Mine: 1.4" Not bad for a fixed lens on a cheap camera.

Make sure you review the minimum focal length on it. You may have
been too close.

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:19:02 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:

As promised, here is a photo taken in macro mode at four inches. It is
the bottom side of a IBM Deskstar DTLA-307030 hard drive.

Need to close the aperture to get more depth of field. That focus is
sad.

Lemmie guess... the primary lens on that camera is less than a half
inch in diameter!


Do your own research, idiot.
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/digitalS5200Overview.jsp


Mine: 1.4" Not bad for a fixed lens on a cheap camera.


It is a 10 Optical zoom, with auto focus, moron.


Make sure you review the minimum focal length on it. You may have
been too close.


The minimum spec for macro shots is 4", and the camera was not on a
tripod.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:30:55 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:19:02 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:

As promised, here is a photo taken in macro mode at four inches. It is
the bottom side of a IBM Deskstar DTLA-307030 hard drive.

Need to close the aperture to get more depth of field. That focus is
sad.

Lemmie guess... the primary lens on that camera is less than a half
inch in diameter!


Do your own research, idiot.

**** you, asswipe.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/digitalS5200Overview.jsp

Hahaha Lame. In fact, it is a copy of my camera, but is worse on
the specs. It even uses the Olympus designed memory card.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...duct=1189&fl=4

A far better product, and is $100 minimum cheaper than they list it
at.

Mine: 1.4" Not bad for a fixed lens on a cheap camera.

I was wrong. It focuses even closer than that.

It is a 10 Optical zoom, with auto focus, moron.

Oh boy! It also allows YOU to make many setting, like APERTURE,
dip****.

Make sure you review the minimum focal length on it. You may have
been too close.


The minimum spec for macro shots is 4", and the camera was not on a
tripod.

3.9" actually.

It is a poor shot. There has to be some reason as I can compose
better shots than that crap handheld. Must be operator error, or you
were just too lazy to take a number of shots, and then pick the best
one from them.

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:30:55 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:19:02 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:

As promised, here is a photo taken in macro mode at four inches. It is
the bottom side of a IBM Deskstar DTLA-307030 hard drive.

Need to close the aperture to get more depth of field. That focus is
sad.

Lemmie guess... the primary lens on that camera is less than a half
inch in diameter!


Do your own research, idiot.

**** you, asswipe.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/digitalS5200Overview.jsp

Hahaha Lame. In fact, it is a copy of my camera, but is worse on
the specs. It even uses the Olympus designed memory card.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_se...duct=1189&fl=4

A far better product, and is $100 minimum cheaper than they list it
at.

Mine: 1.4" Not bad for a fixed lens on a cheap camera.

I was wrong. It focuses even closer than that.

It is a 10 Optical zoom, with auto focus, moron.

Oh boy! It also allows YOU to make many setting, like APERTURE,
dip****.

Make sure you review the minimum focal length on it. You may have
been too close.


The minimum spec for macro shots is 4", and the camera was not on a
tripod.

3.9" actually.

It is a poor shot. There has to be some reason as I can compose
better shots than that crap handheld. Must be operator error, or you
were just too lazy to take a number of shots, and then pick the best
one from them.


You can't do ****, but run your mouth.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:06:47 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:

You can't do ****, but run your mouth.


Hahaha... sure, bub. The truth hurts, but you'll get over it, I'm
sure.

You paid what for that POS $400... more?

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:24:30 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:



Mine: 1.4"

and the lens is how big turd surfer?

This was taken about 6" away from the device with a Canon PowerShot S1 IS.
Obviously, I reduced the image size a bit for portability. Full size images
(2048 x 1536 or so; 3.2Mpix claimed) are a little blurry in full
excruciating detail, but they make great pictures at even 2/3 scale.
(Obviously for web pics, I rarely have anything over 50% reduction, so the
sharpness is excellent.)

