speters wrote:
...........manually shutting down for each shot turns macro shooting into a drudge. .........???????
Some of the cheap $18 tube sets lack a lever or pin to change the lens from wide open focus mode
to stopped down picture taking aperture and you have to do it manually.
JeffinMass wrote:
oldtigger. The inside filter ring is the one that holds the glass in place. Take a close look again. It's not on the outside.
Its been a couple years since i last bought a filter, things may have changed.
I can assure you though that the rings that hold the glass in my filters are all on the camera side of the filter.
Why would i want to remove the glass from the filter, i thought we were trying to remove the filter from the camera?
IGBTQ2 wrote:
...It seems when you hold on tightly to the filter to turn it, you actually distort its' shape a little preventing it from turning.....
Squeezing a filter ring while trying to remove it is a quick way to make the filter a permanent part of the lens.
BebuLamar wrote:
... The duration of the LED would be much longer than that of a flash. I guess it would need to be about 1/60 of a second. ....
If you aren't going to strobe, you have more options.
All you need is a controller/quencher circuit between your camera and the lights.
Because all you are doing is building a long duration speed light, you can use
the camera in any mode it would have worked with using a normal speed light.
Just keep in mind you will have no control over the flash intensity.
JeffinMass wrote:
Why are they a waste of money? The wrench is metal and sits up vertically. The two tips fit in the two indentations used to tighten the inside filter ring. ....
My filter wrenches are plastic and rubber and i've never seen a filter ring with indentations.
GENorkus wrote:
...Do you know the approximate size battery I'll need for about an hour's worth of remote lighting? I found a plug in power supply that was rated 12 VDC @ 200 watts . The only thing was it was actually two 100 watts plug-ins. Question. Do you think I could safely connect both sets together and get my needed 150 watts?
If your lights draw 10 amps, you will need a 10 amp hour battery for 1 hour use, give or take.
You might have some difficulty getting the two power supplies to evenly split the current.
For long life and protection, LEDs require well regulated, low impedance, clean power.
They do not play well with noisy switching power supplies.
Bottom line:
Re-gift the lights to your 4-wheeling nephew and
buy a pair of variable intensity, variable color 320 lamp panel lights for $150.
They come with batteries, chargers, and power supplies.
small diodes can pulse in pico seconds but high power diodes
require a couple hundred nanoseconds to cycle or they go "poof".
I wouldn't try to cycle them faster than 1/50,000 sec without coolers but 1/5,000
would be reasonable with good heat sinks.
Problem is thats using separate RGB diodes which you don't have; yours
are probably blue + phosphor type and now the speed is more like 1/10 second pulses.
Speed isn't your only problem though, its the power supply and controller.
8000 lumens translates too one hell of an inrush current.
You would have to destroy a bunch of Household LED lamps to get the power supplies
and rewire your leds in groups to match the available current; figure $200 worth.
You could rig them for battery operation and cut the turn on time down but you would need
rather bulky and expensive components to control the repeated inrush currents and safety measures
but it won't really matter because by now your LEDs will be failing from the multiple turn on cycles.
checkout:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30491253-Lighting-LED-lamp-E26-base-turn-on-time
IBM wrote:
...you never get , depressed, down, the blues , what ever. Angsiety never sets in , ...:
Anxiety never bothered me, my mind, when threatened, goes directly to panic mode.
Bozsik wrote:
... The real trick is calibrating the milliseconds between each flash so you can see the take off with combined subsequent flash shots. Too close together and they sit on top of each other. To slow and you lose sight of the subject before all flashes have fired....:
I tried the idea a couple years ago as a way of collecting frames for a stack when hand holding in the field.
I figured just strobe the subject while moving closer and closer. Too many variables, too much trouble registering the images so the stacking program could handle the registration and scaling required. It was a neat idea though.
the camera often does not have enough resolution or range to see the difference.
dirtpusher wrote:
Leave basketball aloneā
ok, you can keep the basketball, if you ditch the soccer, wrasling, and rugby and make boxing free to view.
JohnSwanda wrote:
Cirque du Soleil is doing fine with no animals.
With their technical needs they can afford to visit San Fran but you'll never see them
doing a 2 night stand in a town of 5000 residents.
The parade of wagons and animals from the train station, thru the center of town,
too the fairgrounds was something to look forward too each spring.
When the biggest animals you had seen were the pair of clydesdales that pulled
the fire wagon. an elephant was awesome as it helped erect the main tent.
So many adventures for the young mind from cotton candy to sneaking a peak under the tent flaps
or watching the acrobats practice.
And if you were lucky enough to earn a quarter for dragging a couple
bales of hay over to the elephants, you had bragging rights for a week.
mas24 wrote:
.There has been evidence of animal cruelty in the Circuses. We can live without Circuses. If NFL football were banned, it would set off Depressions to the highest degree in America.
We can live without hocky, football and baseball but the circus is a special world of wonder and daring.
The animal rights activists need to take a hike, People who depend upon their performing animals for a living
tend to take much better care of them than the average homeowner does of their pets.