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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
McLeod wrote:
Calgary, Alberta. Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous. |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
Brian C. Baird wrote:
Precision n. 1. The state or quality of being precise; exactness. Well, if you don't use a technical dictionary, then anything is possible, including circular definitions. 2. a The ability of a measurement to be consistently reproduced. Factually wrong, that's accuracy. b The number of significant digits to which a value has been reliably measured. By even your previous statements, this is only half true, by only one definition of significant digits. Now some will report precision as the number of digits past the decimal point, but that is a numerical definition only applicable in the world of math where you don't have to worry about the accuracy of your measurement. Pure baloney. Precision past the decimal point has been used in every engineering job I've done for the past thirty years. I mean, how else would you account for 0.5336 km and 533.6 m? They are both precise to 4 figures... You didn't convert to common units, which is fundamental in any discussion of this type. If you do that, which you would in a lab, a drafting room or a work site, you'd see your argument falls apart. Both figures are equally precise to a common unit. I'm going to break off here. Have a nice day. |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
Calgary, Alberta.
From: Alan Browne Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous. That's a baaaaad joke. |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
Calgary, Alberta.
From: Alan Browne Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous. That's a baaaaad joke. |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
Calgary, Alberta.
From: Alan Browne Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous. That's a baaaaad joke. |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
Google GROUPS, Carl! Click on the word "Groups" at the top of the
Google page, and then repeat the search - it's not a normal Web search. In fact, I also took the liberty of searching for any Jon Pike images (that's Google IMAGE search) - as he claims on many of his posts to be a well-known photographer. Also any articles, a web page, etc.. Guess how many images or references I found? Right. I *did* find a disturbing archived copy of an old website he had - and I would like to feel sorry for him, but Geez, read some of those postings... Now lest I be accused of being a hyprocrite.. here is a small gallery of *my* images. http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm They are not my best work (in fact a couple of them are poorly post-processed and show bad burnt highlights and oversharpening, tut-tut) - they were all taken on a single day down at my local marina to test out a new camera. (And no, Chaz S. isn't my real name. Unlike Jon, I don't feel any great urge to identify myself absolutely, so that's all the evidence you get. Judge me by what I say, and if I'm wrong, tell me and show references. If I am repeatedly wrong and won't admit it, then feel free to call *me* a dick, too...) (O; |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
Google GROUPS, Carl! Click on the word "Groups" at the top of the
Google page, and then repeat the search - it's not a normal Web search. In fact, I also took the liberty of searching for any Jon Pike images (that's Google IMAGE search) - as he claims on many of his posts to be a well-known photographer. Also any articles, a web page, etc.. Guess how many images or references I found? Right. I *did* find a disturbing archived copy of an old website he had - and I would like to feel sorry for him, but Geez, read some of those postings... Now lest I be accused of being a hyprocrite.. here is a small gallery of *my* images. http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm They are not my best work (in fact a couple of them are poorly post-processed and show bad burnt highlights and oversharpening, tut-tut) - they were all taken on a single day down at my local marina to test out a new camera. (And no, Chaz S. isn't my real name. Unlike Jon, I don't feel any great urge to identify myself absolutely, so that's all the evidence you get. Judge me by what I say, and if I'm wrong, tell me and show references. If I am repeatedly wrong and won't admit it, then feel free to call *me* a dick, too...) (O; |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
Google GROUPS, Carl! Click on the word "Groups" at the top of the
Google page, and then repeat the search - it's not a normal Web search. In fact, I also took the liberty of searching for any Jon Pike images (that's Google IMAGE search) - as he claims on many of his posts to be a well-known photographer. Also any articles, a web page, etc.. Guess how many images or references I found? Right. I *did* find a disturbing archived copy of an old website he had - and I would like to feel sorry for him, but Geez, read some of those postings... Now lest I be accused of being a hyprocrite.. here is a small gallery of *my* images. http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm They are not my best work (in fact a couple of them are poorly post-processed and show bad burnt highlights and oversharpening, tut-tut) - they were all taken on a single day down at my local marina to test out a new camera. (And no, Chaz S. isn't my real name. Unlike Jon, I don't feel any great urge to identify myself absolutely, so that's all the evidence you get. Judge me by what I say, and if I'm wrong, tell me and show references. If I am repeatedly wrong and won't admit it, then feel free to call *me* a dick, too...) (O; |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey, *you* probably need to look a little more closely at the types
of precision and how they are applicable. If you look back, you'll notice that the numbers were in millimetres, but then jumped to centimetres, plus there were ratios, etc.. Think about how logical it is to just use 2 digits after the decimal, if you then *change* the decimal by a factor of ten or a hundred - should it *still* be two digits? If so, where will the new numbers come from, or what about the ones that disappear? (O: Two digit decimal precision refers to a tight set of circumstances where your units don't keep changing around, and it is not particularly relevant in this case. And Jon certainly didn't start by using two digit precision - if he did, then his initial figures of 35.5 and 24.5 mm are WRONG. The measurements of a 35mm negative are NOT 35.50mm and 24.50mm. It's nitpicking, I know, but when one claims high ground and criticises others, well... Thanks for the Monster comment, but that musta been my evil twin.. I'm innocent. |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
Chrlz wrote:
Mickey, *you* probably need to look a little more closely at the types of precision and how they are applicable. See other posts. If you look back, you'll notice that the numbers were in millimetres, but then jumped to centimetres, plus there were ratios, etc. Well, had you cited my post and your precursor, you'd note that in the point under discussion, no such jumping around occurred. I remarked specifically upon one comment where two multiplicands with xx.1mm precision resulted in a single product with xxx.01mm precision, which you described as "five-digit precision." Discussion, too, can be precise. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? | Chris | Digital Photography | 5 | September 25th 04 07:43 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |