Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Analize your focal lens usage

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:11:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi All,

I've just upladed a free small program to analize the usage of focal lens
length.
Might come in handy :-)
You can download it fom the site below (at the bottom right).
http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/

Greetings
Paul
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:23:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul van Andel" <pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:10s45gtbmuc4kab@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I've just upladed a free small program to analize the usage of focal lens
> length.
> Might come in handy :-)
> You can download it fom the site below (at the bottom right).
> http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
>
> Greetings
> Paul


I suspect you meant "analyze." In English, the coined verb "analize" might
mean "to insert something in the anus." Not what you wanted to suggest, I
hope. :-)

BTW, no flame was intended: I can guarantee you write English far better
than I will ever write Dutch.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:55:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul H. wrote:
> "Paul van Andel" <pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:10s45gtbmuc4kab@corp.supernews.com...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've just upladed a free small program to analize the usage of focal
>> lens length.
>> Might come in handy :-)
>> You can download it fom the site below (at the bottom right).
>> http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
>>
>> Greetings
>> Paul
>
>
> I suspect you meant "analyze." In English, the coined verb "analize"
> might mean "to insert something in the anus." Not what you wanted to
> suggest, I hope. :-)
>
> BTW, no flame was intended: I can guarantee you write English far
> better than I will ever write Dutch.

Another meaning of "analize" is "to imbue with the caracteristics of an
anus", often self-administered in these halls.


--
Frank ess
Related resources
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:30:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:2ZadndQxW9f0kl7cRVn-pw@giganews.com...
> Paul H. wrote:
> > "Paul van Andel" <pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> > news:10s45gtbmuc4kab@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I've just upladed a free small program to analize the usage of focal
> >> lens length.
> >> Might come in handy :-)
> >> You can download it fom the site below (at the bottom right).
> >> http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
> >>
> >> Greetings
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> > I suspect you meant "analyze." In English, the coined verb "analize"
> > might mean "to insert something in the anus." Not what you wanted to
> > suggest, I hope. :-)
> >
> > BTW, no flame was intended: I can guarantee you write English far
> > better than I will ever write Dutch.
>
> Another meaning of "analize" is "to imbue with the caracteristics of an
> anus", often self-administered in these halls.

All too true and I must admit I've been guilty of "analizing" myself at
times, though I hope your comment was a general one and not meant to point
up yet another instance of that embarassing circumstance. The spelling just
tickled my funnybone.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 4:37:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul H. wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:2ZadndQxW9f0kl7cRVn-pw@giganews.com...
>> Paul H. wrote:
>>> "Paul van Andel" <pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:10s45gtbmuc4kab@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I've just upladed a free small program to analize the usage of
>>>> focal lens length.
>>>> Might come in handy :-)
>>>> You can download it fom the site below (at the bottom right).
>>>> http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
>>>>
>>>> Greetings
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect you meant "analyze." In English, the coined verb "analize"
>>> might mean "to insert something in the anus." Not what you wanted
>>> to suggest, I hope. :-)
>>>
>>> BTW, no flame was intended: I can guarantee you write English far
>>> better than I will ever write Dutch.
>>
>> Another meaning of "analize" is "to imbue with the caracteristics of
>> an anus", often self-administered in these halls.
>
> All too true and I must admit I've been guilty of "analizing" myself
> at times, though I hope your comment was a general one and not meant
> to point up yet another instance of that embarassing circumstance.
> The spelling just tickled my funnybone.

And rightly so.

It was a general and self-consciously pedantic comment.

Just for fun.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 8:10:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote in message
news:sa-dndqLbv2OlV7cRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>
> "Paul van Andel" <pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:10s45gtbmuc4kab@corp.supernews.com...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've just upladed a free small program to analize the usage of focal lens
>> length.
>> Might come in handy :-)
>> You can download it fom the site below (at the bottom right).
>> http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
>>
>> Greetings
>> Paul
>
>
> I suspect you meant "analyze." In English, the coined verb "analize" might
> mean "to insert something in the anus." Not what you wanted to suggest, I
> hope. :-)

