A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #371  
Old Yesterday, 11:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,655
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:19:16 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-17 09:22, Alan Browne wrote:

The link you pointed to was referring to quantization noise in the
frequency domain, not the amplitude which is the issue at hand here.


Ooops... I should have said "time domain".


Nevertheless, the principle remains, the digitization of a
non-identical source signal can only be an approximation of the
original signal. The differences/errors manifest themselves as noise.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #372  
Old Yesterday, 11:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,655
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:34:04 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

(with today's short focal length lenses)

not just short focal length, but all lenses at normal working distances
because the difference is too small to matter, below the tolerance of
the various components.

Your statement is too sweeping. It matters with a 10" lens normally
used for used for portraits and it matters more for a 105mm macro
lense normally used for dental photography.

nope, and dentists don't use 105mm macro lenses anymore.


I must tell my dentist. He keeps it alongside his Cerec setup. See
https://www.dentsplysirona.com/en/explore/cerec.html I think he is now
on his third generation Cerec.


this is not a 105mm macro lens:
https://www.dentsplysirona.com/en/explore/cerec/scan-with-cerec.html


For god's sake - read what I wrote!

See also https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...lish/alongside

--- flatulence snipped ---
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #373  
Old Yesterday, 11:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,342
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I have never argued that "there is more information in 14 bits than
there is in 14 bits". As you say, there can't be. What I have said
from the beginning is that an analog signal of _any_dynamic_range_ can
be coded in 14 bits. There is no reqirement imposed on the DR of the
source device.


yep, that is indeed what you've said.

the problem is that it's incorrect, something which several people have
told you and you stubbornly refuse to learn why.

I have said this in so many ways so many times that I'm not going to
try and repeat it any more.


unfortunately, you still believe it.

you haven't learned anything.
  #374  
Old Yesterday, 11:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,342
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I must tell my dentist. He keeps it alongside his Cerec setup. See
https://www.dentsplysirona.com/en/explore/cerec.html I think he is now
on his third generation Cerec.


this is not a 105mm macro lens:
https://www.dentsplysirona.com/en/explore/cerec/scan-with-cerec.html


For god's sake - read what I wrote!


i did.
  #375  
Old Yesterday, 11:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,655
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:34:05 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them
untrustworthy and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with
newer cameras scoring higher and higher.

Suspicion and innuendo. That's not evidence.

the evidence is quite clear that they cannot be trusted *at* *all*.

The evidence appears to be that you can/will not produce any evidence
to support that statement.

false, there is extensive evidence that dxo is a sham, but as usual,
you refuse to acknowledge that and just want to argue, now having
resorted to ad hominem attacks, as usual.

their 'tests' claim what is physically not possible. that alone makes
them a scam

Example? - assuming of course that you are able to cite one.

of course i'm able. i do not make false claims. period.

--- Claim by nospam: ----

dxo measured 14.8 stops of dynamic range on the nikon d810 and d850,
which is *higher* than the theoretical maximum of 14 stops (14 bit a/d)
and in the real world, it won't actually get 14 stops.


that's not *my* claim.

it's basic sampling theory, something which you clearly do not
understand at all.


What is the frequency of the signal being sampled?

I challenged this comment which lead to an enormous thread which
fanned out in all directions. My contention was (and is) that the
number of bits that are used to code an image have nothing to do with
the dynamic range of the sensor. You can code it with as many bits as
you like with factors other than dynamic range determining the choice.
In particular there is no reason why a sensor should not have a
dynamic range wider than implied by the number of bits with which it's
output is encoded.


your contention is wrong, which you even admitted in the middle of the
thread.


I bet you can't cite the article where I did that.

At one stage Ron C suggested I should explain my views with diagrams.
With some reluctance I have been getting round to doing this.
Preparing the diagrams so as to be able to deal with nospams of tghis
world is no mean task. In the course of my background research I found
the following thread from dpreview dated Mar 25, 2012.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3170233

If you read that you will see that the maximum number of bits with
which it is worthwhile coding an image is determined by (a) read noise
and (b) pixel well size. DR vs number of bits is touched upon but no
one has suggested that sensor DR is limited by bit number.


the second post in that thread clearly does, further proof that you
don't understand the topic.


You mean where fvdbergh wrote "The dynamic range of a sensor is
typically limited by the signal to noise ratio (SNR), not the bit
depth of the analogue to digital converter (ADC)."?

Please note fvdbergh lower down wrote "A single point on the PTC will
give you the required SNR value, and hence the DR".

http://www.forzasilicon.com/2011/06/...-image-sensor/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8ztqbhk will tell you that 'PTC' is 'Photon
Transfer Curve' and says of this " the sub-ranging technique, where
each segment’s conversion step size is scaled according to the photon
transfer curve (PTC) of a given pixel."

