On Sunday, Yvette and I were rearranging stuff in the garage in preparation for the roofing guys to come in and tear the roof off way too early in the morning on Monday. During the course of moving all the boxes around and covering stuff up, we managed to disturb a spider. I looked over at Yvette, and I saw a large, globular black spider crawling up her neck. Now, it so happens that Black Widow spiders aren't all that uncommon around here, and from a few feet away, this thing really, really looked like a Black Widow.
I attempted to calmly say "Hold still" so I could brush it off her without her getting bitten, but apparently my eyes gave me away, and Yvette totally freaked out. So she's shaking all of her clothing out and moving around, while I'm trying to get her to stand still so I can find the stupid spider and get it off her before she gets bitten. Mentioning that I thought the spider was a Black Widow was decidedly not helpful. It probably would have been comical if we weren't doing such a good job of completely panicking each other. Yvette managed to get the spider off of herself, and I eventually recovered it. It turned out to most likely be Steatoda grossa, a much less dangerous relative of the Black Widow.
After the incident, Yvette and I talked about what we might have done differently. We didn't really come up with anything, other than possibly running "Spider Drills". I'd just walk up to her and calmly say "Don't move" or something similar, and we'd practice not freaking each other out. I really hated the feeling of the whole thing spiraling out of control like that, with everything I said and did just making the situation worse.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
Damned zombie python processes...
If you're running Mac OS X, and you've installed XCode, try this:
open up a Terminal window, and type
ps -x |grep -i python
Do you see dozens and dozens of processes named (python)? Then you'll probably be interested in the discussion here.
This turns out to be due to a bug in XCode 2.3's distributed builds functionality. There's this sctwistd process that gets launched at startup, and every time you log in and out (even switching to another user counts), it spawns off a couple of python processes that get orphaned from their parent. These zombies accumulate over time, eventually leaving your Mac unable to launch any more programs.
Long story short, if you don't use dedicated network builders and you don't want to fill up your process table with Zombie Python Processes from Hell, perform these commands in a Terminal window, then reboot:
cd /System/Library/LaunchDaemons
sudo launchctl unload -w com.apple.dnbobserver.plist
Now if I can just figure out why Nikon View Monitor is being launched, even though I don't even use Nikon View anymore, I'll be a happy camper. I just don't like running software that I don't need.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
One Small Victory...
Last night, walking back to work from dinner, I happened to pass by the Scientology building in downtown Mountain View. As I passed by, I studiously ignored a Scientology drone as he tried to hand me a pamphlet explaining some of the finer points of L. Ron's philosophy.
As he asked me "Would you like a pamphlet?", I thought to myself "No, but I've got something for you". At which point I loosed the Silent-But-Deadly fart I'd been holding in for two blocks.
Maybe he can use those Dianetics mental control techniques to resist the urge to pass out...
One small victory. Have you farted on a Scientologist today?
As he asked me "Would you like a pamphlet?", I thought to myself "No, but I've got something for you". At which point I loosed the Silent-But-Deadly fart I'd been holding in for two blocks.
Maybe he can use those Dianetics mental control techniques to resist the urge to pass out...
One small victory. Have you farted on a Scientologist today?
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Fun with eBay lenses
I'll need to add a couple of pictures to this post to illustrate, but I just received a lens I purchased on eBay. It's a well-used, manual-focus Vivitar 70-150 "Macro" zoom. I put Macro in quotes because it doesn't appear that this lens gets anywhere near the range of true macro 1:1 magnification. The closest focus distance is a couple of feet.
It's kind of an interesting challenge using a manual lens on the d50. Obviously, the lens is manual focus, but apparently because the d50 also lacks some mechanical linkage to read aperture information, the camera can't set the aperture either, so only the fully Manual mode really works.
So, I end up setting the aperture on the lens, the shutter speed with the camera, and figuring the exposure by taking a test shot and adjusting based on what the histogram shows. I got a couple of decent pictures of Jeremy the Attack Cockatoo before he got bored and tried to eat me.
http://web.mac.com/mbessey/iWeb/Site/Vivitar%2070-150.html
It appears that this lens, at closest focus, gives about a 19cm wide field of view, as opposed to the 17cm I get with the 18-55 lens. Not exactly a "macro" zoom. I wonder if the fact that the lens rattles when I shake it has anything to do with that? Maybe there's supposed to be some additional extension at the end of the range, or something? I may just take it apart and see what I can do.
It's kind of an interesting challenge using a manual lens on the d50. Obviously, the lens is manual focus, but apparently because the d50 also lacks some mechanical linkage to read aperture information, the camera can't set the aperture either, so only the fully Manual mode really works.
