August 21, 2014, 12:45:08 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 229
31
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 01:40:58 AM »
Your problem is trying to compare high frequency noise to noise of lower frequency as if they were the same thing.

I'm not comparing noise at all. Clipped shadows and highlights do not magically reveal detail because the noise level went down. There is no detail to reveal at that point.

DxO's definition of dynamic range is the definition some guy looking at an oscilloscope might come up with if he had never touched a camera. It is not photographic dynamic range.

Quote
Well his files show

Where can they be downloaded?

Don't know. Maybe he still has them, maybe if you PM him, maybe he erased then already or doesn't want to bother.

32
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:47:29 AM »
So, in other words...no, downscaling the image would not make more of the steps on the wedge fall within the DR when the picture was taken.  Thanks for your definitive answer.  ::)

Now I'm not so sure Neuroanatomist. In scaling his answer down to one word the answer became bold. An increase in DR?  ;D

Perhaps merely a decrease in DRivel...   ;)

Yet another deep answer. When you can't trick 'em you insult 'em. One almost wonders if you don't own some huge amount of Canon stock or what your deal is.

You'd make a great politician, willing to say whatever it takes and obfuscate as needed and smart enough to know how to do so.

33
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:46:38 AM »
If you shrink it down to 35mm film size you are also shrinking everything about it down and all the grain and noise and details become much smaller and if you then find the distance that is the smallest that the 35mm film was resolving and then avg all the little stuff on the shrunken 8x10" frame over that smallest scale the 35mm film was resolving then you get a cleaner signal at that scale.

You do not get more detail, therefore you do not get more photographic dynamic range. Blocked up shadows and highlights will still be blocked up. On a step wedge the same number of steps will be gray, black, and white.

Your problem is trying to compare high frequency noise to noise of lower frequency as if they were the same thing. You are trying to filter out the high freq detail but then acting like you need to still keep all that higher frequency noise. If you want to compare what you'd get from each film printed to the same size and viewed from the same distance you have to normalize your measured numbers.


Quote
Quote
and see Fred Miranda site where a long time Canon fan and site owner compared 5D3 and D800 and found the same large difference and went out and bought an A7D supplement his 5D3

I would rather see his RAW files. My bet is that the difference is not as dramatic as whatever processing led him to believe it was.

That's not saying I fault anyone for wanting an Exmor sensor. Heaven knows I've spent extra $$$ for small gains. And processing can be easier with Exmor. But Canon is not that far behind, and this DxO nonsense is out of hand.

Well his files show reasonably similar to what directly measuring the raw shows, maybe there is some difference due to raw converters cooked in for each, but the DxO measured difference is large and the typical comparison using converter looks large, maybe it makes it a bit off this way or that, but if you were to program a raw converter to ahndle the nkon and canon files the exact same ways then you'd see the same difference as DxO measures, which is pretty large.

So no the DxO measurements for SNR and DR and such are not out of hand at all, only the fanboy nonsense is. Now if you want to say their OVERALL sensor scores or many of their lens scores are out of hand, OK, that is fair game, maybe even their overall high iso rating is fair game to pick at since the way they weight things is perhaps a bit suspect, but don't call all the little direct measurements all out of hand made up nonsense.

34
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:39:25 AM »
Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR

Say, for example...if you're shooting RAW?  Some time back, I asked someone (you?) to point out a RAW converter that operates on downscaled images.  I'm still waiting...


Holy cow, I know you know better dude.

Nobody does that since for Bayer you run into complications and would have to at least do that step first and for foveon again why do it at that step? But you could, just have it downscale the foveon RAW data first and then do it.

But that tangent is besides the point as you well know, so stop being a troll. I know you are not that feeble-minded of a scientist so stop trying to trick people with your games.

Or dare try to explain to me why you think a 3x5" print from a 4MP FF camera using 10D tech would deliver a better results from a 36MP FF camera using D800 tech.

Or since you are such a Canon zealot, care to explain how a 4x6" print from Nikon's D700 should look superior to one from Canon's 5D3? (maybe the MP count difference is not quite enough to make the screensnr and screendr imply that would be the case, not sure off-hand, but if not then image the comparison a 4x6" print from a 2MP camera using D700 tech to one from a 1DX? Care to explain how the 2MP Nikon using D700 tech gives a better image in terms of DR and SNR than one from the 1DX???

35
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:26:13 AM »
And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel.