I have many times talked about scaling the sensor output to the ADC
and you have repeatedly told me I was wrong.

I think it it's safe to say you don't know as much of this subject as
you you think you do and you understand even less.

This hopefully is my last post on this subject.

I also came across http://www.onmyphd.com/?p=analog.digital.converter
which is a good summary of the basics of analog to digital convertors
(ADC). Under the heading "What is an analog-digital convertor" the
author has written:

"An Analog-Digital Converter (ADC) is a widely used electronic
component that converts an analog electric signal (usually a
voltage) into a digital representation. The ADCs are at the
front-end of any digital circuit that needs to process signals
coming from the exterior world.

..... ---- complex text snipped ----

Therefore, more bits leads to more precision in the digital
representation. Here we simplify the range to be between 0 and
Vref, although the range may be between any two values."

That last has always been my point. What is being encoded is a signal
between gthe upper and lower limits to the sensitivity of the sensor.
Their mathematical relationship (as in their ratio = dynamic range)
does not come into the question. it is only their difference which
matters.


still not getting it.

I'm not going to write any more about the original argument. nospam
can go and find another playmate. I may be tempted to come back in if
a sensible and rational discussion of a new aspect gets under way.
Other than tghat I've finished with this thread.


ad hominem, and it isn't just me who has been telling you that you're
wrong.

come back after you've learned about sampling theory. only then can
there be a rational discussion.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #376  
Old Today, 12:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,342
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

their 'tests' claim what is physically not possible. that alone makes
them a scam

Example? - assuming of course that you are able to cite one.

of course i'm able. i do not make false claims. period.

--- Claim by nospam: ----

dxo measured 14.8 stops of dynamic range on the nikon d810 and d850,
which is *higher* than the theoretical maximum of 14 stops (14 bit a/d)
and in the real world, it won't actually get 14 stops.


that's not *my* claim.

it's basic sampling theory, something which you clearly do not
understand at all.


What is the frequency of the signal being sampled?


you're confused.

I challenged this comment which lead to an enormous thread which
fanned out in all directions. My contention was (and is) that the
number of bits that are used to code an image have nothing to do with
the dynamic range of the sensor. You can code it with as many bits as
you like with factors other than dynamic range determining the choice.
In particular there is no reason why a sensor should not have a
dynamic range wider than implied by the number of bits with which it's
output is encoded.


your contention is wrong, which you even admitted in the middle of the
thread.


I bet you can't cite the article where I did that.


i could if i was motivated to sift through more than 500 posts to find
it.

At one stage Ron C suggested I should explain my views with diagrams.
With some reluctance I have been getting round to doing this.
Preparing the diagrams so as to be able to deal with nospams of tghis
world is no mean task. In the course of my background research I found
the following thread from dpreview dated Mar 25, 2012.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3170233

If you read that you will see that the maximum number of bits with
which it is worthwhile coding an image is determined by (a) read noise
and (b) pixel well size. DR vs number of bits is touched upon but no
one has suggested that sensor DR is limited by bit number.


the second post in that thread clearly does, further proof that you
don't understand the topic.


You mean where fvdbergh wrote "The dynamic range of a sensor is
typically limited by the signal to noise ratio (SNR), not the bit
depth of the analogue to digital converter (ADC)."?


nope.

i mean this pretty little pictu
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/g/TS560x560~1835042.jpg
from this post, which is the second post in the thread:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41016086

it's even marked in evs, although that will no doubt cause you massive
confusion.

I have many times talked about scaling the sensor output to the ADC
and you have repeatedly told me I was wrong.


nope, what i told you is that the sensor output *could* be scaled, but
it isn't, therefore what you've said is not applicable.

have you forgotten about your imaginary camera collection?

I think it it's safe to say you don't know as much of this subject as
you you think you do and you understand even less.


that would be a very unsafe comment.

it actually applies to you.

This hopefully is my last post on this subject.


hopefully, but i suspect not. either way, you haven't learned a thing.
  #377  
Old Today, 02:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,655
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 18:54:51 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I wasn 't going answer this until I realised you had done some crude
editing of the article to which you were replying. In other words a
blatant lie.

their 'tests' claim what is physically not possible. that alone makes
them a scam

Example? - assuming of course that you are able to cite one.

of course i'm able. i do not make false claims. period.

--- Claim by nospam: ----

dxo measured 14.8 stops of dynamic range on the nikon d810 and d850,
which is *higher* than the theoretical maximum of 14 stops (14 bit a/d)
and in the real world, it won't actually get 14 stops.

that's not *my* claim.

it's basic sampling theory, something which you clearly do not
understand at all.


What is the frequency of the signal being sampled?


you're confused.


https://whatis.techtarget.com/defini...yquist-Theorem

"The Nyquist Theorem, also known as the sampling theorem, is a
principle that engineers follow in the digitization of analog
signals. For analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) to result in a
faithful reproduction of the signal, slices, called samples, of the
analog waveform must be taken frequently. The number of samples per
second is called the sampling rate or sampling frequency.

