In reply to a post by longedge:

I could really do with winding the clock back 30 or 40 years for my grey cells though to help me remeber what I've been watching 8^).

Friend of mine had a similar problem- he took a series of screen grabs at useful points during the video and used them as a sort of crib sheet.

Worked for him, might be worth a try.

In reply to a post by redriff:

This is an oldish thread I know, but I'd never heard of Affinity until reading this. It certainly is excellent. As another poster has said , it would be good if they had an equivalent of Lightroom. Hope you're getting on with your camera

I have not had much time to use it at the moment, but in the summer i will use it more, I will make time. I have used it more as a video camera than a photo camera, it is a great video camera, whihc is the main reason i got it for.

Affinity is good, even a friend of mine who uses photoshop likes it and Affinty designer which is vector graphics.

She said it needs something like light room.

In reply to a post by longedge:

I've recently treated myself to a Wacom Intuos Pro Large tablet together with Affinity Designer and Photo. Steep learning curve ahead but it'll keep me out of mischief through the winter. Serif have a really good series of tutorials on Vimeo. I could really do with winding the clock back 30 or 40 years for my grey cells though to help me remeber what I've been watching 8^).

I know that feeling, trying to learn some 3D stuff as well and that is just as bad. I have a Wacom Intuis phto, which is only a small tablet, but seems ok, but my friends cintiq is easier to use, I suppose because it is like a touch screen and it is like drawing on a bit of paper, where on the Intuis, your eyes are looking at the screen and you are drawing on a pad on the table.

i need to do more to be honest, but keep getting distracted and with work the way it is at the moment, I am shattered when I come home.

Some good tutorials for things on you Tube.

In reply to a post by kebabselector:

I keep looking at Affinity Photo, but waiting for Serif to get their long awaited version of Lightroom working as that's is whats keeping me subscribing to Adobe.

Anyway, enjoy your photography - I need to get out a bit more and shoot a bit more.

I\ve got lightroom and it was free.

A camera can not capture a moment in time only a duration of time (due to shutter speed.) An instant, or a moment, can not be captured because it has no duration (even the fastest shutter speed imaginable can not capture it.)

Since a moment can not be captured (or perceived) it can not be objectively established. "Now" is only an abstract expression based on the notions of past and future.

When the camera shutter is opened it's anticipating the future and when it's closed the past has been recorded (into memory in the case of digital cameras.) Thus into a single image a duration of time has been captured. (A good example of this is when a slow shutter speed is used and a moving object appears blurred due to it's movement across the frame during the period in which the shutter was open.) Such a statement seems obvious but the implications are quite profound.

Is a person's perception of a moving object just a matter of memory only? If a moment has no duration then movement of an object can not happen in the "present". Perhaps only the memory of it's past positions, relative to the observer, allow the object to appear to move. However since there are no conceivable past moments of perception (since moments don't exist) how can that add up to the continuum of movement?

Food for thought perhaps in this "quiet in here" thread

Edited by 4M2 (Sun 17-Dec-17 20:11:35)

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Food for thought perhaps in this "quiet in here" thread

More like one of the loops in Deep Thought's warm up before tackling the real question 8^)

In reply to a post by longedge:

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Food for thought perhaps in this "quiet in here" thread

More like one of the loops in Deep Thought's warm up before tackling the real question 8^)

Perhaps it's the transition from the "warm up" to "tackling the real question" that is actually the nature of the real question? If one considers the transition from before to after to be without a pause, having no duration, in a situation then that transition does not exist.

One can apply that to the camera shutter also, those are the changes from shut to open and from open to shut. One can either observe it open (that being when the exposure is started) or shut (that being when the exposure ends) but the opening and shutting is only relative to the shutter's past state. The transitional states of becoming open and becoming closed are unobservable, either the shutter is open and allows light in to the sensor or closed and allows no light into the sensor, there is no transitional period where there is both no light and light reaching the sensor. The notions of half light, half dark or degrees of lightness/darkness are unacceptable

In reply to a post by 4M2:

A camera can not capture a moment in time only a duration of time (due to shutter speed.) An instant, or a moment, can not be captured because it has no duration (even the fastest shutter speed imaginable can not capture it.)
.
.
.
Is a person's perception of a moving object just a matter of memory only? If a moment has no duration then movement of an object can not happen in the "present". Perhaps only the memory of it's past positions, relative to the observer, allow the object to appear to move. However since there are no conceivable past moments of perception (since moments don't exist) how can that add up to the continuum of movement?

For a shutter to open and close the blades (or blinds) have to move so, philosophically, you have a bit of a problem...

Edited by billford (Mon 18-Dec-17 07:51:31)

In reply to a post by 4M2:

there is no transitional period where there is both no light and light reaching the sensor.

The sensor is not a point in space (whether a film or a CCD it has an area) and the shutter does not instantaneously switch between open and closed states. So half lit and half unlit is a transitional state.

You could film the operation of an "ordinary" camera, using a higher speed one, and easily see this transition. And, in principle although not in practice, this can be repeated forever using higher and higher speed systems. (This doesn't apply to electronic shutters as there is no visible change between "open" and "shut", but even they have rise and fall times which can be measured)

The practical difficulties of going from "very short periods" to "points in time" (mathematical instants) is why Newton and Leibniz invented differential calculus

Edited by billford (Mon 18-Dec-17 08:18:14)

This reminds me of my brother-in-law's favourite topic when he's had a pint more than his quota. "What if you are born in the moment between 23:59 hrs and 00:00 hrs" - I usually end up ignoring him 8^)