That is not photographic dynamic range.

I get what they're doing. Shrink the image. Noise and therefore black point are lower. "Oh my we have more dynamic range!"

No. Photographic dynamic range is the range over which you have captured detail. Shrinking an image does not create detail, it throws it away!

Simple thought experiment. Shoot 8x10 Velvia 50, a 6 stop (if that) film. Scan. Shrink down to the scanner dimensions for a 35mm piece of film. Did you magically turn Velvia into a 10 stop film? If you shot a step wedge, did more steps become a shade of gray rather then pure black or white?

Obviously not.

Makes me wonder if the guys responsible for this part of their test suite even own cameras.

If you shrink it down to 35mm film size you are also shrinking everything about it down and all the grain and noise and details become much smaller and if you then find the distance that is the smallest that the 35mm film was resolving and then avg all the little stuff on the shrunken 8x10" frame over that smallest scale the 35mm film was resolving then you get a cleaner signal at that scale. Now yes you get less detail too so you don't get any magic compared to the original 8x10" but you can now compare fairly to the 35mm if you are talking DR and SNR.

Imagine this, make a contact print from an 8x10" film and a 35mm film both using the same film stock and the bice big 8x10" contact print you can see a ton more detail than from the 35" but yeah you see the noise kinda noise and DR. But then use an enlarger in reverse to contact print the 8x10" film to cover a 35mm area of the paper and stand a distance so you just make out the smallest details that the 35mm film contact print made and then you'd see the same details from the 8x10" shrunken to 35mm contact print but less noise than in the one from the 35mm film.


36
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:22:49 AM »
Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops.

Strange that those gray blocks outside of 10 stops are visible in a step wedge test. I wonder how that happens ::)

Quote
Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW,

They may be literal measurements, but they are not of photographic dynamic range. DxO's model of how sensel measurements translate into DR is quite obviously flawed. And it is easy to demonstrate that their results are false with a Stouffer step wedge.

This same flaw in their model and thinking is no doubt the source of their demonstrably false belief that shrinking an image yields more DR.

Quote
Canon IS behind by about two stops.

They are behind 1 stop or less depending on the models being compared. (The 7D is ancient so that's not a fair comparison. Canon's current 18 MP chips are behind a stop.)

A while back someone on DPReview posted samples from a Nikon and a Canon to demonstrate the amazing DR of Sony Exmor. Canon fans challenged the comparison so he provided RAWs. Guess what? He did the same thing some of the online tests are doing: he turned off NR completely for the Canon but not for the Nikon!

Once the Canon file was intelligently processed the difference was minor. The Nikon file did have a bit more detail and less noise in the shadows. Turning NR off didn't even affect that very much (kudos Sony). But the Canon file had plenty of detail to work with, and the noise was not over bearing with intelligent application of NR. In a large print it would have been hard to tell them apart. Even the guy who opened the thread had to back peddle.

These were FF models, 5D3 and D800 if I remember correctly.

see my post above and see the crazy paradoxes you arrive it if you insist on comparing cameras using ScreenSNR and ScreenDR (unless of course you'd rather think a 0.25MP FF camera using 10D sensor tech is better than a 36MP FF camera using D800 tech or a 40MP camera using 5D3 tech)

and see Fred Miranda site where a long time Canon fan and site owner compared 5D3 and D800 and found the same large difference and went out and bought an A7D supplement his 5D3

37
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:19:16 AM »
Quote
We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.

Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been.

once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.

When you want to compare cameras the PrintDR measurement makes sense since it normalizes for photosite size difference and compares noise at the same scale between sensors having different densities, ScreenDR sure that tells you what the difference is at 100% view and what you can get if you use the full resolution, but it is not a fair way to compare since it penalizes cameras the more MP they have and it can lead you to think that a very high MP camera with amazing sensor and readout tech might give worse images than one with terrible sensor and other tech but very, very few MP, when if you compared them fairly, at the same scale, the one that measured worse on ScreenDR might actually give a much better result.

And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel. Sure if you want to get what you can out of the each original element in the file you can't get more than the 12bits or 10bits or 14bits or 16bits or whatever for the particular camera, but you don't care about that when comparing you just want to compare them at the same scale. If you compare the high MP camera to the low MP camera and want to see how it does at the same scale you need to first filter out all of the ultra high frequency noise and average it to a lower frequency scale and them compare that noise which now maxes to the same highest frequency the lower MP cam has. Then you can compare fairly between the two cameras. Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR but don't forget that even if it then does worse by those numbers that doesn't mean it is a worse sensor since if you compare them at the same scale it might well do much better. So you get the choice higher res but perhaps worse noise or same res but perhaps much better noise.

