How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers (was: Reason for so many focus errors we see today?)

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:

The same way as I tell the camera what exposure to set ???????//

Of course not. Unless your 'exposure setting dial' also
changes the focus.

I wouldn't mind that as an option.

To each man his own crazyness.

Can't see how having a dial to set the focusing distance is such a crazy
thing.

That's one thing and comes bundled with about any DSLR lens.
It's another thing to have it change exposure and focus *at
the same time*.

yes that would be rather difficult and pointless.



Duplicating them would help in which way?

You;d have twice as many, you have heard of night vision that uses image
intensifiers rather than infra red.

You'd still have at least the same photon noise, but yes, you
could gain 1 to 1.5 stops if you duplicate them enough just in
front of the sensor.

You could get more than that in the 80s I remember the Carl Ziess 210 image
intensifier lens, I'd have loved to play with it at the time.


http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/c...1-c-15f3mrbreg

whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:

You'd still have at least the same photon noise, but yes, you
could gain 1 to 1.5 stops if you duplicate them enough just in
front of the sensor.

You could get more than that in the 80s I remember the Carl Ziess 210 image
intensifier lens, I'd have loved to play with it at the time.

Tell you what, I grant you a magic device. You can place it right
in front of the sensor, and it will multiply incoming photons by
any factor, without noise, distortions or side effects. So if you
want each incoming photon to produce 17.42813 photons, feel free.
However, note that the sensor is not magical, it can either
catch or not catch a photon, and doesn't do partial photons.
Neither is the A/D converter magical. You also have to choose
the setting of the magic device before installing it.

What setting on that magic multiplier is the one where you
get the maximum out of it? You have a Canon 5D Mark II, with
performances as given in
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ary/index.html
What maximum are you going to choose? Why? What magic
multiplier setting? Why? What are the drawbacks of your
choice?

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:

You'd still have at least the same photon noise, but yes, you
could gain 1 to 1.5 stops if you duplicate them enough just in
front of the sensor.

You could get more than that in the 80s I remember the Carl Ziess 210
image
intensifier lens, I'd have loved to play with it at the time.

Tell you what, I grant you a magic device.

Your claim was that 'if' you can duplicate them enough you could gain 1 to
1.5 stops.
Not sure how yuo worked that out. Duplicating something such as a single
photon
means you'll end up with two photons, not 1.2 or 1.5 or 1.7 photons.
Duplicated 2X2 again and you'd end up with 4 photons, not 2.5 not 3 not
3.5.


What setting on that magic multiplier is the one where you
get the maximum out of it? You have a Canon 5D Mark II, with
performances as given in

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ary/index.html
What maximum are you going to choose?

The maxuim that would give me the best image I could achieve.

Why?
Why what ?

What magic
multiplier setting?

The setting I wanted.

Why?
be pretty silly setting a setting that I didn't want.

What are the drawbacks of your
choice?

Field of view against resolutuion, deciding what wavelenghs I'd choose while
rejecting others.


-Wolfgang

whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:


Tell you what, I grant you a magic device.

Your claim was that 'if' you can duplicate them enough you could gain 1 to
1.5 stops.
Not sure how yuo worked that out.

Let's work through my questions and we find out if I talked sense.

(BTW, would it be terrible inconvenient if you wouldn't wrap
your lines so inconsistently? Looks like your newsreader wraps
them to a shorter line than you do, and doesn't properly reformat
your text.)

Duplicating something such as a single
photon
means you'll end up with two photons, not 1.2 or 1.5 or 1.7 photons.
Duplicated 2X2 again and you'd end up with 4 photons, not 2.5 not 3 not
3.5.

I was just giving you options, like producing 21 photons for
every incoming photon.

What setting on that magic multiplier is the one where you
get the maximum out of it? You have a Canon 5D Mark II, with
performances as given in

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ary/index.html
What maximum are you going to choose?

The maxuim that would give me the best image I could achieve.

And that would be ... ?

Why?
Why what ?

Why that setting you choose would give you the best image.

What magic multiplier setting?

The setting I wanted.

Which number? As in "multiply each photon by 16" ...

