Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 12/07/2013 03:41 (12/07/2013 15:41) |
| Message-ID | <ocq4a9h5jb0pfbfn7f1h5sb9e65qhojk71@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (17h & 10m) > Eric Stevens |
On 6 Dec 2013 08:34:39 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanDeleted examples recovered: http://www.freakingkid.com/burj-al-arab-worlds-only-seven-star-hotel-in-the-world/ or http://www.luxuryhomes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Marina-Bay-Sands-Hotel-1.jpg or even http://tinyurl.com/k33pc4h
In article <h813a9tgf2jg38bqf8hbo30iiht6107kmh@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SavageduckEric Stevens
I am sure that while Frank Lloyd Wright managed more than adequately with a drawing table, he would have very quickly adopted computers and design software to achieve his designs, ...
But he couldn't have done a http://www.freakingkid.com/burj-al-arab-worlds-only-seven-star-hotel-in-the-world/
SandmanI'm suggesting they couldn't have done it at all. Nor did I suggest that the architect wrote the scripts. But he had to know what could be done and instruct someone to actually do it.
WTF? Are you seriously suggesting that architect's of old couldn't have been able to construct a hotel without using "zillions" of architect-programmed scripts???
In any case my original reference to a zillion scripts referred to taking the origal concept of an oddly assymetric structure through the design process then presenting is a 3D image with perspective to the client and saying "This is what it will look like and we no it can be built like this and that it will all work". Doing this in a reasonable time is a massive task.
Have you ever seen the Eifel Tower? They managed to build that one without a single script. Or the Statue of Liberty?https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/_DSC6466.jpg
Gustav Eiffel was the engineer for both the Eiffel Tower and the structure of the Statue of Liberty. During his life he designed and had built a large number of wrought iron and steel structures employing curved members and light weight structures. The design of these requires an enormous amount of complex trigonometry. By the time Eiffel got to his tower he had greatly simplified this with lengthy tables of calculated values. I don't know about Eiffel's but these are generally of 5 to 8 digit accuracy and were calculated with cylindrical slide rules. See http://www.hpmuseum.org/srcyl.htm
Even though the structure of Eiffel Tower is relatively simple (in some ways) it had hundreds of man-years of calculation in it's design. It was at the limit of what then could be achieved.
The freaking *COLOSSEUM* was built two thousand years ago, and has an architecture that far surpasses the rather mediocre Burj. Burj is a luxury hotel and all money is spent on the inside, as arhitecture it's nice, but that's all.We are not debating the architectural merits. The point at issue is whether they could have been built without vast and complex computing. For example: the Colosseum had no problems with wind induced resonance. The Burj most certainly did. The builders of the Colosseum had no concerns about ventilation in the event of a fire. The builders of the Burj most certainly did. The designers of the Burj had to design for earthquakes. The builders of the Colosseum made do with lots of mass concrete. I could go on ...
It has nothing on historical architectural achievements like the Notre Dame, Taj Mahal, the Vatican, Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, the Palace of Versailles.Don't you think it would stick out the top?
Petra is an entire city carved out of the freaking stone. Angkor Wat is an awesome architectural building. As is the Forbidden City, which is the world's largest palace. You could fit ten Burj inside it.
Even the Golden Gate bridge is an architectural masterpiece when compared to the Burj.Are you talking to me when you say "you guys"?
I don't know if it's just the fact that when it comes to architecture, USA is so very very young so you guys don't have much historically impressive buildings.
Tall skyscrapers is your claim to fame. Europe and Asia are *litered* with thousands upon thousands of amazing castles and palaces, fortresses and *churches* like St. Mark's Cathedral, St Sophia and the Sistine Chapel for christ sakes.You are missing the point of my original comment. --
Not to mention the Pantheon Or just about any building in Rome! Or the Tower of London.
I shouldn't mention the pyramids of Giza or the Sphinx, because I fear your mind would be blown. I should stay far away from the great wall of china.
Compared to *ANYONE* of these I mentioned, the Burj is a fancy house.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
11/30/2013-
-
