Whither high resolution Digital Images?

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.

More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
grand total of 3 readers.

But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
blow it back to original size, and compare.

I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.

Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.

And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
post any marketable shots to the net" means. I learned my lesson long ago
when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
publications. You stupid ****wad.

[Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.
This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
good lesson for all.]

Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all
wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just
upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't
even own one camera.

YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.

On 04/08/2010 14:27, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.

More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
grand total of 3 readers.

But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
blow it back to original size, and compare.

I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.

Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.

And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
post any marketable shots to the net" means.

Yes, that means "My shots are a lot lousier than what I pretend them to
be". Why should we believe anything else? Has anyone seen your shots in
all their glory? If they are so good & desirable, why haven't you made a
fortune by publishing them in a book? And if you made a fortune, what is
the ISBN?

I learned my lesson long ago
when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
publications. You stupid ****wad.

[Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.

Yet more fiction. The rarest insect on earth comes dying on your porch,
brought by a spider. You're really entertaining... maybe you don't make
money with your pictures, but you can make a fortune writing novels.
Title for your first: "Otiocerus and the magic spiders in Mount Rainer
waterfalls".


This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
good lesson for all.]

And you are going to keep it for yourself, of publish a paper? Waiting
for the paper with baited breath, as well as the full name of the
species, since you seem to have identified it...

Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all
wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just
upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't
even own one camera.


YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.

Yes! More!

--
Bertrand

Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:18:11 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:

bobwilliams wrote:
About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams
I ABSOLUTELY agree that IF you plan to print at 8X10 or larger, more
pixels are better. And good glass is of paramount importance.
After all, it is the lens that creates the image.
Bells and whistles in the camera are nice but a mediocre lens will yield
mediocre images.

But notice that I emphasized (CAPS) in my first question.....
" 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?"
It is for those people, which I suspect is the largest segment of the
digicam public, that my mythical 2 MP would be aimed at.

I personally print about 2-3% of my images at 8x10 for archiving in
large loose leaf binders with plastic sheet protectors.
I'd say that I probably have about 300 8x10s in 3 binders for quick and
easy display. These are my best-of-best pics

My primary, serious camera is a Panny FZ 50 which is 10MP.
It has a Leica lens that IMHO produces outstanding images even on a
1/1.8" sensor.

I understand that the high megapixel count is a very effective marketing
tool and probably is the main reason why a 2MP camera despite
significant advantages in image quality and low light performance would
not find a spot in the heart of the general public. They seem to be
thrilled with results from their little cellphone cameras.........Sigh
Bob




And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

What is it with you tech-head pixel-pervs? I guess since none of you ever
know how to take any images of worthwhile content, the only thing that any
of you have left to admire and be concerned about are the dots. It doesn't
matter how many of those you have, or how high of a resolution they can be
combined into, none of them matter if you don't have something worthy of
being depicted by those dots.

Here's some dots ..................................

I have 21 million of them! All of them just as sharp and clear as those
above, each of them available in 16.7 million shades and hues too! Ain't
they wonderful!?! I bet you'd pay $10,000 to be able to have a device to
create such perfect dots, and so many of them, all just as perfect!

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

You ****ingly useless idiots.





Your perceptive response is so relevant you needed to post it twice. It
didn't read much better the second time. We may be useless idiots, but
at least we are polite useless idiots.

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:45:40 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 14:27, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.

More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
grand total of 3 readers.

But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
blow it back to original size, and compare.

I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.

Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.

And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
post any marketable shots to the net" means.

Yes, that means "My shots are a lot lousier than what I pretend them to
be". Why should we believe anything else? Has anyone seen your shots in
all their glory? If they are so good & desirable, why haven't you made a
fortune by publishing them in a book? And if you made a fortune, what is
the ISBN?


You're an annoying and insulting **** of a pretend-photographer troll, and
then you expect me to give you the answers you want?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not so insecure that I have to prove ANYTHING to some low-life ****
like you. It's much more entertaining for me watching you flip-out over
anyone having a life more interesting, adventurous, fulfilled, productive,
talented, and valuable than yours will ever be, with no regrets whatsoever.
99.9999999999999% of the population has a better life than you'll ever
conceive of having. You were a waste since you were born and that's what
really bugs you, because you know it.

And you are?

Some low-life peon newsgroup TROLL living in his mommy's basement who
happened to learn how to use an idiot's user-friendly computer?

Yep!

PROVE you are NOT.

LOL!

I learned my lesson long ago
when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
publications. You stupid ****wad.

[Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.

Yet more fiction. The rarest insect on earth comes dying on your porch,
brought by a spider. You're really entertaining... maybe you don't make
money with your pictures, but you can make a fortune writing novels.
Title for your first: "Otiocerus and the magic spiders in Mount Rainer
waterfalls".


