Does anyone actually believe this dribble?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=defamate&go=Go

http://ceds.vu.edu.au/webbja/Concise_writing.htm

<u><A href =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Bronner>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Bronner</a></u>

eccentricity would be applicable to a unrealistic expectation.

 

The aperture of 5.6 on the Polaroid lens shutter Jones pictured in response to Michael Schmid question has an opening of 19.20 mm at 5.6 and the lens cells Mr Jones installed into that same prontor shutter shutter pictured as recommended as " the beauty of it" with the wrong aperture scale and ratified today that no error exists has an opening of 23.45 mm when the scale reads 5.6 when using the manufacturers scale provided by Rodenstock on an apo sironar N in a copal 0.and on a Symmar or Apo Symmar the difference is even greater. the same sort of variance will apply thruout.

 

 

 

If he can find a few willing to measure matters with ambiguity and a rubber yardstick he can do the same thing with an aperture scale and everything else and the truth is nobody here gives a hoot but this is not a reflection of public perception. people expect a 4x5 camera to have basic tech standards regardless of it being a modified Polaroid or anything else. that a few cant tell makes no difference

 

These are not eccentricities but standard industry expectations. this is quite sad indeed.

<i>...this is not a reflection of public perception...</i><p>

Well, the overwhelming public perception seems to be that you're nuts, William. For what it's worth, I share that perception.<p>

<i>...this is quite sad indeed.</i><p>

Indeed.

Well Mr Littman, forget phony formulas and angulations... cold facts are that in this case the pics speak for themselves. Obviously the reason there is NO PROBLEM is easily explained by the fact that there is no problem.

Consequently I suffer absolutely NO exposure discrepancy when replacing the 127mm f4.7 with the 150mm f5.6 APO Symmar. The Prontor also features a greater number of aperture leaves, giving a more favourable result. A more important consideration is an accurate shutter speed.

Yet another incoherent misconception on your part. It is indeed, sad.<div></div>

My favourite Littman nonsense to date (quoted directly from one of his current Ebay auctions):<p>

<i>"The combination of a coupled rangefinder which determines the actual position of objects in space via measurement of distance with parallax correction which determines the apparent position of objects in space via an apparatus within the camera which creates artificial lines which do not originate from points at the actual object viewed in space...."</i><p>

The above says more about where Littman is situated on the space/time continuum than almost anything else he's come up with. Loop-de-loupe!

lol. thats a god one kai. im sure he could have got a "flux capacitior" in there somewhere.

 

talk about a load of waffle

I really appreciate the opportunity to have someone post pictures which can be measured with a caliper from the screen

there is a measurement difference between the openings of f8 featured which is proportional to what the difference may be expected when one uses the wrong scale on the wrong lens.

 

The problem exists . that it looks like a mowhill is because that is the difference expected and considered an error.

 

What you refer to as very similar is different enough . one shutter reads 9.12 mm and the other reads 9.96 with a margin of error that is about a 1mm difference that is as different as difference needs to be. when the apo symmar lens cells were installed into the prontor shutter and images were shot in studio this yielded an error of 1/2 stop,3/4 stop and even 1 stop depending on the aperture with no way to determine a rule.

 

 

I have come to understand you dismiss mowhills expecting mountains and that would make a lot of sense when discussing Monday night football and not large format

photography measurements where a minute difference is considered huge.

 

If you would have posted the image of the opening at 5.6 the difference would have been immediately noticeable with the naked eye.

 

Ultimately there is nothing wrong with using something that has error present if one doesn't mind that is very different from someone actively encouraging the public as a business by saying no error exists based on similarities which are considered as differences by the industry.

 

Taking into account shutter blade difference and shutter speed difference the reason people use the right scale is because nobody wants a favorable exposure, everybody expects a correct exposure.

 

If someone did this knowingly for personal use and by choice is one thing but in business these are considered as errors and not as similarities..

 

 

 

For my purposes I have sufficient confirmation of dismissal of what counts in these matters which is referred to as " similar" or that someone will not be able to tell a difference such as the parallax of a 3x4 camera being marginally different to that of a 4x5.

The formats could be said to be marginally different yet the difference in quality is huge and proportionately the other differences behave in the same manner

 

Last august you amused everyone by posting pictures of 2 cams and trying to ridicule me saying they were no different so here is a scan of the 2 cams side by side and with the curvature transferred over so one can see the difference. these cams are neither similar nor not that different they are as different as they need to be.

