DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.misc.]
On 2007-12-06, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Chris Malcolm wrote:

Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there
isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it
shouldn't be long in coming.

You are off by a factor of 30.

First off Konica Minolta claimed 0.92, not 9.2 MP.

You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the
moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in
the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years
for EVFs of around 3MP,

Err, if the trend is from nine hundred thousand, down to three hundred
thousand now it doesn't seem to be heading for three million to me.

which my guess is would be good enough for
at least most people.

Or maybe just passable for almost several people?

My guess is it isn't even on the marketroids' 'roadmaps' so technological
feasibility is neither here nor there.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

On Dec 6, 4:42 am, AndrewR wrote:
On 6 Dec 2007 09:18:20 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:





In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Chris Malcolm wrote:

Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there
isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it
shouldn't be long in coming.

You are off by a factor of 30.

First off Konica Minolta claimed 0.92, not 9.2 MP.

My typo.

Still 0.92 would be very impressive, if it were true, but they counted
the red green and blue pixels separately, in reality it was a vga
display with 640x480 pixels.

You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the
moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in
the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years
for EVFs of around 3MP, which my guess is would be good enough for
at least most people.

Why all this stupid speculation and argument? Just do the math. (And here they
keep wanting to believe how bright they are, yeah, right.) The resolution
doesn't have to be any higher than human perception. The absolute highest level
of detail perceivable by any human is no smaller than 28 seconds of arc. Most
people have a hard time trying to discern details with 1 minute of arc. Just ask
any of them to split Epsilon Lyrae (the famous double-double star) with their
eyes alone. 2.6 seconds separation for the 2 binary-pairs. They can't do it. It
was even used as an eyesight test for Roman military. If they couldn't see it as
2 stars they were rejected. Do the math on the EVF display angle of view wanted
and then you know what pixel resolution is needed.

30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40 degree FOV
(let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision) with 2.6
seconds of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average
person's perception. Quite frankly I find even that isn't necessary. I have been
using a 123k pixel display (30 degree FOV) for over 5 years, using the finely
pixelated image to a great advantage. Using it as a full area micro-prism screen
I am able to focus faster and quicker with the lower resolution than I could if
it was higher resolution.

Until you actually learn to use them properly you're all talking out of your
asses. The answer does not lie in resolution alone. But you'll never know this
because the only cameras that any of you have ever used are virtual cameras to
go along with your useless virtual lives and useless virtual advice.- Hide quoted text -

Your number should seem a bit odd with even a little thought.

My computer monitor is 1280 x 1024 and yet I can easily see the pixels
on the screen, even standing a fair bit back. And yet you believe
that 1024 x 768 is "beyond the average person's perception"?

Scott

In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
On Dec 6, 4:42 am, AndrewR wrote:
On 6 Dec 2007 09:18:20 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Chris Malcolm wrote:

Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there
isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it
shouldn't be long in coming.

You are off by a factor of 30.

First off Konica Minolta claimed 0.92, not 9.2 MP.

My typo.

Still 0.92 would be very impressive, if it were true, but they counted
the red green and blue pixels separately, in reality it was a vga
display with 640x480 pixels.

You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the
moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in
the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years
for EVFs of around 3MP, which my guess is would be good enough for
at least most people.

Why all this stupid speculation and argument? Just do the math. (And here they
keep wanting to believe how bright they are, yeah, right.) The resolution
doesn't have to be any higher than human perception. The absolute highest level
of detail perceivable by any human is no smaller than 28 seconds of arc. Most
people have a hard time trying to discern details with 1 minute of arc. Just ask
any of them to split Epsilon Lyrae (the famous double-double star) with their
eyes alone. 2.6 seconds separation for the 2 binary-pairs. They can't do it. It
was even used as an eyesight test for Roman military. If they couldn't see it as
2 stars they were rejected. Do the math on the EVF display angle of view wanted
and then you know what pixel resolution is needed.

30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40 degree FOV
(let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision) with 2.6
seconds of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average
person's perception. Quite frankly I find even that isn't necessary. I have been
using a 123k pixel display (30 degree FOV) for over 5 years, using the finely
pixelated image to a great advantage. Using it as a full area micro-prism screen
I am able to focus faster and quicker with the lower resolution than I could if
it was higher resolution.

Until you actually learn to use them properly you're all talking out of your
asses. The answer does not lie in resolution alone. But you'll never know this
because the only cameras that any of you have ever used are virtual cameras to
go along with your useless virtual lives and useless virtual advice.- Hide quoted text -

Your number should seem a bit odd with even a little thought.

My computer monitor is 1280 x 1024 and yet I can easily see the pixels
on the screen, even standing a fair bit back. And yet you believe
that 1024 x 768 is "beyond the average person's perception"?

Exactly what I was thinking. With an approx 30 degree field of view of
my 1280x1024 monitor as I sit typing here I can see the individual
pixels. I also note that the .25MP EVF of my R1 can do a double size
zoom image jump when using manual focus to aid focussing. Strange that
engineers would bother putting in a facility which is (according to
Scott) beyond the biophysical capability of human vision to exploit.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Chris Malcolm" wrote:

On Dec 6, 4:42 am, AndrewR wrote:

30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40
degree FOV
(let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision)
with 2.6
seconds of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the
average
person's perception. Quite frankly I find even that isn't necessary. I
have been
using a 123k pixel display (30 degree FOV) for over 5 years, using the
finely
pixelated image to a great advantage. Using it as a full area
micro-prism screen
I am able to focus faster and quicker with the lower resolution than I
could if
it was higher resolution.

