Thursday, November 14, 2013

Video & photo work update page

My intention is that this page will be updated with new personal developments in videography, photography, and the editing thereof.

-----
11/17/2013

I I appreciate the change I've had to borrow a Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ35 camera. On my first attempt taking a half dozen photos with it, I set it to auto, auto sent it to portrait mode, and the flash failed to function although it was supposed to. This I was able to ascertain by reading detailed exif info (that is not visible simply by right-click, properties on a photo) using the photome software. The best photo, # 283.JPG, IMHO looks good when its width is between 1.5 and 3". By way of strange contrast, I also have a self-portrait made with Nikon Koolpix and Nikon photo edit software using the 'nature' saturation control, which looks good big but not small, significant in a world where so many sites we use encourage us to use photos that are displayed in such small sizes. I like #283.JPG because it does not distort and uglify me too much. Shooting in the mirror, I can tell when I am being distorted and uglified and to what extent.

The best of the five photos shot November 16, 2003, #283.JPG:

David Virgil Hobbs
November 2013



I suspect that the decline in image quality caused by the flash not firing as it was supposed to, is the cause of the photo looking worse when big. I suspect that such can be corrected to some extent simply by shrinking the photo to somewhere around 10% of its normal size in MS Paint and then saving it. I was not able to produce improvement in this photo using the free Paint.net, program.

-----
-----
11/14/2013

I wanted to know how stills taken from unprocessed mts files differ from stills taken from mts files that have been converted to mp4 files. I have created a page showing the initial result of the investigation (model for the experiments is me photographed by another):

mts picture quality compared to MP4 created from mts

-----

posted by David Virgil at 5:21 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Vidclip of me posted at Youtube

Visited Woburn October 2013. Had access to video of me in parking lot in Woburn. Transferred .mts video file from Panasonic Lumix camera; using Vidcoder, converted it to an H264 MP4 that plays in both offline media players and also online in Youtube (applied non-standard preset); edited the clip using Youtube Editor and Youtube-Edit (slightly different). Result:

0006 edited in Youtube Editors - YouTube

posted by David Virgil at 9:29 AM 0 comments

Saturday, November 09, 2013

Bond Yields Up, Bond-values down- a counterintuitive reality

(original) Example-
Joe owns a bond that cost 1000$ that pays him $50 per year, 5%. Then bond-yields rise, as a result of which Ed buys a bond for 1000$ that pays him $100, 10%. So now Joes bond is worth only $500 on the market, because only at $500 can it reflect a yield that is the same as the new high-yielding bonds such as that owned by Ed. Hence there occurs what seems inexplicable, something that those reporting on it never attempt to explain, probably because they cannot explain it-- the rise in yields in bonds, results in a loss for those who have bonds.

However, if Joe were to hold on to his bond until it matured, Ed getting a high-yield bond would not damage Joe, something that those who regurgitate the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) statement that bond yields rising will cost bondholders money, for some reason ignore.

Confusion lies in the statement that bond yields rising will cost bondholders money. How could it possibly damage me, if my yield on a bond rose from 5% to 10%? Those regurgitating the BIS statement fail to mention that bond yields rising does not mean those who have bonds getting higher interest rates, but rather those who have bonds selling the bonds for less, in order to be able to compete with new bonds that pay higher interest rates.

And the regurgitators ignore that the counterargument is that holding the bonds until maturity will shield the bondholders from damage caused by competing bonds that pay higher interest.  I can only attribute this lack of cognizance to the regurgitators not understanding that which they faithfully regurgitate.

The obvious reaction to the statement that bond yields increases will cost bondholders money is, how could a yield increase on my bond damage me?...the phenomenon of the regurgitators ignoring this obvious reaction, indicates that they, the regurgitators, themselves do not understand what they regurgitate.

The pages which contain their regurgitations look slick and professional, which enhances the level of confusion.

Notes:

posted by David Virgil at 7:10 AM 0 comments

SM
 GA
 SC