Any analog signal consists of components at various frequencies. The
simplest case is the sine wave, in which all the signal energy is
concentrated at one frequency. In practice, analog signals usually
have complex waveforms, with components at many frequencies. The
highest frequency component in an analog signal determines the
bandwidth of that signal. The higher the frequency, the greater the
bandwidth, if all other factors are held constant.

Suppose the highest frequency component, in hertz, for a given
analog signal is fmax. According to the Nyquist Theorem, the
sampling rate must be at least 2fmax, or twice the highest analog
frequency component. The sampling in an analog-to-digital converter
is actuated by a pulse generator (clock). If the sampling rate is
less than 2fmax, some of the highest frequency components in the
analog input signal will not be correctly represented in the
digitized output. When such a digital signal is converted back to
analog form by a digital-to-analog converter, false frequency
components appear that were not in the original analog signal. This
undesirable condition is a form of distortion called aliasing."

Now, bearing in mind that once the shutter has closed, a sensor site
sits there fat and happy (or thin and misrable) with as many photons
as the lens has thought to direct its way. No change. It's constant.
The frequency of the signal being sampled (i.e the number of photons
in the cell) is zero. According to Nyquist the sampling frequency must
be 2 x zero = zero. In other words it only needs to be sampled once.

Now what were you saying about sampling theory?


I challenged this comment which lead to an enormous thread which
fanned out in all directions. My contention was (and is) that the
number of bits that are used to code an image have nothing to do with
the dynamic range of the sensor. You can code it with as many bits as
you like with factors other than dynamic range determining the choice.
In particular there is no reason why a sensor should not have a
dynamic range wider than implied by the number of bits with which it's
output is encoded.

your contention is wrong, which you even admitted in the middle of the
thread.


I bet you can't cite the article where I did that.


i could if i was motivated to sift through more than 500 posts to find
it.

At one stage Ron C suggested I should explain my views with diagrams.
With some reluctance I have been getting round to doing this.
Preparing the diagrams so as to be able to deal with nospams of tghis
world is no mean task. In the course of my background research I found
the following thread from dpreview dated Mar 25, 2012.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3170233

If you read that you will see that the maximum number of bits with
which it is worthwhile coding an image is determined by (a) read noise
and (b) pixel well size. DR vs number of bits is touched upon but no
one has suggested that sensor DR is limited by bit number.

the second post in that thread clearly does, further proof that you
don't understand the topic.


You mean where fvdbergh wrote "The dynamic range of a sensor is
typically limited by the signal to noise ratio (SNR), not the bit
depth of the analogue to digital converter (ADC)."?


nope.

i mean this pretty little pictu
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/g/TS560x560~1835042.jpg
from this post, which is the second post in the thread:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41016086


Oh you persistent dummy! That's talking about the DR range coded into
the digital output signal by the ADC. It is not, never was, and never
will be the same as the DR of the analog input signal. (Maybe that's
too sweeping a statement but you get the drift).

it's even marked in evs, although that will no doubt cause you massive
confusion.

I have many times talked about scaling the sensor output to the ADC
and you have repeatedly told me I was wrong.


nope, what i told you is that the sensor output *could* be scaled, but
it isn't, therefore what you've said is not applicable.


OK. I will accept that. But I expect that's why you have snipped:

-------------------------------------------------------------

You mean where fvdbergh wrote "The dynamic range of a sensor is
typically limited by the signal to noise ratio (SNR), not the bit
depth of the analogue to digital converter (ADC)."?

Please note fvdbergh lower down wrote "A single point on the PTC will
give you the required SNR value, and hence the DR".

http://www.forzasilicon.com/2011/06/...-image-sensor/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8ztqbhk will tell you that 'PTC' is 'Photon
Transfer Curve' and says of this " the sub-ranging technique, where
each segment’s conversion step size is scaled according to the photon
transfer curve (PTC) of a given pixel."

I have many times talked about scaling the sensor output to the ADC
and you have repeatedly told me I was wrong.

I think it it's safe to say you don't know as much of this subject as
you you think you do and you understand even less.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Please note "... each segment’s conversion step size is scaled
according to the photon transfer curve (PTC) of a given pixel."

Independent evidence that scaling can occor in the ADC process.


have you forgotten about your imaginary camera collection?

I think it it's safe to say you don't know as much of this subject as
you you think you do and you understand even less.


that would be a very unsafe comment.

it actually applies to you.

