Digital Camera Sensor Performane Summary updated Feb 3

not looking to understand,
not curious?

hmmm.

If I were to tell you I'm not interested in Botany, would you also
call me incurious, hmmm?

I am incurious about camera (read computer) technical jargon. Each of
us is incurious about a myriad things, we cannot all be Da Vincis. We
make choices - mine is not to devote more than the minimum time
necessary to operate my camera so that it produces the images I want.
You choose to be curious about things that I consider trivial, and
viceversa.

Calling that mental torture explains the state of many things in
today's societies (at least ours, ie, western ones). I blame it all on
the incompetence of the teachers in our schools. Or plain stupidity,
of course: most people tend to dislike things that show them their
limits -


I have a Master's in Mathematics and have no difficulty reading
charts. Nevertheless, those charts, and there must be dozens of them,
would require a great deal of time to interpret and analyze. Not for
me, I'd rather take pictures.

Bob G wrote:
Calling that mental torture explains the state of many things in
today's societies (at least ours, ie, western ones). I blame it all on
the incompetence of the teachers in our schools. Or plain stupidity,
of course: most people tend to dislike things that show them their
limits -

I have a Master's in Mathematics and have no difficulty reading
charts. Nevertheless, those charts, and there must be dozens of them,
would require a great deal of time to interpret and analyze. Not for
me, I'd rather take pictures.

It's not required reading but there is relevance if you shoot digital.
Stuff like how far you can blow the highlights or pull the shadows, how
to expose a shot that is high contrast versus mostly middle tones, what
ISO to use, what camera to choose & how to process the files. Roger does
astronomy shooting also and that demands all kinds of technical
know-how, software and particular equipment to get the best results. He
has moved cautiously and knowledgeably into digital, from large format
even, knowing exactly what the trade-offs are in detail. Nothing wrong
with that.

On Feb 5, 4:08 am, Bob G wrote:
Calling that mental torture explains the state of many things in
today's societies (at least ours, ie, western ones). I blame it all on
the incompetence of the teachers in our schools. Or plain stupidity,
of course: most people tend to dislike things that show them their
limits -

I have a Master's in Mathematics and have no difficulty reading
charts. Nevertheless, those charts, and there must be dozens of them,
would require a great deal of time to interpret and analyze. Not for
me, I'd rather take pictures.

Well that's a perfectly reasonable point of view of course. Nobody
claimed anybody should read this article. Saying that it's
uninteresting to photographers, though, is another story: I've put
enough effort into photography over enough years to find this position
simply offensive.

And a master's in X proves nothing, just like a phd in X also proves
nothing etc. I know people who I would unhesitatingly call idiots
(also in their face) who have phds in theoretical physics, and they
have not the slightest clue about physics. a piece of paper means
nothing, in reality, except that one did what was necessary to obtain
it (usually, repeat some stuff from some book in some exams,
basically; these exams are designed to be passed, in fact, for obvious
reasons). mind you, I'm not calling you personally anything, nor could
I possibly judge your competence in eg mathematics in any way. it's
just a general comment.

I guess my point is, I don't understand why someone who's clearly not
interested in this goes to the effort of posting a message to this
effect. The only result will be to make the person who posted the
information in the first place (Roger, in this case) less likely to
waste his time doing it again. I, for one, am interested.

Bob G wrote:

Interesting? Not to photographers, certainly not to me.

All you need to falsify a generalisation is one contrary example :-)

(It's interesting to me as a photographer who takes a keen interest in
the development of photographic technology.)

My meaning was that anyone who's interested in that sort of data is
not a photographer. Since you're interested, it follows you're not a
photographer.
Ha, ha.

At any rate, I can't really see how the time and study necessary to
absorb the charts and all that data can be possibly justified by
whatever slight benefit one might obtain from their use as a criterion
to buy this or that camera. Better to ignore it all and go out and
shoot some pictures.

On the other hand, if you derive some pleasure from that sort of
mental torture, you're welcome to it. My point is that it won't help
your photography nearly as much as actually taking some pictures.

Ah. so you're one of those people for whom nothing is interesting if
it isn't useful. I guess that's why you put so little thought into
your postings.

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

Bob G writes:

Interesting? Not to photographers, certainly not to me.