So, I end up setting the aperture on the lens, the shutter speed with the camera, and figuring the exposure by taking a test shot and adjusting based on what the histogram shows. I got a couple of decent pictures of Jeremy the Attack Cockatoo before he got bored and tried to eat me.
http://web.mac.com/mbessey/iWeb/Site/Vivitar%2070-150.html
It appears that this lens, at closest focus, gives about a 19cm wide field of view, as opposed to the 17cm I get with the 18-55 lens. Not exactly a "macro" zoom. I wonder if the fact that the lens rattles when I shake it has anything to do with that? Maybe there's supposed to be some additional extension at the end of the range, or something? I may just take it apart and see what I can do.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
On the subject of camera lenses
From an email I sent to a friend. The question at issue revolves around me getting my first digital camera with interchangeable lenses (a Nikon d50). The problem with having a choice of lenses is...needing to make a choice.
I've been thinking about the "how do I know what lenses I need?" question lately...
I was reading online that the conventional wisdom holds that the vast majority of pictures taken with a zoom lens are taken at either the minimum or the maximum focal length. So, I decided to check my own pictures and see if that's true. I found this program online called jhead, which will dump the exposure info out of digital camera JPEG files.I ran my entire iPhoto library through it, and analyzed the results with a Perl script.
I found out some interesting things about my picture taking habits.
Looking at the data for the E-10, which is the camera that I've taken the most pictures with, the distribution of zoom focal lengths look like this. To convert these from the E-10's smaller sensor size to the equivalent for 35mm field of view, you'd need to multiply by about 4.
focal # of pictures
9.0mm 1352
10.0mm 70
11.0mm 57
12.0mm 51
13.0mm 39
14.0mm 43
15.0mm 50
16.0mm 34
17.0mm 103
18.0mm 42
19.0mm 41
20.0mm 49
21.0mm 15
22.0mm 27
23.0mm 11
24.0mm 25
25.0mm 8
26.0mm 35
27.0mm 16
28.0mm 16
29.0mm 15
30.0mm 16
31.0mm 22
32.0mm 34
34.0mm 21
36.0mm 488
The conventional wisdom is confirmed, I guess. It's kind of fascinating to me that it's as lopsided as it is in favor of wide-angle though. I mean, I suspected that would be the case, but I didn't expect that it'd be so extreme.
It also interesting that there's that peak at 17mm (68mm equiv). Unfortunately, iPhoto won't let me search by focal length, but a quick visual scan through the library shows that most of these are relatively close-up shots of people's faces.
So based on the data, what *I* really need is one wide angle zoom lens, one portrait taking lens, which can probably be a non-zoom lens, and one telephoto zoom. Since the E-10 had neither a truly wide-angle or a truly high-magnification telephoto, it's not entirely clear what actual range I need on either end of the scale.
On the wide end I think the decision is easier. I decided to just get the widest wide-angle zoom I could find, which is how I ended up with my 10-20mm (15-30 35mm eq) zoom. So far, that's working out pretty well for me. And now I can shoot a 180 degree panorama in two shots, which is pretty cool...
For portraits, a 50mm lens is pretty close to the 45mm lens my data says I'd want. I'd just have to step a little farther away. 50mm being the "standard" length for 35mm lenses, the basic Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens is relatively inexpensive at $100 or so. Now, I do have that range covered with my existing zoom lens, but the fixed lens gathers way more light at f/1.8 than the zoom does at its maximum f/5.6 - doing the calculation, that's about 9 times as much light, which will make all the difference in whether I need to use a flash or if I can use available light.
On the telephoto end, I'm at a bit of a loss. I wasn't very happy with the limited telephoto on the E-10, so I'm pretty sure I'll need something considerably longer than the 17-55 lens that came with the d50, which isn't even as good as that. But how far do I need to reach? I don't think I want a lens that absolutely requires the use of a tripod for every shot, and it would be pure insanity to pay over $1,000 for an optically stabilized (VR in Nikon-ese) lens.
One interesting (but not surprising) thing is that almost all of my (semi-Macro) flower pictures are at the far end of the E-10's zoom, as well. They look pretty good at that magnification, so the equivalent focal length on the d50 (which would be about 90mm)would be a good thing to have.
I should just get the 50mm lens, I guess, and maybe get a cheap telephoto zoom and explore what range I need before plunking down the money on a "serious" telephoto lens.
I've been thinking about the "how do I know what lenses I need?" question lately...
I was reading online that the conventional wisdom holds that the vast majority of pictures taken with a zoom lens are taken at either the minimum or the maximum focal length. So, I decided to check my own pictures and see if that's true. I found this program online called jhead, which will dump the exposure info out of digital camera JPEG files.I ran my entire iPhoto library through it, and analyzed the results with a Perl script.
I found out some interesting things about my picture taking habits.
