Page 2 of 3

Posted: 2006-03-01 08:37pm
by phongn
Gil Hamilton wrote:
phongn wrote:I think Mike bought a Nikon D50 DSLR.
Aside from the fact that I remember talking about it in a thread with him, you can tell those photos are Nikon D50 shots from the distinct aura of psychic awesomeness imprinted on them when you point a Ghostbusters style scanner at it. Like ectoplasm, but photographic in nature.
Then what of Nikon's higher-end cameras, or canon? Do they have distinct bands of awesomeness radiating out in a manner not consistant with mere Japanese lenses? :P

Posted: 2006-03-01 11:57pm
by DPDarkPrimus
So Mike, you got a new digital camera?

Can... can I have the old one? :P

Posted: 2006-03-02 12:26am
by Darth Quorthon
Man, Vegas sure has changed. I was there when I was 14 and there wasn't nearly as much for those under 21 to do. I live close enough to drive and haven't been back in over 12 years. Should I give it another try?

Posted: 2006-03-02 12:28am
by Gandalf
Wow, on a family holiday and you just happen to run across R2-D2 and General Grievous. That's some amazing karma you have there.

Posted: 2006-03-02 01:33am
by SylasGaunt
Godzilla: Final Wars, to be exact. I believe that's the scene in Sydney where Godzilla is kicking the American Godzilla's ass.
Absolutely correct.. a testament to the awesomeness of your camera and that TV that I was able to identify movie and scene from that photo.. that or I'm a gigantic Godzilla dweeb, one of the two.

That being said your camera is indeed awesome, as are the photographs. I've never actually seen much of Vegas and the one time my dad was there for some gun match or other he spent most of his time in an arcade with his gun buddies plugging quarters into the Area 51 machine and locking it up in the resultant barrage of alien deaths, so getting any sort of detail out of him beyond that is pretty much hopeless.

Some absolutely beautiful buildings in that place.

Posted: 2006-03-02 11:03am
by The Yosemite Bear
so did your little sith padewans grab any mandalorian armour?

Posted: 2006-03-02 01:36pm
by Gil Hamilton
phongn wrote:Then what of Nikon's higher-end cameras, or canon? Do they have distinct bands of awesomeness radiating out in a manner not consistant with mere Japanese lenses? :P
More intensity in their bands of awesomeness. The Canon EOS 20D, for instance, has a different awesomeness radiation pattern when you set it against an Awesome Sensitive Target than a Nikon D50. It is characteristic of higher intensity and denser band packing, indicating a higher degree of wang.

However, despite not having the vertiable wang of higher end cameras in, as you point out, the Nikon and Canon lines, the Nikon D50s indeed demonstrates considerable Awesomeness. :lol:

Posted: 2006-03-02 05:08pm
by Darth Wong
Hey, did anyone notice that you can't see any stars in the night-time shots? Clearly, according to the logic employed by moon-landing conspiracy theorists, this means that Las Vegas is actually located on a giant soundstage in Hollywood :)

Posted: 2006-03-02 05:21pm
by Tranan
Darth Wong wrote:Hey, did anyone notice that you can't see any stars in the night-time shots? Clearly, according to the logic employed by moon-landing conspiracy theorists, this means that Las Vegas is actually located on a giant soundstage in Hollywood :)
Legas is a fake, a hoax. You havetn ben there you hawe been on a spae ship.

Posted: 2006-03-02 05:52pm
by Gil Hamilton
Darth Wong wrote:Hey, did anyone notice that you can't see any stars in the night-time shots? Clearly, according to the logic employed by moon-landing conspiracy theorists, this means that Las Vegas is actually located on a giant soundstage in Hollywood :)
OH NO! The people must know! :shock:

Posted: 2006-03-02 06:19pm
by Wicked Pilot
Darth Wong wrote:Hey, did anyone notice that you can't see any stars in the night-time shots? Clearly, according to the logic employed by moon-landing conspiracy theorists, this means that Las Vegas is actually located on a giant soundstage in Hollywood :)
Acutally, since you can't see any stars in the Nevada desert, and you can't see any stars in the moon pictures, then obviousily the moon pictures where taken in the Nevada desert.


Or perhaps you lied to us and took your vacation on the moon. What are you sneaky Canadians up to anyway? :wtf:

Posted: 2006-03-02 07:02pm
by Darth Servo
Darth Quorthon wrote:Man, Vegas sure has changed. I was there when I was 14 and there wasn't nearly as much for those under 21 to do. I live close enough to drive and haven't been back in over 12 years. Should I give it another try?
Absolutely. Its much more for the family now instead of an adult get away for the weekend. They have plenty of things for the kids to do while the parents go and dump their life's savings down a rat hole.

The Circus Circus hotel has a miniture amusement park inside a big dome behind the casino.

Re: I'm back from vacation!!! (56k users beware!)

Posted: 2006-03-02 07:12pm
by Darth Servo
Darth Wong wrote:Mind you, Caesar's Palace looks pretty nice on the inside too:
Indeed. My brother and I got lost in there last December just wandering around admiring the interior. That was the ONLY time I've seen spiral escalators. :shock:
And of course, we had to go to the Hoover Dam:
[Beavis]
Uh, huh huh, excuse me. Is this a god Damn?
[/Beavis]

Posted: 2006-03-02 10:06pm
by Kuja
So, did you come out ahead or are you mortaging the site? :P

Posted: 2006-03-05 08:53pm
by Darth Wong
Kuja wrote:So, did you come out ahead or are you mortaging the site? :P
I never gamble with any amount of money that I wouldn't shrug at losing.

Posted: 2006-03-05 08:55pm
by The Yosemite Bear
Darth Wong wrote:
Kuja wrote:So, did you come out ahead or are you mortaging the site? :P
I never gamble with any amount of money that I wouldn't shrug at losing.
you too

smart mike.

of course with my luck the car breaks down and the bill comes to exactly what I set aside for friendly gambling+what my extra fundage obtained through friendly gambling+$100

Posted: 2006-03-05 11:23pm
by Knife
Darth Wong wrote:
Kuja wrote:So, did you come out ahead or are you mortaging the site? :P
I never gamble with any amount of money that I wouldn't shrug at losing.
Meh, even when we win, me and the wife blow our wad (usually in the ~100's) on other shit in vegas.

Posted: 2006-03-05 11:50pm
by Darth Wong
Knife wrote:Meh, even when we win, me and the wife blow our wad (usually in the ~100's) on other shit in vegas.
It's certainly not difficult to burn money without gambling in that town.

Posted: 2006-03-05 11:52pm
by Dalton
Darth Wong wrote:
Knife wrote:Meh, even when we win, me and the wife blow our wad (usually in the ~100's) on other shit in vegas.
It's certainly not difficult to burn money without gambling in that town.
Indeed. Have you been to the Star Trek Experience, Mike?

Posted: 2006-03-05 11:57pm
by Knife
Dalton wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Knife wrote:Meh, even when we win, me and the wife blow our wad (usually in the ~100's) on other shit in vegas.
It's certainly not difficult to burn money without gambling in that town.
Indeed. Have you been to the Star Trek Experience, Mike?
I don't know about Mike, but I was there two-three years ago. Took the ride twice.

Posted: 2006-03-05 11:59pm
by Darth Wong
Dalton wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Knife wrote:Meh, even when we win, me and the wife blow our wad (usually in the ~100's) on other shit in vegas.
It's certainly not difficult to burn money without gambling in that town.
Indeed. Have you been to the Star Trek Experience, Mike?
Yes, we went this time! It was pretty cool, but not the quasi-religious experience that I imagine it might be for a more devoted Trekkie. Nevertheless, the Klingon ride was pretty cool, especially the part where you walk onto a full-scale highly accurate reproduction of the Enterprise-D bridge.

At one point, my younger son David turned to Rebecca and said, in his adorable little-boy voice: "Mommy, are we on a real spaceship?" That was the high point of the whole thing for me. Matthew is already well beyond that phase.

And then later, in the gift shop, we ran into a woman in full Klingon getup and try as I might, I couldn't get her to break character. She seemed to be pleased that my younglings were exhibiting particular interest in the weapons.

Posted: 2006-03-06 01:06am
by Darth Servo
Knife wrote:
Dalton wrote: Indeed. Have you been to the Star Trek Experience, Mike?
I don't know about Mike, but I was there two-three years ago. Took the ride twice.
I was disappointed. $35 just for an immitation of Star Tours at Disneyland. My waitress wasn't ammused when I said I was fresh out of Latinum. The museum was rather well done though.

Posted: 2006-03-06 01:29am
by Metatwaddle
Those are some wonderful pictures you have there. How much did the camera cost? I think my dad may need a new camera (since we lost our old one in Japan last year) and I'll recommend the Nikon D50's to him.

Of course, they may be a little bit too new-fangled for him. He's usually been the type to go for big, clunky, non-digital cameras. Maybe I should show him these pictures to prove that digital cameras can be pretty damn good.

Posted: 2006-03-06 02:38am
by Darth Servo
Darth Wong wrote:And then later, in the gift shop, we ran into a woman in full Klingon getup and try as I might, I couldn't get her to break character. She seemed to be pleased that my younglings were exhibiting particular interest in the weapons.
The actors were pretty good. I ran into a borg drone while there. I told him there was a really good skin cream he could use to cleary up his "affliction". He responded that he had nanites for that.

Posted: 2006-03-06 04:15am
by Darth Wong
Discombobulated wrote:Those are some wonderful pictures you have there. How much did the camera cost? I think my dad may need a new camera (since we lost our old one in Japan last year) and I'll recommend the Nikon D50's to him.
It's a DSLR, which is four-figure territory and always has been even for the old film SLRs. Even if you get one below a grand, you'll go well over once you add a speedlight, a second lens, etc.
Of course, they may be a little bit too new-fangled for him. He's usually been the type to go for big, clunky, non-digital cameras. Maybe I should show him these pictures to prove that digital cameras can be pretty damn good.
The best thing about digital cameras is that they allow you to get a very quick idea of how the picture turned out so you can try again if it was shit. They also allow you to use the "take 30 pictures and then pick the best one" technique without costing an arm and a leg for developing. But the biggest reason I got a nicer camera was its ability to take decent pictures in bad light. Any camera can take a good-looking picture in great lighting conditions, which is why I've heard some people say that photography is 10% camera and 90% lighting. But when the lighting is shit (which is usually the case indoors), then you need tricks.