It's still there- Venus with dark shadow or storm on May 3, 2012

there is no way I'm reading all that crap. i know exactly how this argument got started and it was when I said that this must involve two objects...which i still maintain because as you can clearly see from other similar examples of Venus out of focus, it does not produce as dark of a shadow and is much more uniform and typical of a BLUR... then you had to start ranting and raving because I said that it is two objects involved.

that's where the whole thing got started and now you are saying that you never said the whole thing was a blur and that it might very well be from something else such as dirt or a smudge (which is still two objects and not solely the lens effect)

ok... so then you agree with me that this is not solely a blur. great.

so what the hell did you start arguing with me for in the first place?

Not that I really care because if you think you can insist that someone does something over the internet, that says a lot about you. You're clearly not rational. So you said something in a post earlier that i probably didn't even read? yeah... so what? That's not the problem here. The problem is that *I* said that two objects are involved for this to produce this effect. You decided to argue with that. I didn't make that decision for you. It's not my problem. You rant and rave however much you want if tat helps you cope with your own circular argument.... I really don't care because there is no telling how many times you've changed your mind on it and I don't care to converse with people like that.

s for why they call it a bokeh and me just not getting it... WELLLL... It's partly derived from a japanese word meaning fuzzy only made sillier when constantly repeated by english speaking people who want to be technical... so NO, It DEFINITELY DOES NOT seem like a very important technical term especially when the mere definition is said to be notoriously debatable.

der.


and no, dirt or grime on the lens is NOT part of the optical system... it is another object or substance that is not meaning to be focused on as is the object in the distance...still technically SOMETHING ELSE and not just the focus of the camera itself.

I don't really think that is what it is though... there is something about all these venus videos that have an easy-dupe feel to them. What, with Venus up there being so bright now.. and the twin vortexes for anyone who has looked into it... It screams of new trend.

like i said... I'm not reading the rest of this silliness.

It has REALLY all of the sudden lost it's importance.

I have an idea. Why don't you just PRETEND I am still in here arguing with you.

Dammit, it just might work.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by ngchunter
Here's a video of what Venus actually looks like, as well as proof that the OP's just showing us a bokeh with his camcorder.

Someone else in another thread has already figured something out about this term "bokeh" that is being thrown around a lot lately on the forum.

A bokeh is when you have two objects that are not side by side in distance but are in the same frame. the lens focuses on one object while it blurs the others because of the differences in position of the objects.

If it is a "bokeh" there must be at least two objects involved.

it could very well be a blur but it is not a "bokeh"

I am copying and pasting this reply and taking it to yet another thread where it applies where this term is being overused because of some new found popularity on these forums.

If this is the reply you are talking about... i really don't see what the problem is with me stating my opinion about this term and why it is causing you to get so upset. yes, I did quote you because you said that he was just showing us a bokeh.

I mean... come on, that is what you said. Make up your mind.

In my opinion, he is also showing us something else. if you have a different opinion, fine... just please stick to it.

This is getting really old. I think we're done here.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
there is no way I'm reading all that crap.

That is not the way to deny ignorance. If you're not going to read my reply, then don't even bother replying.

i know exactly how this argument got started and it was when I said that this must involve two objects...which i still maintain because as you can clearly see from other similar examples of Venus out of focus, it does not produce as dark of a shadow and is much more uniform and typical of a BLUR... then you had to start ranting and raving because I said that it is two objects involved.

that's where the whole thing got started and now you are saying that you never said the whole thing was a blur and that it might very well be from something else such as dirt or a smudge (which is still two objects and not solely the lens effect)

I said all the bokeh tells you about is the optical system. If there's dirt or a smudge, then that's what it's telling you about the optical system. Again, don't even try to reply to me if you're not going to read what I said.

and no, dirt or grime on the lens is NOT part of the optical system... it is another object or substance that is not meaning to be focused on as is the object in the distance...still technically SOMETHING ELSE and not just the focus of the camera itself.

In my very first post on this thread I said it was probably gunk.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Astrophotographers don't count that as "another object," it's just part of the optical train. Our telescopes always have some level of dust and material on them, that's why we do flat fields, and yes you do see it in the bokehs of stars. That's what I mean when I say it only tells you information about the optical system. Your attempt at playing semantics games is pathetic, particularly when you self admit you're not reading my posts.

ok... so then you agree with me that this is not solely a blur. great.

Just because there's dirt or grime on the optics does not mean that it's not just a bokeh. It is. The bokeh contains information about the optical system, including dirt. You're severely confused, but there is no way you will ever learn; you're not even reading what I said by your own admission. This conversation is done, there's no point talking to someone who tells you they're not listening to you.

Not that I really care because if you think you can insist that someone does something over the internet, that says a lot about you.

It's really simple. If someone, like you, lies about what I said and tries to put words in my mouth I will give them the opportunity to prove that they're not lying. You have failed to comply. Since you have failed to comply, and now since you've stated you are not even reading what I write, the conversation is over. I will not tolerate this. If you post again lying about what I said, I will simply report the post. There are consequences for your actions, even on the internet.

So you said something in a post earlier that i probably didn't even read?

See above.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
yes, I did quote you because you said that he was just showing us a bokeh.

I told you to quote me where I said the "shadow" was a bokeh rather than something on top of the bokeh, which you bitched about me saying when that's not what I said.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
so now you are saying it's crud, or a shadow, or damage to the lens on top of the BOKEH, when before you said it was a bokeh.

Quote me where I said the "shadow" was a bokeh. I said the bokeh only shows you information about the optical system, not the object being recorded. You are lying about what I said.

You have failed, you have failed to show that I said what you claimed I said, you lied about what I said, you put words in my mouth, and now you admit you're not reading my posts anyway. We're done. If you lie about what I said again I'll simply report the post.

I never claimed to say you said anything. I quoted it. It's right there in grey and white along with the rest of your shifting circular argument about Venus. I'm going to X this thread out now because it is obsolete, imo and i'm really starting to pity you because your insults aren't even interesting or witty. This doesn't even merely seem like a bruised ego spouting off insults, this is just some kind of weird sad obsession with this word like it's life or death to you so i don't want to touch this thread anymore.

Good bye... take care... don't eat the yellow snow.