Why?

be pretty silly setting a setting that I didn't want.

Why that number?

What are the drawbacks of your choice?

Field of view against resolutuion, deciding what wavelenghs I'd choose while
rejecting others.

Sorry, the magic multiplier multiplies all relevant wavelengths
the same. You can always use filters after the multiplier,
like bayer-pattern filtering does, though.

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:


Tell you what, I grant you a magic device.

Your claim was that 'if' you can duplicate them enough you could gain 1
to
1.5 stops.
Not sure how yuo worked that out.

Let's work through my questions and we find out if I talked sense.

Sounds OK.


(BTW, would it be terrible inconvenient if you wouldn't wrap
your lines so inconsistently? Looks like your newsreader wraps
them to a shorter line than you do, and doesn't properly reformat
your text.)

I've noticed that too.

Duplicating something such as a single
photon
means you'll end up with two photons, not 1.2 or 1.5 or 1.7 photons.
Duplicated 2X2 again and you'd end up with 4 photons, not 2.5 not 3 not
3.5.

I was just giving you options, like producing 21 photons for
every incoming photon.

Oh OK.


What setting on that magic multiplier is the one where you
get the maximum out of it? You have a Canon 5D Mark II, with
performances as given in

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ary/index.html
What maximum are you going to choose?

The maxuim that would give me the best image I could achieve.

And that would be ... ?

No idea, I'd suck it and see as some say.


Why?
Why what ?

Why that setting you choose would give you the best image.

Because if I it didn;t I';d try another setting.
I'm not even sure what setting would be on this magic device.
Hopfully they'd be a setting by % Vol. ;-)



What magic multiplier setting?

The setting I wanted.

Which number? As in "multiply each photon by 16" ...

I'd give it a go.
If I didn;t get what I wanted I'd try 32, I'd probbaly try maxium first
though then halve it.
Whn I used to use film with my praktica L I tried 1 minute exposure then 2
then 4 etc..
I think the longest was 10mins before the stars streaked too much for what I
was trying.

Why?

be pretty silly setting a setting that I didn't want.

Why that number?

No idea.
If I had that Ziess lens I'd see what setting were availible.


What are the drawbacks of your choice?

Field of view against resolutuion, deciding what wavelenghs I'd choose
while
rejecting others.

Sorry, the magic multiplier multiplies all relevant wavelengths
the same.

Well what are teh relivant wavelengths.

I'd like quite a few, I'd like to see the sky in infra red to ultra violet.
Would mind seeign the a X-Ray gamma ray spectrum either
but I';m not sure that one sensor could do everything.

You can always use filters after the multiplier,
like bayer-pattern filtering does, though.

I'd use a computer, if I had the choice with post processing.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:02:48 -0500, John Turco wrote:

No, it's just one emotionally disturbed (multi) sock puppet troll.


Hello, ASAAR:

Which is a damned shame, as he's obviously intelligent enough, to
be a positive contributor to news:rec.photo.digital and many other
newsgroups.

True, and if not for the fact that some of his "facts" are fact
free (showing that he's nowhere nearly as brilliant as he pretends
to be) he could be Stephen Hawking's evil twin. Picture him
relatively immobile, pecking out his replies, slowly, character
after character, spinning images of his exploits taking "award
winning pictures" hiking and portaging with his solar powered P&S
cameras during any of his numerous multi-month wilderness boonie
fests. Oh, to be able to kiss off this sad, sad imitation of
humanity. Where's Richard Widmark now that we need him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Widmark

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:02:20 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:02:48 -0500, John Turco wrote:

No, it's just one emotionally disturbed (multi) sock puppet troll.


Hello, ASAAR:

Which is a damned shame, as he's obviously intelligent enough, to
be a positive contributor to news:rec.photo.digital and many other
newsgroups.

