Resolution limit possible to break?

On 16/10/2016 8:06 @wiz, Rich A wrote:
I am usually wary of these stories, you find out it's about microwaves or things unrelated to the human visual spectrum.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html







Hmmmm....
Lot of talk about it being possible, but no details whatsoever about how
to and what exactly is possible and how.
Just like "the cloud"....

On 10/16/2016 6:20 AM, Noons wrote:
On 16/10/2016 8:06 @wiz, Rich A wrote:
I am usually wary of these stories, you find out it's about microwaves
or things unrelated to the human visual spectrum.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html







Hmmmm....
Lot of talk about it being possible, but no details whatsoever about how
to and what exactly is possible and how.
Just like "the cloud"....

See the full paper for more details:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.00552.pdf

==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 17/10/2016 12:43 @wiz, Ron C wrote:
I am usually wary of these stories, you find out it's about microwaves
or things unrelated to the human visual spectrum.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html
Hmmmm....
Lot of talk about it being possible, but no details whatsoever about how
to and what exactly is possible and how.
Just like "the cloud"....

See the full paper for more details:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.00552.pdf


Thanks for the pdf.
Hmmm... It's got a magic word that turns me off instantly:
"quantum".

Obviously another technique - like quantum computing - that will never
see the light of day although it will generate a zillion papers on the
subject and require huge amounts of research funding...


(sorry, quantum theory is my pet hate! )

On 18/10/2016 12:56, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 17 October 2016 05:21:50 UTC-4, Noons wrote:
On 17/10/2016 12:43 @wiz, Ron C wrote:
I am usually wary of these stories, you find out it's about microwaves
or things unrelated to the human visual spectrum.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html
Hmmmm....
Lot of talk about it being possible, but no details whatsoever about how
to and what exactly is possible and how.
Just like "the cloud"....

See the full paper for more details:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.00552.pdf


Thanks for the pdf.
Hmmm... It's got a magic word that turns me off instantly:
"quantum".


All it means is it might give you a high resolution image...or it might not.

Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

I took a look at the paper. Decided that I didn't have a couple of
years spare to brush-up on physics/optics just so I could (or probably
could not) make a meaningful comment.
I was looking for an "ELI5" summary - but couldn't find one.
I'll wait 'til it come out in a device, probably the iPhone 8, then see
how it stacks up on DXOMark, before committing.

On 2016-10-18 00:21:37 +0000, Me said:

On 18/10/2016 12:56, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 17 October 2016 05:21:50 UTC-4, Noons wrote:
On 17/10/2016 12:43 @wiz, Ron C wrote:
I am usually wary of these stories, you find out it's about microwaves
or things unrelated to the human visual spectrum.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html
Hmmmm....
Lot of talk about it being possible, but no details whatsoever about how
to and what exactly is possible and how.
Just like "the cloud"....

See the full paper for more details:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.00552.pdf


Thanks for the pdf.
Hmmm... It's got a magic word that turns me off instantly:
"quantum".


All it means is it might give you a high resolution image...or it might
not.

Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

That is begining to sound like Schrodinger's cat.

I took a look at the paper. Decided that I didn't have a couple of
years spare to brush-up on physics/optics just so I could (or probably
could not) make a meaningful comment.
I was looking for an "ELI5" summary - but couldn't find one.
I'll wait 'til it come out in a device, probably the iPhone 8, then see
how it stacks up on DXOMark, before committing.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 2016-10-18 01:26:36 +0000, Davoud said:

Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.

As I said, it has the smell of Schrodinger's cat.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 18/10/2016 14:34, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-18 01:26:36 +0000, Davoud said:

Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.

As I said, it has the smell of Schrodinger's cat.

This is optics - you don't smell a cat to determine if it's alive or
not. You look at the stupid thing. If it's alive, you shoot an
animated GIF, upload it and get a million up-votes on Reddit. If it's
dead, you get lynched by PETA activists.
What you've proposed is a red herring interpretation, which does work on
a couple of levels.

On 18/10/2016 12:34 @wiz, Savageduck wrote:


As I said, it has the smell of Schrodinger's cat.


Yeah. I reckon it's worth a snap (preferably shaky or OOF) on the
smartphone, then upload it to Facebook or Instagram and sit back while
folks gush over "what a great photo" it is!

(damn tongue jammed against the cheek again!...)

On 10/17/2016 9:26 PM, Davoud wrote:
Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.


But is was there a few minutes after you tried to look at it.


--
PeterN
Muttering something about the silence of falling trees