I retrofit digital SLRs onto instruments that originally used film backs.
So this kind of quantitative comparison of digital to film, and this-
digital to that-digital, is catnip. Not all of us are shooting sunsets.

http://www.truetex.com/micad.htm

Bob G wrote:

My meaning was that anyone who's interested in that sort of data is
not a photographer.

Hmmm, so any and all photographers are prohibited by having an
additional hobby or even work concerning sensors, astrophotography,
etc. etc. etc. by which law?

-Wolfgang

acl wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:08 am, Bob G wrote:

I have a Master's in Mathematics and have no difficulty reading
charts. Nevertheless, those charts, and there must be dozens of them,
would require a great deal of time to interpret and analyze. Not for
me, I'd rather take pictures.

And a master's in X proves nothing, just like a phd in X also proves
nothing etc. I know people who I would unhesitatingly call idiots
(also in their face) who have phds in theoretical physics,

Oh oh ...

Lock a experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist and a
mathematician each in a bare cell. Add one can (of the type that
needs an opener) of tuna in tomato sauce as dinner, but absolutely
no can opener.

Wait till the next morning, then look at the cells:

The experimental physicist's cell is a mess: every wall
marked, the tin can dented almost beyond recognition and a
large tomato sauce spot on the ceiling marks where the can
finally ruptured wide open.

The theoretical physicist's cell's walls are scratched and marked
over and over with tons formulas, diagrams, calculations and
drawings. A small tomato-coloured spot in the lower right rear
corner marks the impact point of the can, where a single, exact
throw caused the can to open itself satisfactorily on impact.
(The guy must have been playing basketball or rugby or similar,
to manage such a throw.)

Most curious is the cell of the mathematician. It is unmarked,
as is the can, standing in the exact middle of the cell.
With slightly glazed over eyes and a out-of-this-world look the
mathematician is sitting, legs folded, next to the can, looking
at it ... mumbling over and over things like:
Let us assume ... the can was ... open ...
Let us ... assume the can ... was open ...
Let ... us assume ... the can was open ...


Which may be painted with a huge brush and rather strong colour
paint, but does illustrate a 'typical' mindset and way of
approaching problems.

and they have not the slightest clue about physics.

Depends on what physics you are thinking of --- physics is huge,
and a theoretical physicist concerned about interaction of the
outer electron shell is often called a theoretical chemist ...

And then there is the astrophysician who does know most everything
about stars, but has no idea where what star is.

a piece of paper means
nothing, in reality, except that one did what was necessary to obtain
it (usually, repeat some stuff from some book in some exams,
basically; these exams are designed to be passed, in fact, for obvious
reasons). mind you, I'm not calling you personally anything, nor could
I possibly judge your competence in eg mathematics in any way. it's
just a general comment.

I content that even a professorship in Mathematics does
not help understanding the tables except for checking if the
transformation of any equations used is formally correct (which
does not include "make sense") and maybe if the calculations done
include mathematical errors, as in "1+1=3".

Obviously, that does not indicate in any way that Bob G is unable
to understand or evaluate the tables, merely that "a Master's in
Mathematics" is about as relevant to understanding the tables as
deep sea diving is.

-Wolfgang

Bob G wrote:

We make choices - mine is not to devote more than the minimum time
necessary to operate my camera so that it produces the images I want.

Well, that explains the shooter re-shooting an 'Ansel' classics
and using a large mass laboratory for development and printing
.... and wondering why it does not look like what the master
produced when he used careful, specially developed and tested
methods and lots of lovingly manual laber in the dark room.

It is a choice, but ridiculing those who want to know more about
technical aspects, down to calling them "not photographers" is
something the most conformist redneck in the bible belt would
call stupid and narrow minded.

-Wolfgang

On Feb 5, 2:01 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
acl wrote:
Which may be painted with a huge brush and rather strong colour
paint, but does illustrate a 'typical' mindset and way of
approaching problems.

It's a good joke but I admit that I don't see what it has to do with
what I said. Never mind though


and they have not the slightest clue about physics.

Depends on what physics you are thinking of --- physics is huge,
and a theoretical physicist concerned about interaction of the
outer electron shell is often called a theoretical chemist ...

Of course. I am not talking about knowing how to calculate the self
energy for ultracold fermionic atoms at unitarity, but knowing that,
for example, a second order transition cannot occur between two phases
with different symmetry. The second is basic knowledge if you want to
call yourself a physicist, while the first is a technical detail
interesting only to people working in the area.