Today's snow...



"C L Imber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:11:47 GMT, [email protected] (RJ Webb) wrote:
>
> >Had a good day?
> >Have a look at this, see who else got the white stuff...
> >
>
>http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2004354/crefl2_143.A
2004354131500-2004354132000.250m.jpg
>
> That's one hell of a file download.
>
> Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?

Yes sorry ..... 251K

What amazed me with this pic is the detail, none of the ground detail could
be seen with the eye. for all you camera buffs this was taken on an Ixus 400
with 15 sec shutter openings! The distant city glows of Newcastle ( a few
clicks to the right of orion) and Edinburgh (the big glow in the op
direction (like the sun about to rise)) are not at all obvious to the human
eye!


!

]
 
Stuart wrote on Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:49:09 -0000....
> > That's one hell of a file download.
> >
> > Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?
>
> Yes sorry ..... 251K

I suspect it was a reference to NASA's 11 megabytes, rather than your
251k !

What sort of connection is Chris on if he can get it in 7 seconds?

--
Tim Jackson
[email protected]lid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
 
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:00:50 -0000, Tim Jackson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Stuart wrote on Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:49:09 -0000....
>> > That's one hell of a file download.
>> >
>> > Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?
>>
>> Yes sorry ..... 251K
>
>I suspect it was a reference to NASA's 11 megabytes, rather than your
>251k !
>
>What sort of connection is Chris on if he can get it in 7 seconds?

Theoretically a 2MB link could manage 11MB in 7 secs, however, in my
experience a 100MB pipe can barely manage that!
 
Approx 1minute 30 seconds for me - 7 secs, been vaselining the TCP packets,
Chris??


Jimmy ;-)



"Chris Street" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:23:19 +0000, C L Imber wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:11:47 GMT, [email protected] (RJ Webb) wrote:
> >
> >>Had a good day?
> >>Have a look at this, see who else got the white stuff...
> >>
>
>>http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2004354/crefl2_143.
A2004354131500-2004354132000.250m.jpg
> >
> > That's one hell of a file download.
> >
> > Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?
>
> Only took me seven seconds ...:)
 
Stuart wrote:

> Took the following pano from my local hill
> tonight, full marks if you can guess where I am
Which direction is the centre of the pic looking ?

Chris
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (C L Imber) wrote:

>
> Theoretically a 2MB link could manage 11MB in 7 secs, however, in my
> experience a 100MB pipe can barely manage that!
I pulled it down with the 2MB link at work, still took a couple of
minutes. Often servers are quick enough to feed data at that speed.
Fantastic image!
Rob
 
In article <[email protected]>, Rob Milne
<[email protected]> writes
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (C L Imber) wrote:
>
>>
>> Theoretically a 2MB link could manage 11MB in 7 secs, however, in my
>> experience a 100MB pipe can barely manage that!
>I pulled it down with the 2MB link at work, still took a couple of
>minutes. Often servers are quick enough to feed data at that speed.

If we are talking about a DSL line then it is 2 mega-bits per second
rather than 2 mega-bytes per second which would work out at about 44
seconds minimum for that image.

There are not many businesses or other organisations that will have
larger pipes than 2 Mbp/s which are not shared with other user's of
their network which makes comparisons difficult.

The 7 second figure would work out at about 12.5 Mbp/s which is really
rather generous for an individual's connection unless the individual was
using it at 4 am when the network traffic was minimal!

>Fantastic image!

Great isn't it!

--

Dominic Sexton
http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/
 
Arh, that explains it.

Jhimmy :)

"Chris Street" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:07:13 GMT, Jhimmy wrote:
>
> > Approx 1minute 30 seconds for me - 7 secs, been vaselining the TCP
packets,
> > Chris??
> >
> >
> > Jimmy ;-)
>
> No, company I work for has it's own dark fibre across the pond that pops
> out on the same backbone as NASA....:) I can hit about 23Mb/sec if I try
> hard and the web server at the far end can actually shove it out that
fast.
>
> At home I'm stuck with 512k until they get a wayleave to dig the final bit
> of fibre to my house.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chris Street" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:23:19 +0000, C L Imber wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:11:47 GMT, [email protected] (RJ Webb) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Had a good day?
> >>>>Have a look at this, see who else got the white stuff...
> >>>>
> >>
>
>>>http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2004354/crefl2_143
..
> > A2004354131500-2004354132000.250m.jpg
> >>>
> >>> That's one hell of a file download.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?
> >>
> >> Only took me seven seconds ...:)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:07:13 GMT, Jhimmy wrote:
>
> > Approx 1minute 30 seconds for me - 7 secs, been vaselining the TCP packets,
> > Chris??
> >
> >
> > Jimmy ;-)
>
> No, company I work for has it's own dark fibre across the pond that pops
> out on the same backbone as NASA....:) I can hit about 23Mb/sec if I try
> hard and the web server at the far end can actually shove it out that fast.
>
> At home I'm stuck with 512k until they get a wayleave to dig the final bit
> of fibre to my house.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chris Street" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:23:19 +0000, C L Imber wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:11:47 GMT, [email protected] (RJ Webb) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Had a good day?
> >>>>Have a look at this, see who else got the white stuff...
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2004354/crefl2_143.
> > A2004354131500-2004354132000.250m.jpg
> >>>
> >>> That's one hell of a file download.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps a modem overload warning would have been in order!?
> >>
> >> Only took me seven seconds ...:)
>

It's a hard life some people lead :)
--
Darren
 
Stuart wrote:

> What amazed me with this pic is the detail, none of the ground detail
> could be seen with the eye. for all you camera buffs this was taken
> on an Ixus 400 with 15 sec shutter openings!

If you think that's amazing, take a look at this one. This is a 4
minute exposure at f4 at ISO 400. Taken at 6:28pm on Sunday, two and a
quarter hours after sunset. This shot is lit purely by moonlight.
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190088.jpg

For the Rooneys in the audience, there has been no manipulation or even
processing in this shot. This is exactly what it looked like straight
out of the camera (apart from resizing and sharpening obviously).
Normally I would apply a bit of processing, probably to darken the sky a
bit in this case, but I just wanted to show you what it looked like
without.

Note to Woollyzone, taken on a £30 Jessops tripod. :)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
I noticed that Message-ID: <[email protected]> from Paul
Saunders contained the following:

>If you think that's amazing, take a look at this one. This is a 4
>minute exposure at f4 at ISO 400. Taken at 6:28pm on Sunday, two and a
>quarter hours after sunset. This shot is lit purely by moonlight.
>http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/lyff/0412190088.jpg

Why not just shoot in daylight? <g>

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
 
Geoff Berrow wrote:

> Why not just shoot in daylight? <g>

1. By the time I got there the sun was in the wrong place.

2. The nature of the light in the day is quite different, in particular
the colour and brightness of the sky.

3. The moon was much higher in the sky than the sun would have been, so
lighting the scene differently. Winter sun is low, winter moon is high.
You never get a high sun with snow.

4. Although the unprocessed pic didn't look much different to a
daylight scene, it would have after a little processing.

5. No people around to ruin the pic! :)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
 
"spamfrog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> spamfrog wrote:
> > Alrighty, here's one from myself, guess where I live. Picture is 97Kb.
> >
> > http://slashhashmash.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/
> >
> > Don't bother with the rest of the site, it's a 'something to do in the
> > holidays' thing.
>
> Oops, this may be more helpful.
> http://slashhashmash.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/wyvis.html
> --
> Muzz
> reply to uglyduck NOT spamfrog
>
>

somewhere just west of Alness

Clashnabuiac ????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back