(and since in reality you might use advanced NR and not this brute force method, if anything DxO might slightly hurt the higher MP cameras! and NOT at all give the higher MP cams such BS boost)

(I mean image this, cameras A and B are both FF, camera A delivers 36MP and uses D800 tech and camera B delivers 0.25MP and uses 10D sensor tech and now if you compare them by 100% view DR (i.e. ScreenDR) it says that camera B gives scores a much higher DR score and so you mean to tell me that you'd rather be using a FF camera based off of 10D sensor than one based off of D800 sensor tech when you are shooting a high DR scene?? Yeah maybe B delivers a 0.25MP image with better DR than a 0.25MP CROP from camera A would deliver but why are you comparing a 0.25MP CROP from camera A to the FF camera B? You mean to tell me 18x12" print from camera B would look better from camera B than an 18x12" print from camera A?? It wouldn't, but if you tried to compare just using the ScreenDR score that is what you might mistakenly think. But if you compare them using the so-called 'BS' PrintDR measurement it would right away tell you that the camera A print would work out better.)

38
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:11:01 AM »
Quote
We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.

Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been.

once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.

When you want to compare cameras the PrintDR measurement makes sense since it normalizes for photosite size difference and compares noise at the same scale between sensors having different densities, ScreenDR sure that tells you what the difference is at 100% view and what you can get if you use the full resolution, but it is not a fair way to compare since it penalizes cameras the more MP they have and it can lead you to think that a very high MP camera with amazing sensor and readout tech might give worse images than one with terrible sensor and other tech but very, very few MP, when if you compared them fairly, at the same scale, the one that measured worse on ScreenDR might actually give a much better result.

And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel. Sure if you want to get what you can out of the each original element in the file you can't get more than the 12bits or 10bits or 14bits or 16bits or whatever for the particular camera, but you don't care about that when comparing you just want to compare them at the same scale. If you compare the high MP camera to the low MP camera and want to see how it does at the same scale you need to first filter out all of the ultra high frequency noise and average it to a lower frequency scale and them compare that noise which now maxes to the same highest frequency the lower MP cam has. Then you can compare fairly between the two cameras. Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR but don't forget that even if it then does worse by those numbers that doesn't mean it is a worse sensor since if you compare them at the same scale it might well do much better. So you get the choice higher res but perhaps worse noise or same res but perhaps much better noise.

39
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 07:51:58 PM »
I concur.  The potential absence of a touch screen surprised me, rather than upset me.  But for me a killer AF with amazing speed and accuracy, combined with a high burst rate (and deep buffer to use it), are the two main "must have" items for this camera.  An improved sensor is also very desirable and I think that may be the biggest challenge for them to achieve. 

Like you, I also want them to succeed and succeed well.  Not just because I have a lot invested in their equipment, but because I want to see them retain their own sensor designing team.  The best way to make sure both Sony and Canon sensors continue to improve is a healthy competition and spirit of innovation for both sensor design teams. (Oh yes, and Fuji too!).

I totally agree. We really need competition in the marketplace. Aptina and some of the other sensor manufacturers don't really compete in the larger form factor  camera market (DSLRs and larger-sensor mirrorless). Since Nikon has effectively bowed out...it's mainly Sony and Canon, with a little bit of competition from Panasonic and maybe one or two other small players. So I agree, it's critical that Canon succeed here, so they don't hand Sony a default monopoly on a platter.

Jon, am I detecting a note of pessimism when it comes to the sensor tech, or do you think they'll pull it out of the hat?

I dunno. I've watched Canon for years now. I had high hopes, based on the patents I've read about. But when you dig into the history of those patents, many of them were initially filed before the 7D came out, or shortly after the 7D. Some were filed around the time the 1D IV came out. Filed, then granted usually around 18 months later. That means Canon had the technology long before that. Some of the patents indicate initial research in 2004, 2005, 2006.

