Diane Winters on wed 20 jul 05
Greetings Earl,
You may have missed the earlier posts in this thread. Ken's original post
was for the benefit of those who say they aren't able to see the cones at
all at high temperatures. Ken discovered that cones could be seen on the
images captured by his digital camera looking into the peephole, and he put
up the photos to demonstrate.
He did say in his post that he took the pictures by looking at the LCD
monitor, which presumably (I hope) protects the eye from the intense light
(i.e., not through the viewfinder). But I was concerned that some folks
might remember the "digital camera trick" for seeing cones and somehow think
that simply using a digial camera would protect their eyes.
As the sentence I quoted from the manual clearly stated, Canon is talking
about eye safety, not camera safety.
You mentioned "you're going to be looking in the kiln anyway" - but if
you're looking in the kiln directly you'll have protective glasses on,
right? - at least I hope you would.
As child I was a pretty cooperative sort, especially since my parents
always provided clear explanations for why they did or didn't want me to do
a particular thing. Well for some unknown reason, my singular little streak
of willful rebelliousness took the form of looking directly at the sun for
at least a minute or so until my eyes "got adjusted" to it. And I didn't do
this just once, but a number of times. I think I thought I was going to
prove them wrong. Well, I've got roughly 20/200 vision. I don't really
know if my early sungazing has anything to do with this, but I'm the only
one in my family who has to wear corrective lenses. So I think it's a good
idea to be cautious.
Diane Winters
on a coooool full-moon-lit night in Oakland/Berkeley
Earl wrote:
> Does it say WHY you shouldn't look at bright objects? Because if it's
> because they don't want to be libel for eye damage, well, you are going to
> be looking in the kiln anyway....
>
> If it's because it will do some kind of damage to the camera, that is
> somewhat different.
Diane had written
> I don't have too much trouble seeing cones, but I thought the idea of
using
> a digital camera seemed a pretty ingenious solution for those that do .
> But, by sheer chance, my new (and first time for me) digital camera
arrived
> today - a Canon S70. Of the 30 or so 'Read this first' warnings at the
> front of the manual, the very first one is:
>
> "Do not aim the camera directly into the sun or at other intense light
> sources which could damage your eyesight."
Diane Winters on wed 20 jul 05
You might want to be careful about that.
I don't have too much trouble seeing cones, but I thought the idea of using
a digital camera seemed a pretty ingenious solution for those that do .
But, by sheer chance, my new (and first time for me) digital camera arrived
today - a Canon S70. Of the 30 or so 'Read this first' warnings at the
front of the manual, the very first one is:
"Do not aim the camera directly into the sun or at other intense light
sources which could damage your eyesight."
Diane in lovely, fresh, airy Oakland/Berkeley by the Bay, going out to aim
my new toy at everything but the sun
Earl Brunner on wed 20 jul 05
Does it say WHY you shouldn't look at bright objects? Because if it's
because they don't want to be libel for eye damage, well, you are going to
be looking in the kiln anyway....
If it's because it will do some kind of damage to the camera, that is
somewhat different.
Earl Brunner
Las Vegas, NV
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Diane Winters
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:08 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: viewing cones - digital camera
You might want to be careful about that.
I don't have too much trouble seeing cones, but I thought the idea of using
a digital camera seemed a pretty ingenious solution for those that do .
But, by sheer chance, my new (and first time for me) digital camera arrived
today - a Canon S70. Of the 30 or so 'Read this first' warnings at the
front of the manual, the very first one is:
"Do not aim the camera directly into the sun or at other intense light
sources which could damage your eyesight."
Earl Brunner on thu 21 jul 05
Yes, I read what they said, my question was WHY they said it. It IS
conceivable that a light source that could harm the eye could also harm the
camera.......
Earl Brunner
Las Vegas, NV
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Diane Winters
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:56 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: viewing cones - digital camera
Greetings Earl,
As the sentence I quoted from the manual clearly stated, Canon is talking
about eye safety, not camera safety.
You mentioned "you're going to be looking in the kiln anyway" - but if
you're looking in the kiln directly you'll have protective glasses on,
right? - at least I hope you would.