True, and if not for the fact that some of his "facts" are fact
free (showing that he's nowhere nearly as brilliant as he pretends
to be) he could be Stephen Hawking's evil twin. Picture him
relatively immobile, pecking out his replies, slowly, character
after character, spinning images of his exploits taking "award
winning pictures" hiking and portaging with his solar powered P&S
cameras during any of his numerous multi-month wilderness boonie
fests. Oh, to be able to kiss off this sad, sad imitation of
humanity. Where's Richard Widmark now that we need him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Widmark


Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit these newsgroups. Please consider them for future discussions
and posts:


1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their ****-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in
just one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."

whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
whisky-dave wrote:

I was just giving you options, like producing 21 photons for
every incoming photon.

Oh OK.

What setting on that magic multiplier is the one where you
get the maximum out of it? You have a Canon 5D Mark II, with
performances as given in

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ary/index.html
What maximum are you going to choose?

The maxuim that would give me the best image I could achieve.

And that would be ... ?

No idea, I'd suck it and see as some say.

How would you see what image would be best? And how would
you know it would be the best image for about every use?

What magic multiplier setting?

The setting I wanted.

Which number? As in "multiply each photon by 16" ...

I'd give it a go.
If I didn;t get what I wanted I'd try 32, I'd probbaly try maxium first
though then halve it.

OK, so you get 32 photons per incoming photon. This turns
your base ISO to effectively 3200. You collect 65.700/32 == 2053 real
events at most, then the pixel is full[1]. Your read noise of
23.5 electrons is 23.5/32 per real photon collected.
Your dynamic range is now 11.00 instead of 11.30 stops.

You would collect 370 real photons with an 18% gray card for
a photon noise of 19 photons (1/19th, 5,2% of the signal) instead
of 10.692 real photons (photon noise: 103, 1/103rd or 0.97% of the
signal).

So you'd have a slightly better dynamic range in stops, but *much*
worse photon noise --- practically as bad as if your were shooting
with the ISO set to 3200 on an unmodified 5D Mark II.


My guess is that the best you could do is turn every incoming
photon into exactly one electron. This gives you the most
sensitivity but doesn't overfill the sensor needlessly.
Since our sensors already are no slouches when it comes to
that, the needed gain about 1.5 stops ...

What are the drawbacks of your choice?

Field of view against resolutuion, deciding what wavelenghs I'd choose
while
rejecting others.

Sorry, the magic multiplier multiplies all relevant wavelengths
the same.

Well what are teh relivant wavelengths.

I'd like quite a few, I'd like to see the sky in infra red to ultra violet.

Removing the IR filter will easily overload the red channel,
causing you to loose dynamic range early --- it'll be much worse
in incandescent light. That in turn will cause grainier pictures
in these circumstances. Additionally, blood reflects near IR
quite well and so caucasian skin will look very flushed with
e.g. flash or incandescent lights.

Worse, most optics won't work well with IR or UV; causing hot
spots and other nastyness, and as even apochromatic ((mostly)
corrected for all visible light) lenses are *not* corrected for
either IR nor UV, causing either IR or visible light or UV to be
in focus and the rest to be out of focus. (There are very rare
lenses capable of coping correctly with IR and UV.)

Would mind seeign the a X-Ray gamma ray spectrum either
but I';m not sure that one sensor could do everything.

The sensor won't do it.
The optics won't focus these wavelengths --- there's no
transparent material for xrays that act like lenses, you need
to use other methods:
http://www.universe.nasa.gov/xrays/M...b/xoptics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_optics

You can always use filters after the multiplier,
like bayer-pattern filtering does, though.

I'd use a computer, if I had the choice with post processing.

Well, to manipulate colour data in post processing, you need to
create colour data. Either by subsequent images shot through
different filters (works well for static objects), by splitting
the beam and filtering each part with another filter and recording
the result on a different sensor (doesn't work well for high
resolutions) or by using something like a bayer pattern filter and
capturing the result in one sensor (works well, but reduces the
effective resolution somewhat and needs intelligent processing).

Foveon works like a bayer pattern filter stacked in depth,
it doesn't cost resolution compared to the photosites used,
but only comes in lowish resolutions (up to today) and has weak
colour separation --- again intelligent processing is needed.

-Wolfgang

[1] OK, I am fudgeing a bit here. The sensor can take 65700
electrons as I calculate, but the A/D converter will overflow
on 59400 electrons on ISO 100. So the effective base ISO
will be a bit lower than 3200.