A lot of Canon's patents sound very similar to the technology Sony has in the Exmor. I know Canon has a CP-ADC patent. They also have some very interesting patents that involve reducing dark current noise (something else Sony is very good at...Sony has some of the lowest dark current noise CCD sensors on the market that kick the crap out of the long-standing Kodak sensors. A Kodak KAF-8300, for example, has 0.02e-/s/px dark current noise accumulation, where as the new Sony ICX 674 and 694 sensors have an incredible 0.003e-/s/px...which is so low that no one who uses an astrocam with a Sony CCD even bothers with dark frames anymore...they simply aren't necessary anymore.) Canon has a patent that uses some kind of dynamic power disconnection to prevent dark current accumulation...I suspect it could reduce dark current levels below even Sony's CCD sensor levels. Canon also has a dual scale ADC readout system, which would allow them to switch to a slower readout speed when possible, which would also reduce read noise (a lot of read noise comes from high frequency components...reduce the frequency, reduce the noise.)

Canon has all this technology, and yet...where is it? Some if it is a decade old!! Where is it?

Yeah, I'm pretty pessimistic now when it comes to Canon's ability to actually EMPLOY their patents in actual products. There is another company that was like that. They were one of the most innovative companies in the cellphone industry. They have a patent library that is MASSIVE, and has some of the most incredible technology in the cell phone, smartphone, and tablet industry. They had technology patented long before Apple started making things like the iPhone and iPad that could have crushed Apple before they even got started. But they never used the technology. They invented it all...and just sat on it.

That company was Nokia. They used to be at the top of the cellphone world. They were the biggest manufacturer, raking in more money than all the rest combined. Look where they are now. They are a shadow of their former shadow, and Nokia itself no longer even owns a lot of those patents as they've sold them to Microsoft. Microsoft themselves is another company that rested on their laurels, and lost the race. They are still a force in the tech industry, but they have a major perceptual problem...they are often perceived as irrelevant now.

When I look at Canon...I see some kind of blend between Microsoft and Nokia being their future. Canon has a LOT of amazing technology. They've prototyped ultra high resolution sensors with very high frame rates. They file more patents every year than nearly all other companies. And yet...where are the products that use that technology? Canon is quickly racing towards a future where they could potentially be perceived as irrelevant by the consumers that currently pay Canon's bills, fund their innovation. Canon is quickly racing towards a future where they have a ton of technology that they are just sitting on, just like Nokia, just like Kodak, instead of putting it to work making competitive products that give their competitors a run for their money.

So yeah. I'm pretty pessimistic about Canon's ability to bring technology to bear in their products. The 7D II should have been in the works a long time ago. Canon should have been making it a competitive product long before the 5D III was released. Canon should have known where their competitors were going, so they wouldn't have been caught so massively off guard (as it seems clear now that they were...otherwise they wouldn't have had to delay the 7D II release so much...it's now two years overdue, that's a really long time.)

I am hoping the 7D II gets a major boost to still photography IQ, but it's a pessimistic hope.  :-\

Apple does get lucky! Atari could've beaten the MAC to the market, but they wanted to milk the 8bits more and kept telling the engineers to go away until they saw a need to actually do anything with the new ideas. By the Atari fumbled that and the tech eventually ended up at CBM and got put together Apple already had the MAC out for some time. Of course the Amiga was infinitely more advanced in every single way. But Apple also made some huge extra bits of their own luck by being masters of marketing and dirty tricks and once they got theirs out first they set things up so others, especially coming from companies also having strong associations with gaming, would have a rough, rough go of it.

Even today the average person on the street thinks Apple, IBM and Microsoft did at all and where always, one or the other, the tech leaders, when nothing could possible be farther from the truth. The average person doesn't even know the names of many of the true greats of early home computing era. They know of Wozniak, Jobs, Gates and if that is all they know, they truly know not all that much more than nothing. And we are saddled today with nasty Windows OS and somewhat archaic OSX and Linux. At least the hardware slowly did become more in the spirit of what the others guys did all along, way back since the early 80s (when they used to mock such things as being 'jokes' and 'toys').

40
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 05:36:11 PM »
Actual Rumors in Japanese chat forums (got infos from an japanese girlfriend:

- 400.000 Yen (>2900€) (variying 300.000-450.000 Y, most rumors on 400.000)
- designed for sports photography. >10 pps, AF speed on miirrorless camera niveau, fast and accurate AF on moving objects (tracking a lot better than actual 7D)
- operationnal design and ergonomy focused on professional use
- IQ better than 7D, more ISO-range, lesser noise. But IQ/DR is not the main optimization goal ( MK4 5D will be designed as an semiprofessional goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw for an non-professional user)

I can't wait to get my hands on a goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw with good IQ/DR for the non-pro user!