 

this was provided then as an attempt to insist that a customer from Ny who traveled to your( his country) gave you one of my cameras for repair insisting it had never worked when you obtained it you insisted that you could not understand how could that camera work with the cam installed to which I replied that all my 150mm customers have that cam installed and their cameras work perfectly. there is such a thing as obviousness to dispute the validity of a patent and I appreciate the admissions which prove that none of these matters were obvious to you or anyone else then or now.

 

That is in what refers to the attempted ridicule of my actual implementation and then there is the issue of your actual implementation where the cam on Aggies camera is grinded crudely and not polished afterward which would result in an inconsistent and bumpy trajectory as has been verified an incorrect curvature and the tip of the follower mirror has been ground by the uneven surface in just a few focusing attempts.You tried to ridicule me for using Krazy glue as a setting agent and you used Crazy glue as a setting agent on Aggies cam .

 

Should you act as a DIY entusiast making a camera for yourself or a hobbyist doing the same I would say your efforts were more than anyone would expect of you but when you publicly assume the position of dismissing these issues as similar or no different using the tone of dispute and in an abusive way and manage to rally a few people who keep saying they are still not convinced by the conversion issue but may give it a try and find that my insistences of expected precision sound unreasonable and that as a result I should be labeled as nuts, buffoon or Ogre I have to draw the line somewhere.

 

Again the measurable tech differences between a rodenstock ysarex image quality results and a modern lens are different . how much? relatively and proportionately in the same order of magnitude as all these issues which you refer to similar or not that different.

 

As a result when you use PN to convince people that my camera is the same as yours except for a fancy name or a phony snakeskin and after all it is otherwise

a reworked Polaroid. Anyone can understand that 2 identical Linhofs with the tech differences addressed present could provide results which are noticeably different.

 

It is accepted and expected that 2 different people can produce products of different qualities and everyone can live with that. the unusual nature of this ensuing and deliberate discredit stems from the fact that expectancies of measurement and precision as per industry standadards are insisted as if negligible when they aren't.

 

These matters addressed repeatedly and the existing differences which can be measured and verified easily are the foundation of a camera internal function. when the very basics are addressed crudely and assured similar when they aren't we then read that my choice of working with angles as a means to refine something proven to work well and make it work better as presumptuous or insane. it isn't. a rangefinder measures distance by the variation of angle of the follower mirror when the camera is focused

this is the case after all other angle are affixed. However the affixed angles can be optimized as I have already proven in a research which took me 2 years to complete.

 

Should I decide to protect this IP I guess none here would show up in court to claim obviousness. Thanks. in the same manner when everyone shows up here making reference to my designs by name and posting addresses of where they had access to them they will also not be able to claim to have come up with them on their own a consideration which is of paramount in certain types of IP protection.

 

But getting back to the tech issues and away from skins and camera shells I remind you that after I repaired the camera for the photographer who told you it had never worked he pulled a Russell Crowe, didn't throw a phone at me but threatened me over the phone to discredit me, a few days later I receive an email from him stating that he decided to use his glasses and after which the camera was proven to work perfectly the next thing I know is you are posting pictures of a camera showing you have no idea as to why or how and reminding all that while you were keeping me busy with what you call " retaliation I had to make the camera for this chap the best I could and not the best it could be. I had discussed that with him as he emailed to write that he was stunned that a co national of his was doing all this and the irony is that in the end he provides the camera to you and you tried to use the instance to make me appear as a poor craftsman but the paper trail shows and proves that your admitted interferences are the cause of the problem in the first place and when you get it in your hands and volunteer that you do not understand the issues you have claimed would be obvious to you then the due diligence or obviousness considerations are no longer an issue.

 

You and everybody else ridiculed my findings throughout. but these measurements are what makes the difference and the difference that matters. it is obvious that they don't matter to you Therefore I can understand that a few DIY enthusiasts making stuff for their own will resort to gaffer taping and using stuff which technically has a percentual margin of error but in making something for sale which at this point would be aimed at dedicated amateurs or pros the industry measurement standards are either expected or expected disclosed and not dismissed as similar when the pictures show they are as different as they need to be. no more and no less.

 

I have suffered significant losses over the last few years as a result of these false assurances. I can accept that these differences mean so little to you and the others who have disputed my research and now these matters are published in the public domain as your own admittances to that effect the insistences by others.

 

 

Therefore I will no longer need to engage anyone as these issues are considered as addressed. As of last week these matters are out of my hands. unfortunate but I cannot sell a product convenience based on minute differences when these are constantly being dismissed by competitors who infer that my product"may be capable of producing a fine photograph in the right hands" I say that every person who has hands can expect an apparatus offered for sale to be consistent with industry standards regardless of whether it is based on an old Polaroid chassis and parts which are re worked to some degree or based on metal which has be newly molded

 

If a pro holding is can produce something of greater aesthetic value I say the amateur has the right to hold an equally proficient apparatus and if he cant produce images which are as appealing he should have the chance to do so if he decides to invest the effort to become as proficient s he may be capable of.

