Miscellaneous desk
< November 25	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 26

bin Laden: ashes or body

It's not clear to me if bin Laden's body was thrown into the see or only his ashes. Which is the case? Comploose (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Osama bin Laden article have to say about it? If it's unclear from the article, perhaps you could research the matter and improve the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bizarre response. The OP came here to get an accurate answer. "Go and find out for yourself" is not very helpful. In any case, the answer is in the article. --Viennese Waltz 03:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give answers per se, VW but references and means to find answers when those are available. People should use search engines and read our articles. This question didn't require expert knowledge beyond looking at our article, so Bug's response was correct. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We had a couple of recent questions about OBL's remains and homeopathy, so I figured it was the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this CNN report,[1] his body was prepped as per Islamic tradition, then placed in a weighted bag and dumped in the ocean as per usual burials-at-sea. Not cremated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally this is described in a fair amount of detail in Death of Osama bin Laden which is linked from our Osama bin Laden article. So if the OP wasn't satisfied with what was in the main article, they still had little cause for complaint. (I guess my comment on WT:RD was a cause of this question, I incorrectly recalled he had been cremated. Of course this was unlikely because it would have caused unwanted controversy as cremation is generally not considered acceptable in Islam. However as I recall reading at the time and the subarticle attests, there was controversy over the burial at sea anyway although probably not as much as if there had been a cremation.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims don't cremate. Islamic funeral explains the details. Add to this the burial at sea#Islam article. OBL's case is not a completely orthodox Islamic burial. Since he didn't die at sea, he would have been buried normally on a grave under other circumstances. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the controversy over the burial is discussed in the subarticle on his death as I mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sub question: Would cremation be possible at sea?

Would the USS Carl Vinson even have the facilities to perform a cremation? Dismas|^(talk) 05:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crematory indicates extremely high temperatures, which I very much doubt a sub would be able to generate. Maybe the coal furnace on a steamship could. But it's not just burning the body, it's also pulverizing the remnants (bone) into the so-called "ashes", which are actually just ground particles of bone. Your typical ship of any kind is unlikely to have that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vinson is a very large aircraft carrier, not a submarine. If the need were to arise, the crew would easily be able to build a makeshift retort on board within a matter of hours using materials at hand. The temperature and the pulverization would not be a problem in the slightest. I can't imagine a situation, though, where cremation on board would be necessary. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not awake yet. "Sub" question fooled me. The only reason would be for secrecy. But the official sources say it was a normal burial at sea, albeit with very few knowing witnesses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to reach a temperature of about 1500 °F, that's much more than a normal oven or bonfire, but doable if you found some refractory material to build a furnace. I remember seeing some news about private people who managed to build one to get rid of a body. In a real life scenario, however, they could have brought anything to this ship with a helicopter or prepare in advance for that. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's for a "proper" cremation. Plenty of cultures have just lit a fire under the body and called it good enough, even though it wouldn't get nearly that hot. StuRat (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only for Vikings. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Indians?85.211.129.251 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of photography lighting in the 1880s?

I wasn't quite sure whether to put this one in history or science. Point being, Wikipedia so far has a lot of scientific facts about the inner physical workings of particular lamp types and some about how you generally set up a portrait light, but very little about the history of photography and film lights and lighting.

My question is, what kind of (electrical? gas?) lights would a photographer use for aesthetic portrait illumination (such as fill and rim light) in a photographic studio in New York back in the mid-1880s? The exact period I'm asking for would be the second half of 1886, or the first of 1887, by which time I know Edison's Pearl Street Station was already operating. I know there were magnesium flashes, but AFAIK they were very unpopular for more sophisticated inlight portrait photography because a.) you couldn't use them to create as sophisticated illumination effects, and b.) before Adolf Miethe in Germany first experimentally added potassium chlorate to the powder in 1887, magnesium flashes were so bright and long-lasting most subjects photographed with such a flash looked rather shocked and distressed. --79.193.52.199 (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Van der Weyde began using electrical light in 1878 in London, and was advertising the "electric studio" into the 1880s, which suggests it was still relatively novel. I would guess it had reached New York by the middle of the decade; it had certainly become an established concept even in South Africa by c.1900 (my great-grandfather's studio in Cape Town operated briefly under that name).

As to kinds of electrical lighting, I don't know, but some form of arc lamp would seem likely. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without having checked any references (as my main History of Photography tome is at home, not at the office), I suspect that a good deal of portraiture photography at this date would have used natural light (augmented by reflectors), hence the notorious need for subjects to hold their pose ridgedly (sometimes aided by hidden supports and clamps) for up to a minute or more. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this image of a studio building in New York with enormous windows. There are examples like this in London too. I'm not sure if this was for photography or more traditional painting. this image is definitely a photographers studio though; "Light was almost exclusively relegated to the great outdoors and those privileged enough for studios with oversized windows and skylights. The alternative was controlled explosives. Still life photography was mostly a daylight hours event." says the caption. I also found a Flash Photography ~ History; "The earliest flash photography used magnesium ribbon or powder, ignited on a tray, to provide a brief flash of bright light, for about 1/10th of a second. The technique was not without its obvious dangers and it also released a lot of smoke, smell and a fall-out of white ash." It goes on to say that "Early in 1864, three photographers working together managed to get a good negative in the Blue John Mine in Derbyshire by the light from magnesium, and in May of the same year it was used to make a portrait of Dr.Faraday at the Royal Institution in London." Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also found (Toy) Photographer's Studio from Pretty Village 1897 with big skylights. Alansplodge (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 1880's film speed was better than back in the 1860's but way slower than in the 20th century. An 1886 portrait photographer would have been better advised to use natural light (and fairly short time exposure or fairly long "instantaneous" exposure) for portraits rather than arc light (too bright for a room of reasonable size, and gave off bad fumes) or incandescent light ( too little brightness, long exposure needed like natural light, harsh shadows, large amount of heat). Flash powder (then called :flashlight) would have been a good choice for "nonartistic" shots, such as a crime scene, since it was bright enough to allow an instantaneous (small fraction of a second) exposure. For architectural or still lifes, electric light with a long time exposure (even minutes) would have been a good choice. Edison (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would natural light really allow for a good, easily managable rimlight? On the one hand, we obviously have Mr. van der Weyde in London using electric lighting at the time, and the self-portrait found in his article really does show the kind of sophisticated "modern" lighting style we still find in photography today. Maybe he was using a different type of electric light than arc lamps, or reflectors and diffusors? But on the other hand, there's still the possibility of gaslamps. Would any type of those have provided enough light for a reasonable exposure? I remember seeing a b/w movie about a teenage Edison using curved (convex? concave?) mirrors to amazingly increase the brightness of gas lamps. --87.151.31.175 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expensive DLSRs not having pop-up flashes