You just took the goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw words right out of my mouth!  ;D

 ;D

I wonder how that translation came about!

Most have heard about the goose that lays a golden egg and then maybe in their sayings wool stands in for something fancy? and then well not sure how you can saw milk, but if you could, I guess that would be kinda incredible so maybe it's a Japanese expression for something like beyond impossibly incredible, capable and awesome?

So they are combing that in one super ultra word that signifies something super fancy that is impossibly incredible and will sell so well at to bring near infinite profits (?) and using that to describe what they know of the 5D4  ;D (!)

41
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 05:24:58 PM »
  Only time will tell, but its these little snippets that keep us coming here, right?  :o

It feels like two weeks before the NFL draft, with CR playing the part of Mel Kiper.

Kiper: "Well it's a lock that Canon will be drafting a replacement for the aging 7D in the first round. It looked like a mini-1DX at the combine, and hopefully that will translate into production."
McShay: "That's probably true. However, although everyone expects a 100-400 in the second round, I wouldn't be surprised to see them to pass like they did for the last couple of years. Maybe a surprise like a 180 macro with IS, just to create a splash."

And like on sports forums, there is as much (if not more) angst about what might happen than about what actually does happen.

I'm just happy that I bought my 5D3 nearly two years ago to replace my aging 20D rather than waiting for the 7D2 (which I was strongly considering). When the 7D2 (or whatever they call it) finally comes out, it might be the best fit for my uses, but I'm more than happy enough with my current camera so I'm not really interested in moving over. As for the 100-400, if that comes out and if it has similar performance like the 70-200 II, that might be a different story.

Hah, yeah sports talk makes gear talk like child's play in comparison.  ;D

42
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 02:20:45 PM »
Actual Rumors in Japanese chat forums (got infos from an japanese girlfriend:

- 400.000 Yen (>2900€) (variying 300.000-450.000 Y, most rumors on 400.000)
- designed for sports photography. >10 pps, AF speed on miirrorless camera niveau, fast and accurate AF on moving objects (tracking a lot better than actual 7D)
- operationnal design and ergonomy focused on professional use
- IQ better than 7D, more ISO-range, lesser noise. But IQ/DR is not the main optimization goal ( MK4 5D will be designed as an semiprofessional goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw for an non-professional user)

I can't wait to get my hands on a goldenegglayingwoolmilksaw with good IQ/DR for the non-pro user!

43
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 12:43:47 AM »
TBH, as far as the 7D is concerned, it's supposed to be Canon's best video product. 

No, the 5D3 is.

Quote
No wifi or 4K is a huge deal breaker for me.

A good 4k sure would be nice.


Quote
Using the Panasonic GH4 with 4K, Focus Peaking, Wifi, flip out/touch screen, and a host of other very USEFUL features.  I really can't take Canon seriously anymore with any of their offerings.


They did drop the ball with crippling, if it were not for ML they'd already have been packed up by many. ML RAW made the 5D3 pretty amazing though. But yeah they really need to put in the basic usability built-in though so you don't have to wait 8months to reasonably use a camera and even longer to get top IQ out of it.

44
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 07:05:22 PM »
One thought that I originally had but then put aside until someone else brought it up, is that someone may have mixed up multi-level EXPOSURE METERING SENSOR with multi-level IMAGING SENSOR.

The other person looked over all of their multi-level imaging sensor patents and says that they look to be very inefficient for high ISO [and thus very unlikely to be used].

In which case we would be back to Canon still not mentioning a thing about improving imaging sensors at all (other than for AF).

And as Jrista said, driving those pixels would be a bit of a step up.
And Canon already used multi-level exposure metering sensors.

So I fear that this is likely just something that got lost in translation.  :(  (although they did call it NEW sensor tech and since they already use multi-layer for the exposure metering sensor I don't know maybe it is the imaging sensor after all)

45
Canon General / Re: Makes the 1DX seem a bit slow ;)
« on: August 15, 2014, 06:33:33 PM »
I would hate to buy the hard drive for the storage of a  one second burst :)

So would I since A hard drive would overflow and I lose most of my one second burst ;). Maybe a truck filled with hard drives  ;D.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 229