Just to throw a pedantic hat into the ring, I actually suspect that in
English he meant "analyse".
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 8:10:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:WaGdnWOfH-GGjl7cRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
>
> "Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote in message
> news:sa-dndqLbv2OlV7cRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Paul van Andel" <pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> > news:10s45gtbmuc4kab@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I've just upladed a free small program to analize the usage of focal
lens
> >> length.
> >> Might come in handy :-)
> >> You can download it fom the site below (at the bottom right).
> >> http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
> >>
> >> Greetings
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> > I suspect you meant "analyze." In English, the coined verb "analize"
might
> > mean "to insert something in the anus." Not what you wanted to suggest,
I
> > hope. :-)
>
> Just to throw a pedantic hat into the ring, I actually suspect that in
> English he meant "analyse".

Ah, British English vs. American English! I bow to the linguistic
precedence, although the act of bowing might itself be considered
"analizing" of sorts, particularly if the bow is performed with the back
turned. :-)
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 5:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I suspect you meant "analyze." In English, the coined verb "analize" might
> mean "to insert something in the anus." Not what you wanted to suggest, I
> hope. :-)
>
> BTW, no flame was intended: I can guarantee you write English far better
> than I will ever write Dutch.

No problem, I've just uploaded a corrected version of the focal length
analyser ;-)

Greetings,
Paul
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 6:28:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul van Andel wrote:

>>I suspect you meant "analyze." In English, the coined verb "analize" might
>>mean "to insert something in the anus." Not what you wanted to suggest, I
>>hope. :-)
>>
>>BTW, no flame was intended: I can guarantee you write English far better
>>than I will ever write Dutch.
>
>
> No problem, I've just uploaded a corrected version of the focal length
> analyser ;-)

Could you describe briefly how it works? (I'm onna Mac, so can't try it
out myself.)
--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 7:12:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Could you describe briefly how it works? (I'm onna Mac, so can't try it
> out myself.)

It scans folders (and subfolders) for JPG files with an EXIF header.
If the EXIF contains an 35mm equivalent (most camera's JPG's do) the
program uses this info for the graph.

If a folder does contain JPG's with EXIF but without the 35mm equivalent
tag, the program can calculate one, in this case you need to set the real
focal length and the 35mm equivalent factor (see manual of the camera) of
the used camera.

When the folders are scanned the program shows a graph of the result.

Greetings
Paul
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 7:12:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:12:07 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "Paul van Andel"
<pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote:

>> Could you describe briefly how it works? (I'm onna Mac, so can't try it
>> out myself.)
>
>It scans folders (and subfolders) for JPG files with an EXIF header.
>If the EXIF contains an 35mm equivalent (most camera's JPG's do) the
>program uses this info for the graph.
>
>If a folder does contain JPG's with EXIF but without the 35mm equivalent
>tag, the program can calculate one, in this case you need to set the real
>focal length and the 35mm equivalent factor (see manual of the camera) of
>the used camera.
>
Ok, I gave it a try. I have photos from a Nikon CP-990, CP-5700 and D70.
Here's the result of the scan with the always calculate box at the bottom
unchecked.As you can see something is not quite right here, as the lowest
focal length is 770mm.