[ScottW's sensible stuff snipped]

With an approx 30 degree field of view of
my 1280x1024 monitor as I sit typing here I can see the individual
pixels. I also note that the .25MP EVF of my R1 can do a double size
zoom image jump when using manual focus to aid focussing. Strange that
engineers would bother putting in a facility which is (according to
Scott) beyond the biophysical capability of human vision to exploit.

That wasn't ScottW, that was AndrewR who wrote that.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Dec 6, 3:33 pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:

Your number should seem a bit odd with even a little thought.
My computer monitor is 1280 x 1024 and yet I can easily see the pixels
on the screen, even standing a fair bit back. And yet you believe
that 1024 x 768 is "beyond the average person's perception"?

Exactly what I was thinking. With an approx 30 degree field of view of
my 1280x1024 monitor as I sit typing here I can see the individual
pixels. I also note that the .25MP EVF of my R1 can do a double size
zoom image jump when using manual focus to aid focussing. Strange that
engineers would bother putting in a facility which is (according to
Scott) beyond the biophysical capability of human vision to exploit.
Hey, keep track of the player in this, I was not the one saying the
1024x768 exceeded human vision, I was the one saying that it did not.

Scott

David Littlefield wrote:
The Minolta Way.

Tony Polson wrote:

But most digicams' electronic viewfinders have been stuck at 0.3 MP
for several years now. In spite of Konica Minolta's 0.92 MP, there
doesn't seem to be any trend towards better EVFs with more resolution.

Even the EVF on our beloved Sony DSC-R1 has only 242,000 pixels. The
top mounted swivel LCD has only 140,000, but it is much easier to use
than the EVF, which is gritty, grainy and very unpleasant to use, in
my opinion.

This is weird: a thread that has been going on for months, and suddenly
it contains useful posts.

Here are your current choices in digital cameras:

1. LCD only viewfinder, can't see it in bright sunlight
2. Optical viewfinder with 50% field of view, not to mention parallax
3. DSLR that is too big to carry, and prone to dust during lens changes
4. High-end whatever (ZLR?) with unusable EVF only

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:42:19 -0600, AndrewR
wrote:

Why all this stupid speculation and argument? Just do the math.

OK, I will.

The resolution
doesn't have to be any higher than human perception. The absolute highest level
of detail perceivable by any human is no smaller than 28 seconds of arc. Most
people have a hard time trying to discern details with 1 minute of arc. Just ask
any of them to split Epsilon Lyrae (the famous double-double star) with their
eyes alone. 2.6 seconds separation for the 2 binary-pairs. They can't do it. It
was even used as an eyesight test for Roman military. If they couldn't see it as
2 stars they were rejected. Do the math on the EVF display angle of view wanted
and then you know what pixel resolution is needed.

30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40 degree FOV
(let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision) with 2.6
seconds of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average
person's perception.

40° == 144000"; 144000" / 28" ~= 5000. For a 4 x 3 screen that would
require a screen 5000 x 3750 ~= 17.9 Mpx.

Even using a lower resolution for the human eye -- say, one minute
of arc -- you still need a 4 Mpx display. Your proposed 1024 x 768
screen covering a 40° field of view means each pixel is 2.3' across:
a size easily resolved by the human eye.

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]

On Dec 7, 12:42 am, AndrewR wrote:
a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average
person's perception.

????????????????

To AndrewR, and of course all the other names you post under (must
update that list...)

As has been idenrtified by many others already, that has to be the
stupidest, most ignorant statement ever to have issued from your
keyboard. But it's a useful and telling reflection of your complete
incompetence and ridiculously low standards. Yes, those cameras you
promote are clearly capable of delivering far more quality than *you*
will ever need.. Forgive us if we have slightly higher requirements.

May I suggest a new nickname? "Mr Magoo"

AndrewR wrote:

What ****ingly useless, inexperienced, misinformation-spewing, and amazingly
ignorant trolls.

Mirror, mirror.

Or, in language of 5th graders, "I know you are, but what are we?"
fu set.
--
lsmft

On Dec 7, 4:48 am, AndrewR wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 02:32:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:42 am, AndrewR wrote:
a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average
person's perception.

????????????????

To AndrewR, and of course all the other names you post under (must
update that list...)

As has been idenrtified by many others already, that has to be the
stupidest, most ignorant statement ever to have issued from your
keyboard. But it's a useful and telling reflection of your complete
incompetence and ridiculously low standards. Yes, those cameras you
promote are clearly capable of delivering far more quality than *you*
will ever need.. Forgive us if we have slightly higher requirements.

May I suggest a new nickname? "Mr Magoo"

A clue for all the useless idiots, just like this one. Get your nose off of your
monitor with those pop-bottle-bottom nerd glasses of yours with +10 diopter
correction in them. View a 1024x768 display from a distance that provides a TRUE
30-40 degree FOV only. Don't be so ****ingly stupid. Do the math on a 17"
monitor with a width of 13+" on how far away you have to view it.

As for the moron that says 2.3' of arc are easily discerned by most humans,
there's another ****ingly useless troll revealing himself. I used to host
astronomer's events and would often ask the general public how many stars they
could see in Epsilon Lyrae. If lucky maybe 10% of them would raise their hands
on being able to see 2 stars there.

What ****ingly useless, inexperienced, misinformation-spewing, and amazingly
ignorant trolls

An average person can resolve 0.7 line pairs per minute.
It takes at least 2 pixels to make a line pair so the minimum you
would need to match the human eye is 1.4 pixels per minute. But 2
pixels/min is the minimum, because of how the phasing occurs you
really would like to have about 1.5 times that amount, or about 2.1
pixels minute.

But if you can't see the pixels on your 1024x768 display then I think
you might have some pretty big problems with your eyes.

Scott

Scott