This hopefully is my last post on this subject.


hopefully, but i suspect not. either way, you haven't learned a thing.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #378  
Old Today, 03:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,342
Default Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I wasn 't going answer this until I realised you had done some crude
editing of the article to which you were replying. In other words a
blatant lie.


nope. i snipped to eliminate irrelevant crap, other than yours, that is.

consider it 'noise reduction', although the dominant noise source is
not what was removed...

dxo measured 14.8 stops of dynamic range on the nikon d810 and d850,
which is *higher* than the theoretical maximum of 14 stops (14 bit a/d)
and in the real world, it won't actually get 14 stops.

that's not *my* claim.

it's basic sampling theory, something which you clearly do not
understand at all.

What is the frequency of the signal being sampled?


you're confused.


https://whatis.techtarget.com/defini...yquist-Theorem

"The Nyquist Theorem, also known as the sampling theorem, is a
principle that engineers follow in the digitization of analog
signals. For analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) to result in a
faithful reproduction of the signal, slices, called samples, of the
analog waveform must be taken frequently. The number of samples per
second is called the sampling rate or sampling frequency.

Any analog signal consists of components at various frequencies. The
simplest case is the sine wave, in which all the signal energy is
concentrated at one frequency. In practice, analog signals usually
have complex waveforms, with components at many frequencies. The
highest frequency component in an analog signal determines the
bandwidth of that signal. The higher the frequency, the greater the
bandwidth, if all other factors are held constant.

Suppose the highest frequency component, in hertz, for a given
analog signal is fmax. According to the Nyquist Theorem, the
sampling rate must be at least 2fmax, or twice the highest analog
frequency component. The sampling in an analog-to-digital converter
is actuated by a pulse generator (clock). If the sampling rate is
less than 2fmax, some of the highest frequency components in the
analog input signal will not be correctly represented in the
digitized output. When such a digital signal is converted back to
analog form by a digital-to-analog converter, false frequency
components appear that were not in the original analog signal. This
undesirable condition is a form of distortion called aliasing."

Now, bearing in mind that once the shutter has closed, a sensor site
sits there fat and happy (or thin and misrable) with as many photons
as the lens has thought to direct its way. No change. It's constant.
The frequency of the signal being sampled (i.e the number of photons
in the cell) is zero. According to Nyquist the sampling frequency must
be 2 x zero = zero. In other words it only needs to be sampled once.


you're even more confused than i thought.

Now what were you saying about sampling theory?


that it applies and there's no escaping it.

unless you know something the rest of the world does not, that is, but
if you really can disprove nyquist and sampling theory as we know it,
then stop babbling on usenet and go write a paper, give some talks and
change the world as we know it.


At one stage Ron C suggested I should explain my views with diagrams.
With some reluctance I have been getting round to doing this.
Preparing the diagrams so as to be able to deal with nospams of tghis
world is no mean task. In the course of my background research I found
the following thread from dpreview dated Mar 25, 2012.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3170233

If you read that you will see that the maximum number of bits with
which it is worthwhile coding an image is determined by (a) read noise
and (b) pixel well size. DR vs number of bits is touched upon but no
one has suggested that sensor DR is limited by bit number.

the second post in that thread clearly does, further proof that you
don't understand the topic.

You mean where fvdbergh wrote "The dynamic range of a sensor is
typically limited by the signal to noise ratio (SNR), not the bit
depth of the analogue to digital converter (ADC)."?


nope.

i mean this pretty little pictu
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/g/TS560x560~1835042.jpg
from this post, which is the second post in the thread:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41016086


Oh you persistent dummy! That's talking about the DR range coded into
the digital output signal by the ADC.


which shows that a 14 bit adc limits it to 14 stops. imagine that.

It is not, never was, and never
will be the same as the DR of the analog input signal. (Maybe that's
too sweeping a statement but you get the drift).


otherwise described as "the dynamic range is limited by the adc".

you said:
DR vs number of bits is touched upon but no
one has suggested that sensor DR is limited by bit number.


except that someone did, with a nice picture too. so much for that idea.


it's even marked in evs, although that will no doubt cause you massive
confusion.

I have many times talked about scaling the sensor output to the ADC
and you have repeatedly told me I was wrong.


nope, what i told you is that the sensor output *could* be scaled, but
it isn't, therefore what you've said is not applicable.


OK. I will accept that. But I expect that's why you have snipped:


nope. i snipped it because it's not correct.

you only quoted it because it says the same crap you've been parroting.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest (waiting for specific offering) Alfred Molon[_4_] Digital Photography 2 December 24th 18 03:37 PM
Please, tell me Zeiss's offering to the camera world won't be areskinned SONY!! Neil[_9_] Digital Photography 1 August 27th 18 01:00 PM
Need a camera with specific features: Gary Smiley Digital Photography 1 May 22nd 06 02:31 AM
Canon Offering $600+ Rebate on Digital Camera Equipment (3x Rebate Offers) Mark Digital Photography 6 November 4th 04 11:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.