This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
good lesson for all.]

And you are going to keep it for yourself, of publish a paper? Waiting
for the paper with baited breath, as well as the full name of the
species, since you seem to have identified it...

Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all
wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just
upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't
even own one camera.


YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.

Yes! More!

Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200,
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.
A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.
Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!
Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.
More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
grand total of 3 readers.

But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
blow it back to original size, and compare.
I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.
Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.

And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
post any marketable shots to the net" means. I learned my lesson long ago
when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
publications. You stupid ****wad.

[Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.
This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
good lesson for all.]

Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all
wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just
upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't
even own one camera.

YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.


Again you post twice. Is this because you don't know how to post or are
you anxious we not miss one word of your rant.

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:20:43 -0400, Dave Cohen wrote:

Jeff Jones wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:18:11 -0700, bobwilliams wrote:

bobwilliams wrote:
About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG.
I asked something like,
"What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"?
E-Mail to friends and family.
Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their
convenience.
Archive to look at later on your computer.
Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers.
Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving.
Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage
made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made
8x10 or larger Prints
By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor.
This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions?

1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?
I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major
reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately.

2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints.
Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP.
4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP.
If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital
images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in
this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a
high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering
10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors?
Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main
criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will
it stop?
A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns.
By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel
spacing of 5.0 microns.
With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much
better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on
the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints.
Emails could be sent without resizing.

Comments.......Bob Williams
I ABSOLUTELY agree that IF you plan to print at 8X10 or larger, more
pixels are better. And good glass is of paramount importance.
After all, it is the lens that creates the image.
Bells and whistles in the camera are nice but a mediocre lens will yield
mediocre images.

But notice that I emphasized (CAPS) in my first question.....
" 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?"
It is for those people, which I suspect is the largest segment of the
digicam public, that my mythical 2 MP would be aimed at.

I personally print about 2-3% of my images at 8x10 for archiving in
large loose leaf binders with plastic sheet protectors.
I'd say that I probably have about 300 8x10s in 3 binders for quick and
easy display. These are my best-of-best pics

My primary, serious camera is a Panny FZ 50 which is 10MP.
It has a Leica lens that IMHO produces outstanding images even on a
1/1.8" sensor.

I understand that the high megapixel count is a very effective marketing
tool and probably is the main reason why a 2MP camera despite
significant advantages in image quality and low light performance would
not find a spot in the heart of the general public. They seem to be
thrilled with results from their little cellphone cameras.........Sigh
Bob




And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

What is it with you tech-head pixel-pervs? I guess since none of you ever
know how to take any images of worthwhile content, the only thing that any
of you have left to admire and be concerned about are the dots. It doesn't
matter how many of those you have, or how high of a resolution they can be
combined into, none of them matter if you don't have something worthy of
being depicted by those dots.

Here's some dots ..................................

I have 21 million of them! All of them just as sharp and clear as those
above, each of them available in 16.7 million shades and hues too! Ain't
they wonderful!?! I bet you'd pay $10,000 to be able to have a device to
create such perfect dots, and so many of them, all just as perfect!

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

You ****ingly useless idiots.





Your perceptive response is so relevant you needed to post it twice. It
didn't read much better the second time. We may be useless idiots, but
at least we are polite useless idiots.

Typo corrections for the useless trolls that like to play spelling and
syntax police. Surely you didn't want this to drag out into some
spell-check or syntax thread for 100 more posts, did you? See what I saved
you from?

YOU ****INGLY USELESS **** OF A TROLL.

On 04/08/2010 18:39, Jeff Jones wrote:


You're an annoying and insulting **** of a pretend-photographer troll, and
then you expect me to give you the answers you want?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not so insecure that I have to prove ANYTHING to some low-life ****
like you. It's much more entertaining for me watching you flip-out over
anyone having a life more interesting, adventurous, fulfilled, productive,
talented, and valuable than yours will ever be, with no regrets whatsoever.
99.9999999999999% of the population has a better life than you'll ever
conceive of having. You were a waste since you were born and that's what
really bugs you, because you know it.

And you are?

Some low-life peon newsgroup TROLL living in his mommy's basement who
happened to learn how to use an idiot's user-friendly computer?

Yep!

PROVE you are NOT.


Why should I? I am inded a low-life peon who indeed learned to use a
computer on the very user-friendly (it had a keyboard, mind...) IBM
1130. I'm not claiming I'm Alan Turing... And by the way, since you are
talking about computers, remember the last time we discussed software?
Another good laugh.

--
Bertrand

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 05:16:56 -0500, Jeff Jones
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
appreciated.

A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
one month.

You ****ingly useless IDIOT TROLL.

I know what you mean, although you're being a bit harsh about
it.