Tim

--
"Librarians are hiding something." - Steven Colbert
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
As promised, here is a photo taken in macro mode at four inches. It is
the bottom side of a IBM Deskstar DTLA-307030 hard drive.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

We just spent about an hour taking pics of a scope trace, to include
in a manual. Three cameras:

Fuji S5200 5.1 mpix 10x optical zoom

Sony CyberShot 7.2 mpix 12x

Sony Mavica, floppy disk, 800 kpix I think, 14x

See the winner: Mavica!

John

John Larkin wrote:
We just spent about an hour taking pics of a scope trace, to include
in a manual. Three cameras:

Fuji S5200 5.1 mpix 10x optical zoom

Sony CyberShot 7.2 mpix 12x

Sony Mavica, floppy disk, 800 kpix I think, 14x

See the winner: Mavica!

A friend of mine has one of those, it takes pretty good pictures and movies
with sound. My first digital camera was an HP 315 IIRC, what a POS and only
$400. I figured they knew what they were doing, boy was I stupid. I then
spent nearly that much for a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W/1 a couple of years back
and it can't take macro shots for crap. The autofocus will screw you every
chance it gets. So the only hope is fixed focus mode and bracketing the
distance. The flash is a nightmare on it as well. It takes decent pics
most of the time if you let it do it's thing, but trying to treat it like a
"real" camera is disappointing at best. I wish I simply had a 5MP digital
back for my Canon EOS Elan and I'd be happy.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:28:23 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
We just spent about an hour taking pics of a scope trace, to include
in a manual. Three cameras:

Fuji S5200 5.1 mpix 10x optical zoom

Sony CyberShot 7.2 mpix 12x

Sony Mavica, floppy disk, 800 kpix I think, 14x

See the winner: Mavica!

A friend of mine has one of those, it takes pretty good pictures and movies
with sound. My first digital camera was an HP 315 IIRC, what a POS and only
$400. I figured they knew what they were doing, boy was I stupid. I then
spent nearly that much for a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W/1 a couple of years back
and it can't take macro shots for crap. The autofocus will screw you every
chance it gets. So the only hope is fixed focus mode and bracketing the
distance. The flash is a nightmare on it as well. It takes decent pics
most of the time if you let it do it's thing, but trying to treat it like a
"real" camera is disappointing at best. I wish I simply had a 5MP digital
back for my Canon EOS Elan and I'd be happy.


Yeah, I'd love to have a digital camera that behaves just like my
Olympus SLR: manual focus, split image optical finder, light meter,
nice things you turn to adjust focus, exposure time, and f-stop. I
haven't seen an autofocus that works right, and the LCD screens aren't
good enough to get a really sharp manual focus, and the manual focus
controls tend to be very clumsy.

Grrrrr.

John

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:28:23 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
We just spent about an hour taking pics of a scope trace, to include
in a manual. Three cameras:

Fuji S5200 5.1 mpix 10x optical zoom

Sony CyberShot 7.2 mpix 12x

Sony Mavica, floppy disk, 800 kpix I think, 14x

See the winner: Mavica!

A friend of mine has one of those, it takes pretty good pictures and movies
with sound. My first digital camera was an HP 315 IIRC, what a POS and only
$400. I figured they knew what they were doing, boy was I stupid. I then
spent nearly that much for a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W/1 a couple of years back
and it can't take macro shots for crap. The autofocus will screw you every
chance it gets. So the only hope is fixed focus mode and bracketing the
distance. The flash is a nightmare on it as well. It takes decent pics
most of the time if you let it do it's thing, but trying to treat it like a
"real" camera is disappointing at best. I wish I simply had a 5MP digital
back for my Canon EOS Elan and I'd be happy.


Yeah, I'd love to have a digital camera that behaves just like my
Olympus SLR: manual focus, split image optical finder, light meter,
nice things you turn to adjust focus, exposure time, and f-stop. I
haven't seen an autofocus that works right, and the LCD screens aren't
good enough to get a really sharp manual focus, and the manual focus
controls tend to be very clumsy.