770 187
820 3146
840 19
850 32
870 13
880 10
900 25
910 8
930 29
940 21
960 26
970 25
990 22
1000 18
1020 21
1030 23
1050 43
1060 34
1070 16
1090 56
1100 33
1120 23
1130 41
1150 29
1160 28
1180 34
1190 22
1210 40
1220 27
1240 30
1250 34
1270 26
1280 29
1300 46
1310 17
1330 20
1340 34
1350 22
1370 31
1380 13
1400 38
1410 32
1430 40
1440 24
1460 16
1470 18
1490 29
1500 39
1520 25
1530 516
1550 17
1560 57
1570 19
1590 43
1600 10
1620 21
1630 14
1650 9
1660 13
1680 22
1690 31
1710 6
1720 20
1740 14
1750 537
1770 21
1780 36
1800 8
1810 11
1820 40
1840 64
1850 18
1870 15
1880 32
1900 209
1910 24
1930 19
1940 12
1960 14
1970 13
1990 4
2000 4
2020 23
2030 8
2040 2
2060 5
2070 8
2090 11
2100 9
2120 12
2130 21
2150 18
2160 11
2180 5
2190 10
2210 6
2220 26
2240 12
2250 6
2260 3
2280 20
2290 14
2310 6
2320 23
2340 3641
2700 308
2800 8
3300 6
3410 2
3500 1860
3600 60
3700 117
3740 3
3900 30
4000 13
4050 2
4200 39
4210 1
4300 31
4530 1
4600 31
4680 3
5000 63
5100 16
5140 2
5200 11
5400 46
5500 2
5700 21
5800 59
6000 16
6080 4
6200 58
6550 1
6600 69
6900 10
7000 62
7100 4
7200 18
7400 47
7480 1
7500 9
7800 40
7950 6
8200 5
8300 52
8400 5
8800 41
8900 2
9000 17
9300 96
9360 58
10000 73
10220 1
10500 444
10700 176
11100 9
11200 4
11600 43
11700 9
12000 12
12300 13
12500 41
12900 12
13500 7
13600 47
14200 4
14700 31
14800 53
15300 9
15700 8
16100 45
16500 8
17400 14
17600 55
18000 28
18700 7
19000 1
19100 17
19500 17
20000 5
20200 16
20600 19
21000 18
22300 13
22500 7
23200 8
24000 17
24200 19
25500 6
26200 12
26600 6
27000 2
28000 1189
28500 23
30000 1200
40000 2
60000 1

________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 2:56:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Ok, I gave it a try. I have photos from a Nikon CP-990, CP-5700 and D70.
> Here's the result of the scan with the always calculate box at the bottom
> unchecked.As you can see something is not quite right here, as the lowest
> focal length is 770mm.

The program extracts the 35mm equivalent, I've tested a lot of different
files, the 5700 and the D70 should be no problem.

For the 990 however you need to fill in the correct values for that camera
at the bottom, I'm not sure anymore but the values 8,2 and 36 rings a bell.

I guess you have the files from the different camera's in separate folders,
so you could check the folder separately to see where something goes wrong.

Hope this info helps,
Paul
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:05:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I posted this before, but can't see it, so here it is again.

> Ok, I gave it a try. I have photos from a Nikon CP-990, CP-5700 and D70.
> Here's the result of the scan with the always calculate box at the bottom
> unchecked.As you can see something is not quite right here, as the lowest
> focal length is 770mm.

That's a strange result, seems something is wrong :-(

The program extracts the 35mm equivalent, I've tested a lot of different
files, the 5700 and the D70 should be no problem.

For the 990 however you need to fill in the correct values for that camera
at the bottom, I'm not sure anymore but the values 8,2 and 36 rings a bell.

I guess you have the files from the different camera's in separate folders,
so you could check the folder separately to see where something goes wrong.

Hope this info helps,
Paul
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:05:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:05:08 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "Paul van Andel"
<pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote:


>I guess you have the files from the different camera's in separate folders,
>so you could check the folder separately to see where something goes wrong.

Yes and it is separately reporting a folder of 5700 images all taken at
fl= 71.2mm actual or 280mm 35 mm eq as 28000mm.

A folder of D70 images with the kit lens at full wide or zoom as 2700 and
10500.

A folder for the 990 as 820, 1180 and 1330.

The 5700 and D700 are reported as 100X the 35 mm eq in the exif.

A folder containing a single image from the 990 is reported as 1330mm. when
the exif as reported by PSP8 say 13.3mm as the real, not 35mm eq fl. FWIW,
the 990 as reported by PSP8 has no 35mm eq like the 5700 and D70 images
reported above.

Seems your program is not reading the correct exif value. It seems to read
the real fl and multiply by 100. All the above folders were read separately
by your program.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 5:48:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Seems your program is not reading the correct exif value. It seems to read
> the real fl and multiply by 100. All the above folders were read
separately
> by your program.

Weird, I'll have about 8000 JPG files here, and non of them gives this type
of error.

I read the 35mm equivalent (in most cases available), remove numbers behind
the decimal separator, e.g. 46,49mm becomes and 46mm 46,51mm becomes 47mm.