Looking at the data for the E-10, which is the camera that I've taken the most pictures with, the distribution of zoom focal lengths look like this. To convert these from the E-10's smaller sensor size to the equivalent for 35mm field of view, you'd need to multiply by about 4.
focal # of pictures
9.0mm 1352
10.0mm 70
11.0mm 57
12.0mm 51
13.0mm 39
14.0mm 43
15.0mm 50
16.0mm 34
17.0mm 103
18.0mm 42
19.0mm 41
20.0mm 49
21.0mm 15
22.0mm 27
23.0mm 11
24.0mm 25
25.0mm 8
26.0mm 35
27.0mm 16
28.0mm 16
29.0mm 15
30.0mm 16
31.0mm 22
32.0mm 34
34.0mm 21
36.0mm 488
The conventional wisdom is confirmed, I guess. It's kind of fascinating to me that it's as lopsided as it is in favor of wide-angle though. I mean, I suspected that would be the case, but I didn't expect that it'd be so extreme.
It also interesting that there's that peak at 17mm (68mm equiv). Unfortunately, iPhoto won't let me search by focal length, but a quick visual scan through the library shows that most of these are relatively close-up shots of people's faces.
So based on the data, what *I* really need is one wide angle zoom lens, one portrait taking lens, which can probably be a non-zoom lens, and one telephoto zoom. Since the E-10 had neither a truly wide-angle or a truly high-magnification telephoto, it's not entirely clear what actual range I need on either end of the scale.
On the wide end I think the decision is easier. I decided to just get the widest wide-angle zoom I could find, which is how I ended up with my 10-20mm (15-30 35mm eq) zoom. So far, that's working out pretty well for me. And now I can shoot a 180 degree panorama in two shots, which is pretty cool...
For portraits, a 50mm lens is pretty close to the 45mm lens my data says I'd want. I'd just have to step a little farther away. 50mm being the "standard" length for 35mm lenses, the basic Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens is relatively inexpensive at $100 or so. Now, I do have that range covered with my existing zoom lens, but the fixed lens gathers way more light at f/1.8 than the zoom does at its maximum f/5.6 - doing the calculation, that's about 9 times as much light, which will make all the difference in whether I need to use a flash or if I can use available light.
On the telephoto end, I'm at a bit of a loss. I wasn't very happy with the limited telephoto on the E-10, so I'm pretty sure I'll need something considerably longer than the 17-55 lens that came with the d50, which isn't even as good as that. But how far do I need to reach? I don't think I want a lens that absolutely requires the use of a tripod for every shot, and it would be pure insanity to pay over $1,000 for an optically stabilized (VR in Nikon-ese) lens.
One interesting (but not surprising) thing is that almost all of my (semi-Macro) flower pictures are at the far end of the E-10's zoom, as well. They look pretty good at that magnification, so the equivalent focal length on the d50 (which would be about 90mm)would be a good thing to have.
I should just get the 50mm lens, I guess, and maybe get a cheap telephoto zoom and explore what range I need before plunking down the money on a "serious" telephoto lens.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
The best-laid plans...
Okay, so I haven't been updating this as often as I'd like. I guess that's not too surprising, given my "issues" with writing. Of course, that's a major part of why I started this 'blog - to get practice writing, to improve my comfort level.
In that spirit, here's an update. I complained in an earlier post that I felt like my technical skills were deteriorating, and I needed to work on some independent projects to keep sharp. Well, I no longer have that problem anymore. I just started a new job, and there's more than enough technical challenge to go around - I've got to learn a new language (C#), and a new platform (the .NET framework). So maybe my little project will fall by the wayside for now, or perhaps I'll write a .NET gamne instead. We'll see what the next few weeks hold.
In that spirit, here's an update. I complained in an earlier post that I felt like my technical skills were deteriorating, and I needed to work on some independent projects to keep sharp. Well, I no longer have that problem anymore. I just started a new job, and there's more than enough technical challenge to go around - I've got to learn a new language (C#), and a new platform (the .NET framework). So maybe my little project will fall by the wayside for now, or perhaps I'll write a .NET gamne instead. We'll see what the next few weeks hold.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Getting my feet wet (again)
I've decided that I need to exercise my coding muscles a bit more. I've been doing little tiny programs as part of my day job as a software tester, but it's been a few years since I've done any original, from-scratch application development.
Since I've got a Mac, and Cocoa is the environment I'm most familiar with, I'm going to start my new project as a Cocoa application. But what's the application going to be, you ask? Well, I have traditionally started out in any new environment by writing a video game, so why break with tradition?
Now, I just need to choose a basic idea...
Since I've got a Mac, and Cocoa is the environment I'm most familiar with, I'm going to start my new project as a Cocoa application. But what's the application going to be, you ask? Well, I have traditionally started out in any new environment by writing a video game, so why break with tradition?
Now, I just need to choose a basic idea...
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
First Post!
Heh, just kidding. But at least with my own blog, I'll always get the first (and last) word on whatever discussion I'm in.
-Mark
-Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)