If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#941
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: you can see pixelization on non-retina displays. you *can't* on a retina display. the difference is very noticeable, which is why companies are now making them. I can see pixels on my screen if I get up real close but it's not meant to be viewed that way. Similarly I can see pixels on my iPad if I use a magnifying glass. But it's not meant to be used that way either. you don't have to get real close to see pixelization on a non-retina display. that's the point. they are much sharper. You must have better eyes than me. dunno but pretty much everyone who uses a retina display notices a difference, especially when they go back to the older non-retina display. |
#942
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos that aren't. Then they will miss some damn good photographs. not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the limits. they want well exposed and in focus images. That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that are less than well exposed or focussed. i said all along you can not use it. Of course I can't. My camera doesn't have that capability. it doesn't have to be in the camera. it could run on the computer. The original discussion was about an 'in camera' function. no it wasn't. i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only one. |
#943
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos that aren't. Then they will miss some damn good photographs. not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the limits. they want well exposed and in focus images. That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that are less than well exposed or focussed. i said all along you can not use it. Of course I can't. My camera doesn't have that capability. it doesn't have to be in the camera. it could run on the computer. The original discussion was about an 'in camera' function. no it wasn't. i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only one. True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera before the photographer had even seen them? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#944
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:46 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: you can see pixelization on non-retina displays. you *can't* on a retina display. the difference is very noticeable, which is why companies are now making them. I can see pixels on my screen if I get up real close but it's not meant to be viewed that way. Similarly I can see pixels on my iPad if I use a magnifying glass. But it's not meant to be used that way either. you don't have to get real close to see pixelization on a non-retina display. that's the point. they are much sharper. You must have better eyes than me. dunno but pretty much everyone who uses a retina display notices a difference, especially when they go back to the older non-retina display. I go from an iPad to a matte 24" colour calibrated 1920 x 1200. Apart from PPI there are too many other differences to enable me to select one to explain why the two look different. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#945
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
On 2013-08-14 19:00:46 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos that aren't. Then they will miss some damn good photographs. not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the limits. they want well exposed and in focus images. That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that are less than well exposed or focussed. i said all along you can not use it. Of course I can't. My camera doesn't have that capability. it doesn't have to be in the camera. it could run on the computer. The original discussion was about an 'in camera' function. no it wasn't. i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only one. True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera before the photographer had even seen them? I did. My Nikon CP-5700 had a "best shot selector" (BSS) feature. With BSS on the camera takes pictures as long as the shutter-release button is held down, to a maximum of 10. The sharpest of these 10 (highest level of detail) is saved to the memory card. Flash is turned off, and focus, exposure, and white balance is determined by the first shot in the series. So the shooter never gets to see any of the rejected 9 shots. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#946
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:20:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2013-08-14 19:00:46 -0700, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos that aren't. Then they will miss some damn good photographs. not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the limits. they want well exposed and in focus images. That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that are less than well exposed or focussed. i said all along you can not use it. Of course I can't. My camera doesn't have that capability. it doesn't have to be in the camera. it could run on the computer. The original discussion was about an 'in camera' function. no it wasn't. i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only one. True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera before the photographer had even seen them? I did. My Nikon CP-5700 had a "best shot selector" (BSS) feature. With BSS on the camera takes pictures as long as the shutter-release button is held down, to a maximum of 10. The sharpest of these 10 (highest level of detail) is saved to the memory card. Flash is turned off, and focus, exposure, and white balance is determined by the first shot in the series. So the shooter never gets to see any of the rejected 9 shots. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#947
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
On 2013-08-14 21:16:48 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:20:31 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-08-14 19:00:46 -0700, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos that aren't. Then they will miss some damn good photographs. not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the limits. they want well exposed and in focus images. That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that are less than well exposed or focussed. i said all along you can not use it. Of course I can't. My camera doesn't have that capability. it doesn't have to be in the camera. it could run on the computer. The original discussion was about an 'in camera' function. no it wasn't. i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only one. True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera before the photographer had even seen them? I did. My Nikon CP-5700 had a "best shot selector" (BSS) feature. With BSS on the camera takes pictures as long as the shutter-release button is held down, to a maximum of 10. The sharpest of these 10 (highest level of detail) is saved to the memory card. Flash is turned off, and focus, exposure, and white balance is determined by the first shot in the series. So the shooter never gets to see any of the rejected 9 shots. Did you intend to comment, or did you just have a spontaneous click on the send button? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#948
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:25:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2013-08-14 21:16:48 -0700, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:20:31 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-08-14 19:00:46 -0700, Eric Stevens said: On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos that aren't. Then they will miss some damn good photographs. not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the limits. they want well exposed and in focus images. That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that are less than well exposed or focussed. i said all along you can not use it. Of course I can't. My camera doesn't have that capability. it doesn't have to be in the camera. it could run on the computer. The original discussion was about an 'in camera' function. no it wasn't. i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only one. True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera before the photographer had even seen them? I did. My Nikon CP-5700 had a "best shot selector" (BSS) feature. With BSS on the camera takes pictures as long as the shutter-release button is held down, to a maximum of 10. The sharpest of these 10 (highest level of detail) is saved to the memory card. Flash is turned off, and focus, exposure, and white balance is determined by the first shot in the series. So the shooter never gets to see any of the rejected 9 shots. Did you intend to comment, or did you just have a spontaneous click on the send button? It must have been the latter. I was not even aware that I had cited your article to enable me to respond to it. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#949
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Very few can decode hieroglyphs, Tipsy Dave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieroglyph Which I don't use. This is a text based medium such charaters can;t be genrated unless you're refering to ASCII art. *swosh* -- Sandman[.net] |
#950
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
On 8/14/2013 5:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:37:15 -0400, nospam wrote: snip nothing is perfect. But some are desirable. As the evening merges into night, the less than perfect woman at the other end of the bar becomes more desirable. Similarly with digital images. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
They are nibbling among the desert now, won't jump stickers later. | Doug Miller | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 27th 06 07:08 AM |
just nibbling with a exit under the spring is too quiet for Rob to fill it | Rick Drummerman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 22nd 06 04:48 PM |
try nibbling the morning's young cloud and Jonathan will seek you | Roger A. Young | Digital Photography | 0 | April 22nd 06 04:29 PM |
they are nibbling for the hallway now, won't learn books later | Lionel | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 22nd 06 03:50 PM |
he'll be nibbling within stale Valerie until his smog cares easily | MTKnife | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 22nd 06 02:06 PM |