Grrrrr.

John


Do any of your cameras have a NTSC video output that is live while
shooting? I haven't tested it on the S5200 yet, but I have an uncased
5" color monitor that runs on 12 VDC. It will make a nice viewfinder, if
it works. Mount it in a small case in top of the tripod, and put the
battery case on one of the legs. A small gel cell battery should power
both the monitor and camera through any event.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:28:23 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
We just spent about an hour taking pics of a scope trace, to include
in a manual. Three cameras:

Fuji S5200 5.1 mpix 10x optical zoom

Sony CyberShot 7.2 mpix 12x

Sony Mavica, floppy disk, 800 kpix I think, 14x

See the winner: Mavica!

A friend of mine has one of those, it takes pretty good pictures and
movies with sound. My first digital camera was an HP 315 IIRC, what
a POS and only
$400. I figured they knew what they were doing, boy was I stupid.
I then
spent nearly that much for a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W/1 a couple of
years back and it can't take macro shots for crap. The autofocus
will screw you every chance it gets. So the only hope is fixed
focus mode and bracketing the distance. The flash is a nightmare on
it as well. It takes decent pics most of the time if you let it do
it's thing, but trying to treat it like a "real" camera is
disappointing at best. I wish I simply had a 5MP digital back for
my Canon EOS Elan and I'd be happy.


Yeah, I'd love to have a digital camera that behaves just like my
Olympus SLR: manual focus, split image optical finder, light meter,
nice things you turn to adjust focus, exposure time, and f-stop. I
haven't seen an autofocus that works right, and the LCD screens aren't
good enough to get a really sharp manual focus, and the manual focus
controls tend to be very clumsy.

Grrrrr.

I hear that. Other non favorite advances in technology include:
1) HDTV imagery ruined by compression artifacts (what's the point? I don't
live and die by TV, but I do like NASCAR and _some_ of the HD programming
available)
2) Self check out at the grocery store (some things just aren't designed to
be automated that way)
3) Automated voice attendents (with the obligatory "due to the UNUSUALLY
large call volume...." gimme a break)
4) Call centers in foreign countries
5) Operating systems that have the nerve to tell a sysadmin level user
"Access denied" in order to protect the virus (gawd, I could just shoot
myself sometimes)
6) DRM/HDCP (saddest thing ever nothing wrong with it's legitimate use,
but watch how the movie/music industry will screw you out of your legal
rights with it) which brings us to more of the same
7) downgraded sound/video quality in an "untrusted" environment (why isn't
everyone ****ed off about being treated like a criminal unless you can prove
otherwise) which brings us to
8) lack of privacy and the sale of personal/financial information as a
commodity (Is everyone anesthetized? Why is this allowed to take place?)
9) click thru license agreements (the worlds lawyers better hope I never get
three wishes)

I could probably add to this list for days, but ........ Care to add any
yourself. I'm curious what folks here really hate about technology abuse.

"Anthony Fremont" wrote in message


2) Self check out at the grocery store (some things just aren't
designed to be automated that way)

"Thank you for purchacing the 16 ounce Goulden's spicy brown mustard. You
saved 48 cents."

....by which time I have scanned the next 3 items, and the scanner subsystem
acknowledged every one with a beep.

"You didn't wait for me to finish talking. My scanner has a lower priority
than my speech system. I don't know what to do now. Please wait for
assistance from one of the human workers I was meant to replace."


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:28:40 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

I hear that. Other non favorite advances in technology include:
1) HDTV imagery ruined by compression artifacts (what's the point? I don't
live and die by TV, but I do like NASCAR and _some_ of the HD programming
available)


Your cable company is lame. You should tell them that.

NASCAR in HD looks sweet here (as does all other cable carried HD
content here), even on my "sub-par" (according to you) HDTV.