All I can think of right now, is that the decimal separator differs from my
JPG files, the routine that filters the values could go wrong, if that's the
case.
In all my EXIF Files the separator used is a comma, what if it is a dot?
then the routine returns the numbers about two digits longer, hence the idea
of multiplying by 100.

Greetings
Paul
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 5:48:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 02:48:33 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "Paul van Andel"
<pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote:

>All I can think of right now, is that the decimal separator differs from my
>JPG files, the routine that filters the values could go wrong, if that's the
>case.
>In all my EXIF Files the separator used is a comma, what if it is a dot?
>then the routine returns the numbers about two digits longer, hence the idea
>of multiplying by 100.

I'm in the US where a period is used instead of a comma as used in Europe
where you are, based on the .nl of your posting domain.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 2:32:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I'm in the US where a period is used instead of a comma as used in Europe
> where you are, based on the .nl of your posting domain.

I figured that much, I'm in the Netherlands.
I can compile a version of the program with a test on respect of the
comma/dot, is it ok if upload a test version to you?

Greetings
Paul
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 2:32:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul van Andel wrote:
>> I'm in the US where a period is used instead of a comma as used in
>> Europe where you are, based on the .nl of your posting domain.
>
> I figured that much, I'm in the Netherlands.
> I can compile a version of the program with a test on respect of the
> comma/dot, is it ok if upload a test version to you?

In my own programs, I sometimes replace both the period (.) and the comma
(,) with whatever the local decimal separator is for the country where the
program is being run before parsing the text. This means that you can
then use the built-in string-to-float routines to convert the text. (The
times I don't do this are when I store and load floating-point numbers as
4 or 8 byte binary).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 2:32:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:32:42 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "Paul van Andel"
<pvanandelTHISISTOMUCH@hccnet.nl> wrote:

>> I'm in the US where a period is used instead of a comma as used in Europe
>> where you are, based on the .nl of your posting domain.
>
>I figured that much, I'm in the Netherlands.
>I can compile a version of the program with a test on respect of the
>comma/dot, is it ok if upload a test version to you?

Sure. I'm willing to mail you an image also if it will help.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:20:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> In my own programs, I sometimes replace both the period (.) and the comma
> (,) with whatever the local decimal separator is for the country where the
> program is being run before parsing the text. This means that you can
> then use the built-in string-to-float routines to convert the text. (The
> times I don't do this are when I store and load floating-point numbers as
> 4 or 8 byte binary).

That's an idea, :-) but I'm still figuring out if the separator is the cause
of the bug, I've downloaded some JPG files from several preview sites, but
all of them have a comma as separator.
Will you please send one of your JPG files to me at info@vandel.nl maybe the
EXIF of your file will tell me more.

Greetings
Paul
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:20:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul van Andel wrote:
[]
> That's an idea, :-) but I'm still figuring out if the separator is
> the cause of the bug, I've downloaded some JPG files from several
> preview sites, but all of them have a comma as separator.
> Will you please send one of your JPG files to me at info@vandel.nl
> maybe the EXIF of your file will tell me more.
>
> Greetings
> Paul

Yes, a file is on its way as I write this.

Can't recall now if the focal length fields are ASCII or binary in the
EXIF header....

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 8:34:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:32l7p5F3nj76gU1@individual.net...
SNIP
> Can't recall now if the focal length fields are ASCII or binary in
> the EXIF header....

Like many numbers in the EXIF header, it's a rational number (the
ratio/division of two integers, bytes, words or longs). It was
probably defined that way, as to allow fractional numbers for
zoomlenses.

Bart
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 8:34:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:32l7p5F3nj76gU1@individual.net...
> SNIP
>> Can't recall now if the focal length fields are ASCII or binary in
>> the EXIF header....
>
> Like many numbers in the EXIF header, it's a rational number (the
> ratio/division of two integers, bytes, words or longs). It was
> probably defined that way, as to allow fractional numbers for
> zoomlenses.
>
> Bart

Thanks, David
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 4:24:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Sure. I'm willing to mail you an image also if it will help.

Thanks, but I think it's fixed now, :-)
After some testing I will upload the version to the webpage.
I'll inform the this group when its there again.

But I can send you a (hopefully) fixed Focalplot already if you
want, just drop me a note at info@vandel.nl

Geetings
Paul
!