Diane Winters
on a coooool full-moon-lit night in Oakland/Berkeley
Diane had written
>
> "Do not aim the camera directly into the sun or at other intense light
> sources which could damage your eyesight."
Carole Fox on thu 21 jul 05
While I don't personally have the need to look at cones with a camera, I
think it is prudent to point out that the person who started this
discussion was viewing the camera's LCD display, NOT viewing the cones
directly through the viewfinder. Big difference! What you see on the LCD
display is no more hazardous to your eye than what you would see on any
other LCD display, be it a TV, a cell phone, or what have you. What you
see there is an image of the cones, not the actual cones, and can't emit
the same level of light. Just don't look directly through the camera's
viewfinder without eye protection similar to what you would wear for
looking directly into the peephole - because then you ARE looking at the
actual cones & environment.
I can't address how proximity to heat and very bright light might affect
the camera's sensors and other components.
Carole Fox
Dayton, OH
Edouard Bastarache Inc. on thu 21 jul 05
Hello Diane,
3 factors must be considered in the case of ocular infra-reds effects.
1-The energy emitted by the source,
2-The distance from the source, the energy emitted diminishes according
to the following function : 1/d² where "d" means distance.
3-The total duration of exposure.
In the case of welding, we presume that 3-4 feet away from the junction
where
welding takes place, infra-reds are not hazardous anymore. Hence the
obligation for welders to wear special glasses, which is not the same
for the other workers working in the same area. The other workers then
need protection against ultra-violet rays and "plano" glasses are then
sufficient.
Later,
"Ils sont fous ces quebecois"
"They are insane these quebekers"
"Están locos estos quebequeses"
Edouard Bastarache
Irreductible Quebecois
Indomitable Quebeker
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
www.sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/Welcome.html
http://www.ceramique.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/potier/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
http://www.digitalfire.com/education/toxicity/
Arnold Howard on thu 21 jul 05
From: "Earl Brunner"
> Yes, I read what they said, my question was WHY they said it. It IS
> conceivable that a light source that could harm the eye could also harm
> the
> camera.......
Using a digital camera to view witness cones sounds like a good idea.
Perhaps a cell phone camera would be ideal. A colored filter in front of the
lens would probably make the cones stand out better in the viewing screen.
The sun can damage a camera's shutter. But I believe that brief exposure to
the light of a firing chamber would not harm a camera, especially with a
filter over the lens.
Sincerely,
Arnold Howard
Paragon Industries, L.P., Mesquite, Texas USA
ahoward@paragonweb.com / www.paragonweb.com
Carl Finch on thu 21 jul 05
At 09:42 AM 7/21/2005, Arnold Howard wrote:
>From: "Earl Brunner"
>>Yes, I read what they said, my question was WHY they said it. It IS
>>conceivable that a light source that could harm the eye could also harm
>>the
>>camera.......
>
>Using a digital camera to view witness cones sounds like a good idea.
Maybe, maybe not, Arnold! The owners manual of my Minolta DiMage A1 cautions:
"Do not point the camera toward the sun
for prolonged periods of time.
The intensity of the sun could damage the the CCD.
Between exposures, turn off the camera or cover the lens."
Cautious, but vague. How long is "prolonged?" And anyway, how does the
sun's radiation compare to the kiln's?
[CCD: Charge-Coupled Device; the light-sensitive chip that converts light
into electrical current.]
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
Kathy Stecker on thu 21 jul 05
"Using a digital camera to view witness cones sounds like a good idea.
Perhaps a cell phone camera would be ideal.".....This is a great idea Arnold
Howard ...now what was your cell phone camera's or Mel's cell phone camera's
number? You are volunteering to read all our cones for us aren't you? or have
Mel's neighbor's help? You just know someone will ask, don't cha? Ha,ha,ha
I must admit I also was musing about whether Vince's ponytail has been sold
off for horsehair pots-and then again maybe a bit to BambooKaren for
brushmaking? and then there is Ebay
Kathy Stecker in sunny and hot Winter Springs Florida USA
| |
|
