This is a viewfinder camera with scale focus. Rangefinders have a complex mechanism to measure distance which would be beyond the scope of this project. In early Leica cameras, the rangefinder and view finder were separate mechanisms on the same camera, and were combined in the Leica M series in the 1950s.
Are you familiar with how you focus a rangefinder camera like a Leica?
You are NOT looking through the lens but a small viewfinder offset from the lens. The viewfinder is usually on the far left. Then there is another window a few inches away that are reflected at various angles by mirrors into the main viewfinder. When you focus the lens that angle of that mirror moves.
In an SLR or compact camera or iphone the camera sensor or viewfinder is seeing through the lens that is used for taking the picture. So you adjust the lens until you see with your eye that it is in focus and that's it.
With the rangefinder camera the viewfinder is ALWAYS in focus. So you use this secondary image (see the sheep in the first link) and when the 2 images overlap then you know the lens is now in focus.
This camera in the article does not seem to be an optical rangefinder that I described above. When you look through the viewinder everything will be in focus as it is not looking through the lens.
So how do you focus? Instead it uses LiDAR to measure the distance and display that within the viewfinder. It also displays the distance that the lens is currently focused at. Many lenses will have focus scales like this.
Here is the description from the camera's web site.
"LiDAR" range-finding with high accuracy and distance up to 12m
In-viewfinder display with
Light-meter with aperture range set by selected lens
Lens focus distance display, and LiDAR rangefinder distance display
Focus accuracy indicator
So I think you get 2 numbers, the lens focus distance, and the LiDAR distance and it is up to you to adjust the lens until the 2 numbers match. Or move closer or further away using your feet.
I was in a second floor bedroom in an old creaky wooden house for the "Spring Break Quake" in Salem, Oregon in 1993. The whole house rocked back and forth and I got out of bed to see if there had been an explosion. Its spooky how people expect things of relatively low probability to just be zero. I turned on a radio and the DJ had interrupted the song to explain that an earthquake had occurred. The Willamette valley has lots of brick buildings that aren't really prepared for what's going to happen.
Should we blame an old timey basic webpage for its lack of complexity or should we blame a modern browser for not accommodating the web in its most simple form?
There is a specification that says how it should be rendered. I definitely don't want every browser to decide how to render my webpage, that would just make development so much harder and complex.
I have a QoocamEgo and have found it pretty disappointing even at that price point. It takes about 30 seconds to start up, chews through battery quickly, and has poor autofocus. I set focus manually by guessing and then use "sport mode" (1/120second) otherwise it will use low shutter speeds which produce motion blur handheld. Also, even though it will shoot close up items, I've found that the offset is too great for most viewing scenarios. So, I would say composing images that include subjects 3m to infinity is about the best.
I walked by the Starbucks in my neighborood recently and there were about 30 customers inside sitting at long tables. Every single person was staring at an electronic device. Maybe that's how a public square works nowdays.
About a year ago, I had an opportunity to use an 8x10 field camera. This description is correct. I didn't have any film, so I loaded the film holder with paper and developed it under a safelight in the darkroom. This isn't a typical process though and film has very low ISO. I then contact printed through the paper. The resulting image wasn't particularly sharp. It was a fun exercise though, and I'd like to borrow the camera again. Using it is a very slow and formal process. The film is as one would expect, expensive.
Paper negatives are interesting, but yes even when you’ve got a subject that sits still long enough and the camera is on a really steady tripod the result will still be a lot less than critically sharp when printed because the paper diffuses any light passed through it. Cheaper than film, but but vastly sharper than paper, are wet plate collodion processes like anbrotypes and tintypes, though you’ll either have to make (or have made) a back appropriate for glass or metal as the substrate.
I photo/video lights from Neweer that use a Sony standard battery which may or may not be made by Sony. This seems to be because media creators already have these batteries/chargers. So maybe sometimes the market does give people what they want. It has to be enough to influence the puchasing decision.
I was diagnosed with T2 last year, and started a CGM (Freestyle Libre 3) like you did. I started off with lists of foods I could eat, but the monitor let me see actual data on what was happening. Its not very accurate, but the absolute numbers don't matter as much as seeing the actual trend effect on my own body. I never let it go over 150, ever. I can eat some legumes in moderation, but your specific body may be different. I initially took Metformin, but discontinued. My last A1C was 5.1 and and endocrinologist I was consulting with put in his notes that my diabetes is "remission." So, if you're prediabetic, keep at what you're doing. I eat very little meat, btw, so while that might work for some people, its not strictly necessary.
The EPA Air Quality Index isn't everything, but it is a standard value displayed in a phone weather app. I'll notice in times and places when I suspect its bad. If you live outside a city in place without forest fires or other environmental issues you might not notice its there. Some people with respiratory issues monitor this stuff constantly.
IIRC, pollution from the tail pipe of a car falls off as a cubic function as you get further away from it. Similar for other sources of pollution. Pollution is very akin to smoke, hard to predict, and very localized. It can depend on wind, terrain, can get caught in places, underneath temperature inversions, etc.. All that said, the pollution you experience on a sidewalk next to a road, would be significantly higher than at the weather app meter station.
Determining pollution exposure can be done anecdotally. I've done a number of long distance bike trips, the few times where I was next to a highway for upwards of 8 hours - having a nose bleed by the end of that is pretty common for me. In that vein, recognizing air pollution effects is not necessarily that difficult. Symptoms include: sore throat, headache, burning eyes, etc.. The other side, people do get used to low level irritants, and yeah - you don't really notice its there until you go somewhere else and realize "the air smells different."
Before that there was Powell's Techinical Bookstore on the North park blocks. That store had a cat named Fup that was really old. Every year, they would print birthday stickers for the cat and give them away. I still have one that I use as a bookstore from when the cat turned 18.
Awesome to see soo many remembering that cat. Also,
> I was a programmer for Powell's for 22 years. One thing I programmed into the lookup stations at the main store was a search for fup got you a picture of him.