I had a Cybershot point and shoot before the Nikon D3000 I
just got, and I took a lot of very good shots with it.

I'm just not quite accustomed to the 3000 yet, but once I am
moreso I'm sure my images will be much better. I seem to have gotten a
bit distracted with the greater amount of choices available with it,
and so far most of my better images were with the P & S.

I am confident though that once I'm more up to speed on the
Nikon it will produce even better images, all things about me being
equal.

In article ,
Jeff Jones AKA Mothboy wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:45:40 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 04/08/2010 14:27, Jeff Jones AKA Mothboy wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200,
wrote:

Silly debate clipped

Yes, that means "My shots are a lot lousier than what I pretend them to
be". Why should we believe anything else? Has anyone seen your shots in
all their glory? If they are so good & desirable, why haven't you made a
fortune by publishing them in a book? And if you made a fortune, what is
the ISBN?


You're an annoying and insulting **** of a pretend-photographer troll, and
then you expect me to give you the answers you want?


Another self critique. You should stop beating up on yourself.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not so insecure that I have to prove ANYTHING

Sure you are. Why not prove it all? That would shut us up. All your
delusional claims of great achievements are only proved in the deep
recesses of your mind. Without proof of your claims we have no reason to
take anything you say seriously.

And you are?

Some low-life peon newsgroup TROLL living in his mommy's basement who
happened to learn how to use an idiot's user-friendly computer?

Yep!

PROVE you are NOT.

Not before you prove you do not fit the self description you provided
above. I doubt you can.

This is your life mothboy, and you just don't seem to get out much
anymore.
--
Just another troll hunter

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

bobwilliams wrote:
[snip fullquote of your previous post]

We already read that. Thank you.

Bells and whistles in the camera are nice but a mediocre lens will yield
mediocre images.

Many iconic, important and high impact photographs were shot
with what one must today consider at best mediocre lenses.
Just imagine lenses with no anti-reflective coating (actually a
German WWII war secret, single layer coating, IIRC), dead slow,
no aspherical elements and only very few groups to correct errors,
etc. Not to mention all the conveniences of current lenses.
Today's kit zooms stand head, shoulders, torso and legs above most
of them. Starting with the fact that they are versatile zooms,
well corrected, low CA, not prone to flares, etc.

Seems like content still tops lens quality --- though of
course a good lens will always help.

But notice that I emphasized (CAPS) in my first question.....
" 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed
on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?"

Why should I limit myself to just 4x6 and low res monitor
viewing? Even if 99.9% of my images were of that class, why
should I limit the 0.1% that turn out much better and just
beg for a 40x60 inch poster?

It is for those people, which I suspect is the largest segment of the
digicam public, that my mythical 2 MP would be aimed at.

I've got a 3+MP monitor. And that's full RGB triplets per pixel.
So just viewing on my monitor will take 4.2+ source MPs[1] without
adjusting for format differences and cropping. (DSLRs are 3:2, my
monitor is a 4:3 CRT ... you do lose pixels if you want fullscreen
4:3 (or 16:9 or 16:10))

Zoom in on the image by a factor of 2 and you need 17 source MPs
for every monitor pixel to have full meaning.

I personally print about 2-3% of my images at 8x10 for archiving in
large loose leaf binders with plastic sheet protectors.

Do you shoot them at 2MP or less[1]?

I'd say that I probably have about 300 8x10s in 3 binders for quick and
easy display. These are my best-of-best pics

Why don't you downscale them to 1.42MP (to simulate a 2MP bayer
sensor[1]) and print them then?

I understand that the high megapixel count is a very effective marketing
tool and probably is the main reason why a 2MP camera despite
significant advantages in image quality and low light performance would
not find a spot in the heart of the general public.

The image quality would be similar, as would the low light
performance. After all, the same amount of light strikes the
sensor, and the read noise of every single pixel is low compared to
the other noise sources --- and you'd only reduce that part. True,
the per pixel noise is higher in 14MP sensors, but when looking at
the print or monitor view you don't pixel peep and see only the
overall iamge noise. Which is completely ruled by photon noise.
Which only depends on the light striking the sensor. QED.

(Ah, yes, the fill factor can be considered near enough to 100%
thank microlenses that it doesn't matter.)

So if you want better image (instead of pixel) noise, use a
larger sensor. Like 24x36mm.

They seem to be
thrilled with results from their little cellphone cameras.........Sigh

And why not? You always have your phone with you, so you always
have a camera. And the general public doesn't care for image
quality as much as for image content and sentimental circumstances
of a shot. And rightly so.

-Wolfgang

[1] Bayer sensors have a green-to-green pixel distance of SQRT(2)
and in non-degenerate cases the green pixels carry the
luminosity info and hence practically ALl of the detail.