Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced

Neil Gould wrote:
Scott W wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:22 am, "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
On my modest monitor, a "pixel matrix" of 1024 x 768 is displayed
on a surface measuring 32 x 24 cm (12.6x9.5").
I'm sure you learned some basic maths in primary school, so that
this calculation will not be too difficult for you.

You are clearly referencing a quality of your monitor, not the
digital image, which is the topic at hand.

No. The size of pixels is the topic at hand.
If they have no size, an image consisting of 1024 pixels wide would
not show on the monitor. An image of 1,024,000 would not either.
To fill the monitor... you do the maths.

In the original use of the word pixel they did not have size, they
were sample of an image at given location, normally in a grid pattern.

Actually, in the original use of the word, pixels were used to describe a
characteristic of a video tube, so pixels did have a size, but that size
would vary from one sized tube to another. However, I agree that the use of
the term has broadened to include what you have described, below as well as
some other applications.

Nope. Pixel is a term from the computer business. It's a picture
element regardless of the mechanism for display.

--
Ray Fischer

Scott W wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:22 am, "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
On my modest monitor, a "pixel matrix" of 1024 x 768 is displayed
on a surface measuring 32 x 24 cm (12.6x9.5").
I'm sure you learned some basic maths in primary school, so that
this calculation will not be too difficult for you.

You are clearly referencing a quality of your monitor, not the
digital image, which is the topic at hand.

No. The size of pixels is the topic at hand.
If they have no size, an image consisting of 1024 pixels wide would
not show on the monitor. An image of 1,024,000 would not either.
To fill the monitor... you do the maths.

In the original use of the word pixel they did not have size, they
were sample of an image at given location, normally in a grid pattern.

Actually, in the original use of the word, pixels were used to describe a
characteristic of a video tube, so pixels did have a size, but that size
would vary from one sized tube to another. However, I agree that the use of
the term has broadened to include what you have described, below as well as
some other applications.

The fact that a pixel might sample over an area was a aspect of low
pass filters of one kind or another affecting how the image was
sampled, but ideally the pixels was a sample at one point. The size
of the sensor, the limits of resolution of the lens and any anti-
aliasing filter that might have been used were considered up steam of
the sampling.

The reason for considering pixels as points is that much of the math
that is done on am image only works if they are point samples, such as
FFTs.

Pixels may not have size, but they do have spacing, either some many
per inch, or so many per degree, or what ever units you wish to

I agree that pixels do have spacing, but consider any specific indication
such as ppi in an editor to be only a convenient approximation, and as such
relatively unimportant. From my perspective, this is why down-stream
processors ignore the ppi settings applied in image editors and calculate
output resolutions directly from the dimensions of the matrix.

--
Neil

Ray Fischer wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Scott W wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:22 am, "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
On my modest monitor, a "pixel matrix" of 1024 x 768 is displayed
on a surface measuring 32 x 24 cm (12.6x9.5").
I'm sure you learned some basic maths in primary school, so that
this calculation will not be too difficult for you.

You are clearly referencing a quality of your monitor, not the
digital image, which is the topic at hand.

No. The size of pixels is the topic at hand.
If they have no size, an image consisting of 1024 pixels wide would
not show on the monitor. An image of 1,024,000 would not either.
To fill the monitor... you do the maths.

In the original use of the word pixel they did not have size, they
were sample of an image at given location, normally in a grid
pattern.

Actually, in the original use of the word, pixels were used to
describe a characteristic of a video tube, so pixels did have a
size, but that size would vary from one sized tube to another.
However, I agree that the use of the term has broadened to include
what you have described, below as well as some other applications.

Nope. Pixel is a term from the computer business. It's a picture
element regardless of the mechanism for display.


Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
pixel

1969, coined to describe the photographic elements of a television image,
from pix (1932 abbreviation of pictures, coined by "Variety" headline
writers) + el(ement).


--
Neil

The Kat wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:18:38 -0700, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
pixel

1969, coined to describe the photographic elements of a television
image, from pix (1932 abbreviation of pictures, coined by "Variety"
headline writers) + el(ement).

Wikipedia..

The word pixel was first published in 1965 by Frederic C. Billingsley
of JPL, to describe the picture elements of video images from space
probes to the moon and Mars; but he did not coin the term himself,
and the person he got it from (Keith E. McFarland at the Link
Division of General Precision in Palo Alto) does not know where he
got it, but says it was "in use at the time" (circa 1963).

Although neither may be conclusive, the agreement between these sources (and
dozens of other references, btw) is that the term refers to video, and
pre-dates uses involving computers. I think the relevance to this sub-thread
is that the definition has evolved.

--
Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

Although neither may be conclusive, the agreement between these sources
(and
dozens of other references, btw) is that the term refers to video, and
pre-dates uses involving computers. I think the relevance to this
sub-thread
is that the definition has evolved.

I don't know...