Exactly why don't really expensive DSLRs like the Canon EOS-1D C have pop-up flashes? I understand that the target market is experienced professional photographers, who are likely to already have dozens of external flashes, but what would it hurt for the camera to a have a pop-up flash? JIP | Talk 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review mentions in passing that Canon is aiming to have the lightest body in the full-frame market; eliminating the flash electronics and lamp shaves a bit of weight.

A pop-up flash is susceptible to damage, adds cost for the manufacturer, and may make certain other engineering challenges (like fully weather-sealing the unit, which is a feature of the 1D series but not the prosumer and amateur lines) more difficult. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professional photographers rarely want their flash to originate close to the lens, they often want a heck of a lot more light than a camera-based flash can provide, and they often want various types of flash devices. And they don't want to look like amateurs. Your Username 20:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

All of your arguments speak toward having the possibility to connect external flashes, but none of them speak against the inclusion of a pop-up flash. JIP | Talk 20:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but did you read the answers? Weight concerns, weather-sealing concerns, and concerns about the look, all do speak against the inclusion of a pop-up flash. --Lgriot (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read this discussion more thoroughly, you would have seen this comment:

"So far the only arguments against having pop-up flashes in the camera at all have come from User:TenOfAllTrades. All the others are just about why external flashes are better."

Written over three hours before your comment. I was specifically replying to User:Hayttom, not to everybody in general. I have since got further useful answers. JIP | Talk 19:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, "your" in English is ambiguous (can be singular or plural) and so I could not have known that you were replying to one person only, since you didn't name who you were replying to. I therefore thought you were replying to everyone. --Lgriot (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premium items are often designed for "purists", so lack some rather basic features. For example, there are also some exotic sports cars which lack radios and air conditioning. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me curious: what sport cars are these? Ĩ could imagine buying a car without radio, but without A/C? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James May drove one in the first episode of Top Gear (series 10). An Aston Martin V8 Vantage. Dismas|^(talk) 14:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a reference to the absence of A/C in the Aston Martin V8 Vantage. Just because James Bond is cold as ice it doesn't mean the real car has none. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you take my OR as a source? I've seen the episode and he, at one point, drives nearly naked and douses himself with bottled water just to try to alleviate the distress he's in due to the heat. Dismas|^(talk) 20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Oddly, it has all sorts of other extras, but not A/C, probably because that robs power from the engine, and they want the acceleration figure to be as high as possible. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wife is a professional photographer with a Nikon D700. I've never seen her use the built in flash. (I actually had to Google it to see if it even has one) When she does use an on camera flash, it's on the hot shoe and she bounces the light off the ceiling or walls. From what I remember her telling me, the built in flash makes the light too harsh. Dismas|^(talk) 02:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far the only arguments against having pop-up flashes in the camera at all have come from User:TenOfAllTrades. All the others are just about why external flashes are better. JIP | Talk 05:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to include moving parts that your target market is not going to use. Just makes the device more complicated and less reliable. That's kind of a general engineering principle; it's not limited to camera manufacture. --Trovatore (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would expand this rule to a more general rule. Not only moving parts, but any kind of useless feature, as a general design principle, should be kept out of your product. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that the internal flash is not likely to be used by people in the target market (because they will all be using external flashes) then:

The flash adds weight - removing it makes the camera lighter.
The flash adds cost - removing it makes the camera cheaper.
The flash adds size - removing it makes the camera smaller.
The flash adds complexity - removing it makes the camera simpler - and hence, more reliable.
The flash adds more routes for water to get into the camera - removing it makes the camera more water-tight.

So will the target market prefer a cheaper, smaller, lighter, more water resistant and more reliable camera that lacks a feature that they'd never use? Hell yes! Hence making a flashless camera for the pro- market makes excellent business sense.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just google built in flash sucks and you'll see what people think of it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the arguments above, all valid, the size of the pentaprism varies between sensor formats. Cameras using full-frame sensors have larger prisms and the flash can't be integrated cleanly on top of it without making it even bigger. APS-C format cameras (which are less expensive) generally integrate the flash assembly around the smaller prism. Built-in flash is useful for snapshots, but for professional use it's way too harsh, not adjustable for bounce and uses too much internal battery power. Few fully weather-sealed cameras have a flash (or the camera's seals tend to be compromised by the presence of the pop-up).. Acroterion (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]