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

On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 18:53:29 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

think about what a stop means.

Think about what a bit means. There is no reason why 1 bit = 1 stop,
or vice versa.

there is.

If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it.

i did, as do numerous engineering text books.

it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything.

On the contrary, I am very interested in learning,

then why do you argue with what people tell you, including snipping
examples and explanations you claim to want to see?

Just saying it again is neither teaching nor explaining. In any case I
always mark my snips (unlike some I could mention).

but you seem
incapable of teaching.

ad hominem.

No more an ad hominem than saying that someone is incapable of
swimming.

stop blaming others for your own shortcomings and go learn something.

Tell me where. Surely you can manage that?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it.

i did, as do numerous engineering text books.

it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything.

On the contrary, I am very interested in learning,

then why do you argue with what people tell you, including snipping
examples and explanations you claim to want to see?

Just saying it again is neither teaching nor explaining. In any case I
always mark my snips (unlike some I could mention).

if you're referring to me, you'd be wrong.

but you seem
incapable of teaching.

ad hominem.

No more an ad hominem than saying that someone is incapable of
swimming.

false.

stop blaming others for your own shortcomings and go learn something.

Tell me where. Surely you can manage that?

start with a class on signal theory, or perhaps a textbook, which i
already mentioned.

hopefully you will pay more attention there than you do here...

On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 23:53:24 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it.

i did, as do numerous engineering text books.

it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything.

On the contrary, I am very interested in learning,

then why do you argue with what people tell you, including snipping
examples and explanations you claim to want to see?

Just saying it again is neither teaching nor explaining. In any case I
always mark my snips (unlike some I could mention).

if you're referring to me, you'd be wrong.

Haw!

but you seem
incapable of teaching.

ad hominem.

No more an ad hominem than saying that someone is incapable of
swimming.

false.

You are overly sensitive.

stop blaming others for your own shortcomings and go learn something.

Tell me where. Surely you can manage that?

start with a class on signal theory, or perhaps a textbook, which i
already mentioned.

A global search of the last six months of postings in this news group
have failed to find any evidence that anyone has ever mentioned a
textbook before you did in the message to which I am replying.

hopefully you will pay more attention there than you do here...

Hopefully I will find a real mention.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 23:53:24 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it.

i did, as do numerous engineering text books.

it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything.

On the contrary, I am very interested in learning,

then why do you argue with what people tell you, including snipping
examples and explanations you claim to want to see?

Just saying it again is neither teaching nor explaining. In any case I
always mark my snips (unlike some I could mention).

if you're referring to me, you'd be wrong.

but you seem
incapable of teaching.

ad hominem.

No more an ad hominem than saying that someone is incapable of
swimming.

false.

stop blaming others for your own shortcomings and go learn something.

Tell me where. Surely you can manage that?

start with a class on signal theory, or perhaps a textbook, which i
already mentioned.

hopefully you will pay more attention there than you do here...

I suspect you are thinking about image compression. Am I right?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Tell me where. Surely you can manage that?

start with a class on signal theory, or perhaps a textbook, which i
already mentioned.

A global search of the last six months of postings in this news group
have failed to find any evidence that anyone has ever mentioned a
textbook before you did in the message to which I am replying.

a search of *this* thread, finds the following from *two* *days* *ago*:


In article , nospam
wrote:
If there is, you seem utterly unable to explain it.

i did, as do numerous engineering text books.

it's clear you aren't interested in learning anything.


you failed again.

hopefully you will pay more attention there than you do here...

Hopefully I will find a real mention.

hopefully you will stop babbling, but the chances of that are very
close to zero.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


stop blaming others for your own shortcomings and go learn something.

Tell me where. Surely you can manage that?

start with a class on signal theory, or perhaps a textbook, which i
already mentioned.

hopefully you will pay more attention there than you do here...

I suspect you are thinking about image compression. Am I right?

no.

On 2019-01-03 17:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 19:19:36 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

nope. it's *not* *possible* to resolve 37 stops with a 14 bit adc.

How about an IRL wager to resolve this disagreement? I can offer
Welch-proof terms.

Nospam's statement as written is trivially true:
x stops of resolution requires x bits.
That is a fact of mathematics,

yep

but not a useful statement of what
is needed for making images to be seen by humans.

the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit
adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range.

that's not possible.

as i said before, an 14 bit adc limits the dynamic range to a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops.

You keep saying that but you never say why.

Does he have to say "math"?

IAC, 14 bits can't even give you a true 14 stops because of noise. More
like 12.5, maybe 13 on a cold, cold, cold day (if the camera works).

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On 2019-01-02 04:16, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 07:48:13 +0000, RJH wrote:

On 02/01/2019 01:38, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You are obviously wedded to 1 stop per bit. Why is that?

math.

Why for example can you not have 2 stops per bit, or pi stops per bit?
As long as you scale the entire brightness range with the available 14
stops.

because it doesn't work that way.

think about what a stop means.


FWIW, I don't follow the linearity - in fact I've often wondered why
aperture, ISO and shutter speed aren't infinitely variable, especially
with digital. This article takes me closer to understanding:

https://expertphotography.com/understanding-fstops-stops-in-photography-exposure/

The author of that article is using 'stop' when he should be using
'exposure value'. But lets not get into that in this thread. It's
confused enough already. :-)

There is no difference at all between an EV and a stop of any of the
three independent variables of ISO, exposure period and aperture.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

as i said before, an 14 bit adc limits the dynamic range to a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops.

You keep saying that but you never say why.

Does he have to say "math"?

already did.

IAC, 14 bits can't even give you a true 14 stops because of noise. More
like 12.5, maybe 13 on a cold, cold, cold day (if the camera works).

yep, which is why i said theoretical maximum.

Eric Stevens wrote:

You really should have linear encoding, but there is no reason why the
encoded range should be anything in particular.

If you have linear encoding you need twice as many numbers every
time you add a stop (which doubles the range in linear terms).
Doubling the numbers available in binary means using one more bit.

Therefore in linear terms 1 bit = 1 stop.

Peter.