But i think that my view on the matter is clear.
And now that Wikipedia (of all things!) is brought into the discussion, i
think it's time to move on.

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

And now that Wikipedia (of all things!) is brought into the discussion, i
think it's time to move on.

Sneering at Wikipedia is self serving snobbery. It has been
acknowledged as being as accurate as E. Brit. on technical, scientific
and other non-subjective subjects. That is to say, the error rate in E.
Brit. was similar to Wikipedias error rate.

(BTW: the personal pronoun in English is capitalized).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:

And now that Wikipedia (of all things!) is brought into the discussion, i
think it's time to move on.

Sneering at Wikipedia is self serving snobbery. It has been
acknowledged as being as accurate as E. Brit. on technical, scientific
and other non-subjective subjects. That is to say, the error rate in E.
Brit. was similar to Wikipedias error rate.

You must be joking. Either that, or that is a seriously bad book.
The "most votes counts", or even the "loudest votes counts" approach to
knowledge is the worst idea ever proposed, which has resulted in an absolute
abomination.
A scientist or engineer thinking he or she could rely on Wiki deserves to be
hung and quartered. Luckily, references to Wikipedias rarely appear in
papers other than those produced by secondary school pupils.

(BTW: the personal pronoun in English is capitalized).

No, personal pronouns aren't.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

And now that Wikipedia (of all things!) is brought into the discussion, i
think it's time to move on.

Sneering at Wikipedia is self serving snobbery. It has been
acknowledged as being as accurate as E. Brit. on technical, scientific
and other non-subjective subjects. That is to say, the error rate in E.
Brit. was similar to Wikipedias error rate.

You must be joking. Either that, or that is a seriously bad book.
The "most votes counts", or even the "loudest votes counts" approach to
knowledge is the worst idea ever proposed, which has resulted in an absolute
abomination.

You seem to be completely unaware of the mechanisms that Wikipedia
uses to resolve disputes, which involve such things as developing
rankings of trustworthiness.

A scientist or engineer thinking he or she could rely on Wiki deserves to be
hung and quartered.

How many research scientists do you actually know? Many of them take
the trouble to correct and update Wikipedia because unlike you they
understand how it works and they already know from experience how
useful it can be.

Luckily, references to Wikipedias rarely appear in
papers other than those produced by secondary school pupils.

Of course. Neither Wikipedia nor the Encyclopedia Britannica are gold
standards of accuracy. They're both mistaken or biassed often enough
that neither can be used as an academic reference intended to
establish authoritative accuracy. But in technical and scientific
matters both are usually good enough to be very useful first ports of
call in a library research expedition on a topic about which you
currently know little.

As indeed is the Web, despite the well known fact that it is among
other things by far the largest collection of dubious nonsense ever
achieved.

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

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

A scientist or engineer thinking he or she could rely on Wiki deserves to be
hung and quartered. Luckily, references to Wikipedias rarely appear in
papers other than those produced by secondary school pupils.



Rely or use as published reference to is one thing. Actually being correct is another entirely.

In my own work, and in the subjects I teach, I find the Wikipedia
articles to be almost always excellent and correct. They are often
far, far, far better than in textbooks in terms of completeness.

It's just the opposite of what I expect from the popular press,
where I expect incompetent discussion of science, or,
if the left wing is interested in a subject, outright lies.

Doug McDonald

Chris Malcolm wrote:

You seem to be completely unaware of the mechanisms that Wikipedia
uses to resolve disputes, which involve such things as developing
rankings of trustworthiness.

Come back as soon as Wikipedias are indexed and ranked on listings like
Thomson's.

A scientist or engineer thinking he or she could rely on Wiki deserves to
be
hung and quartered.

How many research scientists do you actually know?

Loads, and loads, and loads.

Many of them take
the trouble to correct and update Wikipedia

Only the ones not doing research, possibly.

because unlike you they
understand how it works and they already know from experience how
useful it can be.

If only you knew how well i know how knowledge, science, and Wikis work.
But you don't because it can't be found on a Wiki.

So trust me: everything i wrote about wikipedias so far, everything you are
objecting to, is correct.

Luckily, references to Wikipedias rarely appear in
papers other than those produced by secondary school pupils.

Of course.

Indeed: "of course".

Neither Wikipedia nor the Encyclopedia Britannica are gold
standards of accuracy. They're both mistaken or biassed often enough
that neither can be used as an academic reference intended to
establish authoritative accuracy. But in technical and scientific
matters both are usually good enough to be very useful first ports of
call in a library research expedition on a topic about which you
currently know little.

I can tell you again that any research scientist who lets on that he or she
is using Wikipedia, even as a starting point, can start looking for another
job, outside research and science, immediately.
And with very good reasons too.

As indeed is the Web, despite the well known fact that it is among
other things by far the largest collection of dubious nonsense ever
achieved.

That's it: the largest collection of dubious nonsense ever achieved.
You know that, but do not know that Wikis are part of that?