sunnysal Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I can´t believe it...you actually managed to piss ME off with that last post....I hope your knowledge of amp repairing is MUCH better than your knowledge of photography, it is completely normal to have that flaring effect only on some components since it always a VERY specific flash articfact, it reflects along path/plane into the lense, anything above of below that plane would not have the flare, like I said normal...if you look real close at the photo, which I just did, you will see a small gap below the amp, when seen from above gaps seem smaller, but again that requires you actually know something about looking through a lense...congrats on changing my mind about you! pathetic really. tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Sonny, You really do need a break, your about to come unglued over something completely silly. Yes the flash WILL concentrate in a certain area but its absolutely obvious that the middle shelf components were taking under the "flash condition" while the bottom shelf components are under what looks like a natural light condition with NO sign of absolutely any flash. Wake up this dude has been jerking are chains for 2 years. Then he shows up with these ridicules photos. Give me a break...... Besides what difference does any of this make to you and yes I get a kick out of all of this!! Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Craig, I just hate to see the forum decend in this kind of sh*t. You are wrong about the photo. I will drop out of this issue for my own mental health...regards, tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I'm not even going to ask about the two EICO HF-81 amps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 jimmy hoffa is hidden in my photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 My take on the photo itself: The highlights on the upper shelf items are of course a direct reflection of flash from the flat front panels. On the lower shelf, one sees (1) a glint from the flash on every tube's rounded upper surfaces in the very position I would expect from the same flash, and (2) in Colter's lightened pics, a diffuse lighting on the metal surfaces of the Moondogs that wouldn't be there from overhead light because they'd be in shadow. And, most telling to me, I see exactly the same horizontal shadow band on the wall showing just behind and under the top of the upper shelf and ditto behind and under the top of the lower shelf. That means the flash was on top of the camera or at least higher than the lens, AND that the flash was in the same position relative to the lens, because the bands are the same width and therefore the shadows had the same perspective from the lens' point of view for each shelf. Moreover, the angle of the shadows thrown by the upper shelves on the inside side wall of the cabinet are different and reflect that the flash is aiming down more on the lower shelf. All that would be hard to duplicate if the whole pic wasn't taken at one time. To me, it was. Very dusty, though, and not a cord in sight.... Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Larry, I noticed the dust too. But Neo said he just was placing them back and hadn't hooked up all the cables yet as well. ...and I agree about all the shadows and highlights. Bruce ps Listening to Hilary Hahn playing Bach Concertos with the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra. Sounds great! Very relaxing for a Friday evening. Doesn't get you all wired up and tense like that metal music[] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Larry, I believe the entire shelf's picture was taken at the same time. I just think a very talented photo editor imposed the pictures of some or all of the components. The total difference in the brightness of the bottom shelf components makes this pretty clear to me. Notice that the bottom shelf between the components is the exact same coloration/brightness as the shelf above but the components on that very same shelf look dull and dark. Take a look at my website and you can see that things like this are done when a man with talent is on hand. Really this is no big deal NEO does this stuff just to get some atttention IMHO. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 This is silly. Of course those pictures are real... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 6 pages on wether the equipment is his or not who cares looks legit enough give him a break. Lets argue about power cords or snake oil instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Craig, Well, it's fun to do pic gazing, which I've done a lot in camera club slide competitions where experts analyze light causes and effects. I see the upper shelf itself as not being quite as bright as the lower shelf, which I'd expect because the flash is just glancing off the upper shelf at a very shallow angle while the lower shelf gets the light at a stronger angle. I myself don't see the lower-shelf components looking particularly dark, but note that none of the flat surfaces are angled to directly reflect the flash back to the camera. The strongest evidence to me, though, is the shadows I mentioned -- look at how the top shelf casts an angled shadow along the inside wall of the cabinet, which leads back to the shadow from that shelf on the rear wall. Then, look at the angle thrown on the cabinet inside side by the shelf between the upper and lower components -- it has a steeper angle, which, again, I'd expect from the flash being higher up relative to it. Also as expected, the bands of shadow on the rear wall are the same height. The combination of those shadows more than anything else tells me it's all part of a single flash picture. A photoshopper probably would screw that up in one place or another. BTW, that picture of Oswald holding his rifle out in the sun underwent a lot of analysis of that sort, and experts really disagreed in that case (just like this one!). Bruce, Those Bach violin concertos are wonderful! I'm partial to the violin, but really believe those are the most communicative of all his concertos. While The Sonatas for Solo Cello are very famous, his equally fine Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin are also magnificent IMO. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazytubepower Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 He could just be a good photoshoper, but I am done with this, who cars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 "The strongest evidence to me, though, is the shadows I mentioned -- look at how the top shelf casts an angled shadow along the inside wall of the cabinet, which leads back to the shadow from that shelf on the rear wall. Then, look at the angle thrown on the cabinet inside side by the shelf between the upper and lower components -- it has a steeper angle, which, again, I'd expect from the flash being higher up relative to it. Also as expected, the bands of shadow on the rear wall are the same height. The combination of those shadows more than anything else tells me it's all part of a single flash picture. A photoshopper probably would screw that up in one place or another. BTW, that picture of Oswald holding his rifle out in the sun underwent a lot of analysis of that sort, and experts really disagreed in that case (just like this one!)." Larry, To me all the shadows prove is that the entire shelf was taken under the same flash conditions. The shelf between the lower components along with the shadows you mentioned prove that to me. I still think the components on the lower shelf were pasted into the photo. But like others say who cares its really not that big a deal. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Come on guys, don't let me down now. Just two and a half more pages and we've again got our ten pages of crap from a simple Neo post. Most of this is unbelievable. Neo I personnally don't care if your system is a Wal Mart boombox, but I must say, for some reason you can sure stir the shit. Come on guys, keep 'em comin'. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Neo...great system (if it's really yours, that is)![] I'm especially intriqued with your tube phono pre (I'd like to replace my Music Hall someday...is yours capable of driving high output MCs)? Since some of you are critiquing system pics, here's your chance to pick mine to pieces. Is it real, or is it Photoshopped? And does it even really belong to me?[] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAPTORMAN Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I thought my favorite show is C.S.I This photo analyzation is better[][] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I beleive in Neo. Now the picture... So we finally get to see a picture of Neo's friend's system (just kidding, or am I?) Maybe if we get political this thread will be removed (mine did from last Sunday suggesting people have New Orleans in their thoughts before going to bed that night). Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Is it real, or is it Photoshopped? And does it even really belong to me?[] You are a character in the Matrix so "really" is a relative term and your very existence is in question. Your photo however is of my room and my equipment and was taken by me and obviously stolen. This is easily proved by the fact I am 10' tall and as can be seen in the photo itself, the rooms in my home are 12' tall with the pictures in this room centered at an 8' height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott0527 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 6 pages on wether the equipment is his or not who cares looks legit enough give him a break. Lets argue about power cords or snake oil instead. That's been done so many times before. Arguing over Neo's system is a lot more fun. Who the hell is AES anyway? Do they still make anything or are they out of business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sputnik Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 RAPTORMAN: "I thought my favorite show is C.S.I This photo analyzation is better" OK, lets get really stupid and anal. Here is my take. I don't care who owns what but I agree with those that say the pic is real. If someone were that good at Photoshop, it would be way more impressive that just acquiring a bunch of stereo gear. First of all, the overall perspective convergence correlates between the gear and the shelf. That would be pretty advanced correction for a Photoshopper. Also check the image below. Note the bright spots on the wall behind the tube. They result from the reflection and refraction of light from the camera flash off of and through the tube on the Moondog. Someone would have to be very good and detailed to think of this and do it in Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts