Wikipedia

[Josh66]

...Keeps giving me more and more reasons to just ignore it. Gotta love an encyclopedia that anybody and everybody can just add whatever they want to.

I was reading this earlier today:
Focal-plane shutter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And noticed this picture:
File:Lightning rolling shutter.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are using it as an example of what can happen when you exceed the x-sync speed.

Two sections of the frame are exposed differently due to a lightning strike that occurred during the exposure. A similar effect occurs if electronic flash is used when the shutter is set faster than X-sync.

I immediately thought that there's no way that's right. First of all, for that to be true, the actual exposure settings would have had to change during the exposure. Yeah, the lighting would be blown out, since it wasn't there when the scene was metered, but that wouldn't affect the exposure of the sky...

Then I checked the exif.

EXIF IFD0

• Camera Make = Sony Ericsson
• Camera Model = K800i
• Picture Orientation = normal (1)
• X-Resolution = 72/1 ===> 72
• Y-Resolution = 72/1 ===> 72
• X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
• Software / Firmware Version = R1CB001prgCXC1250210_GENERIC_W 0.0
• Last Modified Date/Time = 2006:08:15 03:21:07
• Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) = co-sited / datum point (2)

EXIF Sub IFD

• Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/8 second ===> 0.125 second
• Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 28/10 ===> ƒ/2.8
• ISO Speed Ratings = 640
• EXIF Version = 0220
• Original Date/Time = 2006:08:15 03:21:07
• Digitization Date/Time = 2006:08:15 03:21:07
• Components Configuration = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
• Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/10 ===> 0
• Metering Mode = center weighted average (2)
• Light Source / White Balance = unknown (0)
• Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
• FlashPix Version = 0100
• Colour Space = sRGB (1)
• Image Width = 2048 pixels
• Image Height = 1536 pixels
• Custom Rendered = normal process (0)
• Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
• White Balance = auto (0)
• Digital Zoom Ratio = 0/100 ===> 0
• Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
• Subject Distance Range = distant view (3)

The first thing that jumped out at me was 1/8 second - no way the shutter wasn't fully open at 1/8 second... The second thing I noticed was that the "camera" was a K800i. That's a phone. Pretty sure it doesn't even have a shutter...


WTF...

 

[Josh66]

The same picture is used (as an example of something completely different) on this article:
Rolling shutter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That article seems correct to me - I just don't know why that picture is also being used in the focal-plane shutter article.

Now I'm going to go take some pictures of my fan with my phone to see if it looks like that propeller shot they have in there.

edit
Took like 10 pictures of my fan, and I couldn't get that effect, lol. Maybe my fan just isn't fast enough, or I didn't have enough light or something...

 

[digital flower]

Well I actually like Wikipedia. I use it to do two things mostly. Looking up information on bands/performers and botanical stuff. It is almost always good for both.

 

[Overread]

The problem with Wiki is that its not peer reviewed - articles are written and submitted by anyone so there is great potential for the untrained and unsupervised to make big errors or missleading statements; which are referenced and thus appear to be credible.

I've heard of a few universities trying to setup peer reviewed wiki setups; though from what I recall many have died due to organisational problems or financial problems.

 

[480sparky]

Like anything else on the innernets: Take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Overread]

Like anything else on the innernets: Take it with a grain of salt.

I had to stop doing this - my salt intake got dangerously high

 

[Josh66]

Where I see it being a problem is when people who don't know if what they are reading is true or not find it after a google search. Wikipedia is pretty much the top result for almost any search (I wonder how much they pay for that).

 

[Overread]

And now you know why I hate "Let me Google that for you" as an answer to questions Google doesn't even try to filter replies it just lists what's popular and well referenced for its search spiders.

Heck That Nikon Chap appears highly ranked with many of his rather "out there" articles (like how tripods are not needed anymore ).

 

[unpopular]

I love it when people complain about the quality of wikipedia articles even when the articles in question turn out to be accurate.

 

[Josh66]

Are you saying that the effect seen in that cell-phone picture is an accurate representation of what happens when you exceed the x-sync speed?

The article would be fine with that picture and caption gone - that's what I was complaining about. Why is it even on that page?

 

[Derrel]

The problem with Wiki is that its not peer reviewed - articles are written and submitted by anyone so there is great potential for the untrained and unsupervised to make big errors or missleading statements; which are referenced and thus appear to be credible.

I've heard of a few universities trying to setup peer reviewed wiki setups; though from what I recall many have died due to organisational problems or financial problems.

A couple years back on This American Life, on National Public Radio, I heard a man who was profiled in Wikipedia complain that in his biographical information, they kept referring to his as a "filmmaker". The host was, as I recall, Ira Glass, so you google heads might be able to find this episode....

Anyway, he said he had made ONE short film early in his life,and it was not very good, and he was not proud of it,and that he did not consider himself to be a filmmaker of any stripe. And that every time he would edit out the "filmmaker" bit,somebody would within hours, re-insert it.

 

[unpopular]

Oh. I see what you're saying. Yeah. This is NOT the same thing at all.

 

[jake337]

 

[c.cloudwalker]

The problem with Wiki is that its not peer reviewed - articles are written and submitted by anyone so there is great potential for the untrained and unsupervised ...

Actually, Wiki is peer reviewed.

The problem is rather who our peers are. And they are the untrained and unsupervised.


The only difference between Wiki and a regular paper/printed "incyclopidia" is that the first one is the result of the ultimate form of democracy and the second is the result of the exact opposite.

Both are so full of wrong that if you take either at face value you're pretty much an idiot. But I seem to remember that I was taught to not take anything at face value. I was taught to cross reference things as many times/as much as possible.

Oh, yeah, that was socialist school in Europe... so probably not worth listening to either :lmao:

 

[jake337]

I was taught the same thing at a public highschool in minnesota. Always cross-reference, research who wrote, helped write and funded the research at hand.

Usually finding out where the funding comes from can give you an idea as to what the actual purpose of an article is.