 

The photographer's RZ right out of the box is no different than the used one his assistant bought on ebay why? because they are identical and when it comes to a camera I purchased my first Pentax 35mm having to sell my car to do so. I did not understand how it worked nor did I care to have to know such stuff when I didn't even know how to load the film and I used to read a lot of photography magazines then looking for knowledge and did so for years and I never had the misfortune where People claiming to know hat they were talking about went on to dismiss all differences as similarities.

 

I guess one expects 2 Minolta meters will yield the same exposure and not a similar one.and ultimately anyone working at a camera store selling things made by others can verify that from product to product the methods and operation may vary but the measurements are expected as per an universal standard otherwise they are considered as being different.

 

Should these matters ever need to be disputed in court rest assured that the differences presented are the differences expected and not considered as similarities

 

I have no desire to have the last word and wished these matters would have been concise as I believe the entire dispute should have been avoided entirely. the tech differences exist and clearly measurable and the legal issues are based in great part on the tech issues and interactive in many ways and what has been dismissed as not required is and what has been stated as obvious has been publicly proven otherwise when those disputing my IP and product come here post the measurable differences assuring that these are similarities.

 

.

 

I am sorry but perhaps one can remove excess slop from a camera body surface with a nail file and call that an improved tolerance.and if you improved the body shell to absolute perfection and had two identical bodies and one of them had a synergistic and efficient apparatus while the other had the same apparatus with minute measurable differences one camera would work perfectly and synergistically and the other one would somewhat work. it is no more complicated or any simpler than that nor does it need to be.

 

Do the internal parts look similar as well? of course they do the differences are no bigger or smaller than what you can see in the images of the cams you claimed were identical and the images of the apertures of the shutters side by side. the cams crudely ground and the tech i issues adresesed crudely .

 

you can not continue with this outrage.

I saw a movie last night where the character plays Ray Charles driving a bus.... it was funny. I believe Mr. Magoo could use a camera if he wishes to but should he challenge others on matters of obviousness and optics and their visible differences and performance it could be a bumpy ride similar to this one.

 

 

 

<div></div>

here is a view of the cams you insisted were identical but are clearly different

different cams<div></div>

here is a picture of a cam ground as the one you installed on aggies camera and ground as you admitted.

next to it is a cam with a smooth surface as all cams should have a smooth surface. if you grind you have to then polish otherwise the surface acts as a file and grinds the tip of the mirror as was the case in Aggies camera.but as polishing can change the curvature i opted for other methods finding that grinding is somewhat inacurate by comparison to other choices.

 

Stop the rudness as it does not justify the crudeness

That picture above looks like something transmitted from the Cassini space probe after it crashed landed on Titan, only your pictures have even more static and graininess. Out of curiousity, just how far out in the solar system are you, William?

For somewone who seems to live for quality the images certainly do not live up to all the talk

I printed the picture posted and then scanned it along with a caliper .

Honestly speaking, I`d have to say that all this is utter B/S. The end result is that my cameras WORK, simple as that.

AS for your efforts at photography, let me say they are ghastley.

 

Even the pictures offered on your Ebay listings lack contrast, focus and correct framing, (perhaps your rangefinders could use some serious modification?). As for the sloping pedestal trick UGH!

If you are the esteemed photographer you purport to be, why can`t you submit decent photos?

Where do you find the time to watch the telly?

More to the point where do you find the time to measure my aperture?

I use a digital camera to take the pictures for eBay because I do not believe it justifies the expenditure to use 4x5 for that purpose.

 

My camera is a handheld snapshot camera and I believe the expenditure on film expense is merited when used for creative purposes and not for the purposes of documenting the way it looks.

 

I prefer to take pictures of people and quite good at it yet find myself having to take pictures of nerdy stuff when people dispute my research. I'm not going to spend more money and effort to document these kind of things.Where does this guy find the time to post pictures of cams which are different and make them appear identical thru tricks ,

 

You are correct I don't have the time for any of this. if you say your... works despite all error shown , by method of fiddling then leave it at that instead of disputing differences which are readily verifiable and have been proven so.

 

Thanks and goodbye

I think he`s gone folks......................

Dean,

 

Gone today, here tomorrow.

Bloody prophetic, Dan, bloody prophetic. Care to guess the next Powerball?