Bwuahahahahaha... poor boy.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:28:40 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

2) Self check out at the grocery store (some things just aren't designed to
be automated that way)

Yes, retards do have a hard time with it.

Works fine for me at. Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and many other stores I
have utilized this nice feature at, including the grocery store.

Some people just can't handle technological advances. Especially
after they got the **** kicked out of them, and have had skull cavity
Gs in excess of what they should. Between your mother dropping you in
childhood, and you "biker retard" experiences, I'll bet you have a
hard time operating a toilet flush actuator (handle).

Bwuahahahahahaha! Yes, LEDs are meant for continuous duty.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:28:40 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

3) Automated voice attendents (with the obligatory "due to the UNUSUALLY
large call volume...." gimme a break)


You're probably one of those dopes that think they put you on hold in
hopes that you'll hang up. Idiots like you contribute to the volume
that real folks that need assistance end up waiting on.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:28:40 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

5) Operating systems that have the nerve to tell a sysadmin level user
"Access denied" in order to protect the virus (gawd, I could just shoot
myself sometimes)


You may have had "sysadmin" level access, but you are certainly NOT
a sysadmin if you cannot operate the system without this being a
problem. Perhaps you *should* just shoot yourself... sometime soon,
preferably.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:28:40 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

6) DRM/HDCP (saddest thing ever nothing wrong with it's legitimate use,
but watch how the movie/music industry will screw you out of your legal
rights with it) which brings us to more of the same


You're a goddamned retard.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:28:40 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

7) downgraded sound/video quality in an "untrusted" environment (why isn't
everyone ****ed off about being treated like a criminal unless you can prove
otherwise) which brings us to

You're an idiot. Get legit OS and software on your system and you
won't have a problem. Also, you old CRAP hardware won't work with new
OSes as the old crap hardware makers have not/will not write new
drivers for old pieces of ****. They want you to buy new as well.
Who do you blame, boy?

8) lack of privacy and the sale of personal/financial information as a
commodity (Is everyone anesthetized? Why is this allowed to take place?)

Where? My secured transactions ARE secure. If your dumb ass gets on
a porn site and starts clicking OKie Dokie to everything, you deserve
whatever you get rammed up your OS.

9) click thru license agreements (the worlds lawyers better hope I never get
three wishes)

You'd better hope I don't.

I could probably add to this list for days, but ........ Care to add any
yourself. I'm curious what folks here really hate about technology abuse.

Mostly, the folks that abuse it, or are too ****ing stupid to know
how to properly use it (points finger at post author, laughing).

John Larkin wrote:

Yeah, I'd love to have a digital camera that behaves just like my
Olympus SLR: manual focus, split image optical finder, light meter,
nice things you turn to adjust focus, exposure time, and f-stop. I
haven't seen an autofocus that works right, and the LCD screens aren't
good enough to get a really sharp manual focus, and the manual focus
controls tend to be very clumsy.

Grrrrr.

John

Now that would be sweet, an OM-1N with a digital back. I'd buy one!

-Chuck

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:33:08 -0400, Meat Plow
Gave us:

I own a Casio Exilim EX-Z55 5.1 mp that does fantastic macro autofocus
shots. i just can't imagine it getting better than that. I'll snap a pic
and post it.

And you'll lose. That is a lame camera choice, but seems par for
someone that "can't imagine". It's 4 years old, and it's doo doo.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:07:59 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:33:08 -0400, Meat Plow
Gave us:

I own a Casio Exilim EX-Z55 5.1 mp that does fantastic macro autofocus
shots. i just can't imagine it getting better than that. I'll snap a pic
and post it.

And you'll lose. That is a lame camera choice, but seems par for
someone that "can't imagine". It's 4 years old, and it's doo doo.

How old are you?

John

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:


It's a hell of a lot easier to have a scope that puts out jpegs with
a single button press.

For someone that brags about having so many millions trickling
through your company, one would think you could afford a modern scope.

