Zach Matthews
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hey Cameron –
The order is in but CustomInk.com wasn’t equipped to take Paypal, where I had been holding all of the folks’ money (this non-cominglng stuff you learn in law is a good practice anyway).
That v-loop or airfoil loop is probably a result of a change in your stroke, not the rod itself.
My best distance cast ever is a 116′ cast with a St. Croix Pro Graphite and a 6 weight SA XXD floating line. I’ve thrown a lot longer casts but never any that were this good relative to the weight of the rod. My point is the fastest, most expensive rod is only a tool and a tool is only as good as its user. The TCR will give you a slight performance boost, but the fundamentals of the long cast are still the same.
I am pretty sure the airfoil loop is created naturally when the rod turns over in straight line path. There is a bit of a two-step hinge to the human wrist as it goes from bent to straight to slightly over bent, but you will only see this effect on a cast with all extraneous power wastage (ie loops out of plane) taken out of the cast. The easiest way to create the airfoil is to use a very long rod. For some reason this almost always forces it to occur. On a smaller rod, focus on tip tracking and making sure the loops turn over “over their own shadow.”
I was able to attain considerable distance with an outright sidearmed backcast but after a lot of study and closely watching Lefty Kreh, who my stroke most resembles, I realized that Lefty bends his wrist in the backcast almost ninety degrees *toward his body*. Thus, his hand is actually tracking exactly like it would if it were coming straight over his shoulder – the rod doesn’t rotate out of true, it simply moves back and forth out to the side instead of over his shoulder.
I experimented a little and found that I could throw in what amounts to a “j-stroke” at the end of my backcast. Basically as the rod is unloading in the backcast I very slightly, almost imperceptibly jerk the butt of the rod forward, thus pulling the rod straight just a hair faster. I then realized I could aim the backcast better with this technique. Today I will throw line very high in the backcast in order to let a lot of it unroll before beginning the forward cast. Contrary to popular belief you do not want the backcast to be unrolling as you start the forward cast – rather you want it completely unrolled and still tugging on the rod with a bare minimum of momentum. That will line up the backcast with the trajectory of the forward cast and put the maximum amount of grains of line in play to help load the rod.
HTH,
ZachI had a buddy in and together with Lauren we hiked and fished the Bald River Canyon, a tributary of the Tellico, and got skunked, then fished the Holston and caught a bunch of stockers.
I recorded an audiolog for the podcast from this trip which will be pretty cool.
Bryan –
DSLRs work just like SLRs – the viewfinder is the only way to look through the prism at the image.
That is accurate, Splitshot.
I’ve never heard of anyone saying they lost anything aperture-wise, and you know that’d be a hot topic of conversation.
Bryan –
No. That conversion is strictly an angle-of-view conversion. It comes about because the digital CCD sensor is approximately the size of an old APS film box: 23.5mm on a diagonal if I remember correctly.
Conceptually this is a little difficult but remember that the image projected onto a 23.5mm “box” will be blown up to exactly the same size “on paper” as a 35mm sheet.
Thus, assuming you want to make a 4×6, a 35mm “box” would blow up less than a 23.5mm box, because it is already bigger. Because the lens mounted on the camera still projects an image that is the same actual size, this means the 23.5mm box image gets blown up more.
When you use a film lens, an old one meant for the 35mm window, on a new DSLR, you are losing part of the light circle the lens projects, the part around the edges, meaning the angle of view is not as wide. This doesn’t ultimately affect image quality at all, because the actual light projected by the lens isn’t any particular “size” or “compression.” Thus, when the light circle hits a 23.5mm box and is then blown up to 4×6, you get a perfect image with greater enlargement.
Whatever size you blow the image up to is also irrelevant, because the relative angles of view between the 35mm and the 23.5mm “boxes” remain constant.
Example:
A 50mm lens mounted to an old SLR will make an image that looks about like what the human eye’s field of view sees. There’s actually a degree count for this, but I don’t know what it is (might be, say, 60 degrees, just as an example).
The same 50mm lens mounted to a new DSLR will make an image that looks like a 75mm lens would if mounted on the old SLR because of the decreased angle of the light hitting the CCD. Thus, the available angle might be, say, 45 degrees (anyway it would be narrower).
Again because the actual light and the image remain perfect there’s no “quality loss” in this reduced angle, it just changes what the “zoom” of the lens looks like.
This works out to a big advantage for DSLR users on the really telephoto range, since a 400mm lens projects the same “perfect image” as a 600mm lens did on an old film SLR.
Unfortunately the flip side is where we DSLR guys get bit: DSLRs must use extra wide angle lenses to get the same wide angle shot which was relatively easy on an SLR. Old SLRs used to start going “wide” at about 24mm, whereas today with a DSLR you’d need a 16mm lens to get the same angle of view, which makes wide angles hard to get, and expensive.
Lens technology hits a wall at that real wide angle because light really wants to bend and curve when you gather it from nearly 180 degrees around and put it on a two dimensional surface (the picture). Thus, wide angle DSLR lenses have to have a lot of technology and wind up being real expensive. The Nikon pro standard is the 12-24mm f/4 DX AF-S G, a $1200 lens (and one that still can’t reach the usual f/2.8 standard of pro lenses).
However, none of this affects aperture to my knowledge. Because the light is still transfered through the lens as “100%” pure light, the aperture and the relative blur shouldn’t be affected. I’ll have to wrap my head around this to try and figure out if the reduced angle of view might impact aperture a little more but I think the answer is no.
Zach
Hey Poudre –
Nice to have you and glad we made a good impression on somebody.
Would your moniker be for the Cache La Poudre out in Ft. Collins?
Four Rivers Fly Shop in Twin Bridges. They’ve since been discontinued. A soft foam hopper – floated great, but not durable enough. I didn’t care, I only wanted to hook one big trout.
Zach
I was flown in for the initial Cloudveil media event and wore those waders in the Snake for two days.