Bwuahahahaha!

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:


It's a hell of a lot easier to have a scope that puts out jpegs with
a single button press.

For someone that brags about having so many millions trickling
through your company, one would think you could afford a modern scope.

Bwuahahahaha!


As opposed to your Etch-A-Sketch, DingDong?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:31:25 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:


It's a hell of a lot easier to have a scope that puts out jpegs with
a single button press.

For someone that brags about having so many millions trickling
through your company, one would think you could afford a modern scope.

Bwuahahahaha!


As opposed to your Etch-A-Sketch, DingDong?


Sure, bub. See attached, dip****. That's at low res captured into
paint. It is much higher res direct.

MassiveProng wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:31:25 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"

As opposed to your Etch-A-Sketch, DingDong?


Sure, bub. See attached, dip****. That's at low res captured into
paint. It is much higher res direct.

Now show us a pic of that scope sitting in the dump of hole you live in and
not on a bench at work. I bet you're lying and that's not your personal
scope. Yes I just called you a liar, now prove me wrong.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:33:37 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:


It's a hell of a lot easier to have a scope that puts out jpegs with
a single button press.

For someone that brags about having so many millions trickling
through your company, one would think you could afford a modern scope.

Bwuahahahaha!

It's a Tektronix 11801A 20 GHz sampling scope. I got this one on ebay.
The current version, with a couple of sampling heads, would cost about
$70K. The 11801A has a magnetic-deflection, vertical raster scan color
CRT, which is very difficult to photograph. The Cybershot, even on a
2-second exposure, has all sorts of goofy scan artifacts. The
distortion is real, namely on the screen itself, not a result of the
photography.

The snap I posted is the rising edge of an output pulse from our first
all-CMOS digital delay generator...

http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T560DS.html

We had the formal release party for rev C this afternoon. The
trigger-to-output path passes through 10 distinct CMOS stages and
we've managed to get the prop delay down to 20 ns and the jitter below
20 ps.


John

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:33:37 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:


It's a hell of a lot easier to have a scope that puts out jpegs with
a single button press.

For someone that brags about having so many millions trickling
through your company, one would think you could afford a modern scope.

Bwuahahahaha!

It's a Tektronix 11801A 20 GHz sampling scope. I got this one on ebay.
The current version, with a couple of sampling heads, would cost about
$70K. The 11801A has a magnetic-deflection, vertical raster scan color
CRT, which is very difficult to photograph. The Cybershot, even on a
2-second exposure, has all sorts of goofy scan artifacts. The
distortion is real, namely on the screen itself, not a result of the
photography.

The snap I posted is the rising edge of an output pulse from our first
all-CMOS digital delay generator...

http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T560DS.html

We had the formal release party for rev C this afternoon. The
trigger-to-output path passes through 10 distinct CMOS stages and
we've managed to get the prop delay down to 20 ns and the jitter below
20 ps.

John


Congratulations. It sounds like another winner, John.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:37:04 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:33:37 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:


It's a hell of a lot easier to have a scope that puts out jpegs with
a single button press.

For someone that brags about having so many millions trickling
through your company, one would think you could afford a modern scope.

Bwuahahahaha!

It's a Tektronix 11801A 20 GHz sampling scope. I got this one on ebay.
The current version, with a couple of sampling heads, would cost about
$70K. The 11801A has a magnetic-deflection, vertical raster scan color
CRT, which is very difficult to photograph. The Cybershot, even on a
2-second exposure, has all sorts of goofy scan artifacts. The
distortion is real, namely on the screen itself, not a result of the
photography.

The snap I posted is the rising edge of an output pulse from our first
all-CMOS digital delay generator...

http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T560DS.html

We had the formal release party for rev C this afternoon. The
trigger-to-output path passes through 10 distinct CMOS stages and
we've managed to get the prop delay down to 20 ns and the jitter below
20 ps.


Sounds spurious. :-]