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 |
#1131
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote: So, after all your rambling, you've shown yourself unable to answer a question as simple as "what do you think the scientific method is?" No, that's not true, Jon. I told you that I prefer to start with Maxwell's distrust of objects unobservable in principle, setting a firm ontological basis. I then stated that I lean toward enhanced naive empiricism. Go ahead and throw out all the keywords and catch phrases you want, but in the end, if you can't answer such a simple question I did answer it. Sorry I didn't use words out of your rather small glossary. It's funny, you know, that you decried another poster for possessing credentials. Now you seem to have a problem with me because I'm familiar with the terminology of scientific method. you're just trolling. No, I don't think so. I think you have a control problem. When presented with ideas and interpretations you don't comprehend, you become angry and start making demands that the discussion center on you and the areas you're comfortable with. For example, I clearly answered many, in fact most of your points in two posts now, but you chose to ignore them all and insist I define scientific method for you. But you've shown you're unfamiliar with the territory, so it becomes a rather unfruitful exercise in debating with a petulant child, which I'm not really all that keen on. I assume you're angling toward some sort of elementary school definition like: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, all that painfully useless rubbish pounded into children in elementary biology classes. I'd rather start with ontology, and have done so. If you can't define that which is, then proceed to epistemology and the nature of knowledge and belief, then the sort of fifth-grade rote recitation you seem to be fixated on has no underpinning. Frankly, I doubt that would trouble you. If you do manage to get past all that, then perhaps you can start discussing falsifiability. That's a real meat and potatoes issues you'd probably enjoy. See, if you get to demand that I define scientific method, then I get to ask your position on falsifiability. You know, a lot of naive empiricists such as yourself believe it to be necessary and sufficient to define method. I abjure this position, though, as I have already stated -- really Jon, must I type everything twice? -- and prefer an enhanced naive empiricism. Would you care to know the enhancement I lean toward? I'll tell you, but first you must, in return, tell me your position on falsifiability. It's fundamental, and of course if your thoughts about scientific method theory is -- what was it you said, "100% accurate" -- then you must have a position on falsifiability. Oh, and if you're not familiar with "all the keywords and catch phrases," then, Jon, how can you certify your positions as "100% accurate?" |
#1132
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote: So, after all your rambling, you've shown yourself unable to answer a question as simple as "what do you think the scientific method is?" No, that's not true, Jon. I told you that I prefer to start with Maxwell's distrust of objects unobservable in principle, setting a firm ontological basis. I then stated that I lean toward enhanced naive empiricism. Go ahead and throw out all the keywords and catch phrases you want, but in the end, if you can't answer such a simple question I did answer it. Sorry I didn't use words out of your rather small glossary. It's funny, you know, that you decried another poster for possessing credentials. Now you seem to have a problem with me because I'm familiar with the terminology of scientific method. you're just trolling. No, I don't think so. I think you have a control problem. When presented with ideas and interpretations you don't comprehend, you become angry and start making demands that the discussion center on you and the areas you're comfortable with. For example, I clearly answered many, in fact most of your points in two posts now, but you chose to ignore them all and insist I define scientific method for you. But you've shown you're unfamiliar with the territory, so it becomes a rather unfruitful exercise in debating with a petulant child, which I'm not really all that keen on. I assume you're angling toward some sort of elementary school definition like: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, all that painfully useless rubbish pounded into children in elementary biology classes. I'd rather start with ontology, and have done so. If you can't define that which is, then proceed to epistemology and the nature of knowledge and belief, then the sort of fifth-grade rote recitation you seem to be fixated on has no underpinning. Frankly, I doubt that would trouble you. If you do manage to get past all that, then perhaps you can start discussing falsifiability. That's a real meat and potatoes issues you'd probably enjoy. See, if you get to demand that I define scientific method, then I get to ask your position on falsifiability. You know, a lot of naive empiricists such as yourself believe it to be necessary and sufficient to define method. I abjure this position, though, as I have already stated -- really Jon, must I type everything twice? -- and prefer an enhanced naive empiricism. Would you care to know the enhancement I lean toward? I'll tell you, but first you must, in return, tell me your position on falsifiability. It's fundamental, and of course if your thoughts about scientific method theory is -- what was it you said, "100% accurate" -- then you must have a position on falsifiability. Oh, and if you're not familiar with "all the keywords and catch phrases," then, Jon, how can you certify your positions as "100% accurate?" |
#1133
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike writes:
YOu're either not listening, or you're blatently trolling. We're not discussing "image quality." We're discussing "theoretical equivalent resolution." The original message said: I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm film quality? Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they the equivalent to 35mm? The word "quality" is in the very first sentence. That is what we're discussing. A part of the discussion is about resolution limits. It is an open question whether part about "equivalent resolution" was actually talking about limiting resolution, as measured by spatial resolution targets, or about *apparent* resolution which depends on the whole MTF curve shape. So yes, the only number I'll be paying attention to in this discussion, is a number that pertains to resolution. It seems to be only you who wants to confine the discussion to limiting resolution, and not any of the other things that might contribute to "equivalent quality". If you do that, you're ignoring the original question and reframing it to suit your own agenda. Dave |
#1134
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike writes:
YOu're either not listening, or you're blatently trolling. We're not discussing "image quality." We're discussing "theoretical equivalent resolution." The original message said: I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm film quality? Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they the equivalent to 35mm? The word "quality" is in the very first sentence. That is what we're discussing. A part of the discussion is about resolution limits. It is an open question whether part about "equivalent resolution" was actually talking about limiting resolution, as measured by spatial resolution targets, or about *apparent* resolution which depends on the whole MTF curve shape. So yes, the only number I'll be paying attention to in this discussion, is a number that pertains to resolution. It seems to be only you who wants to confine the discussion to limiting resolution, and not any of the other things that might contribute to "equivalent quality". If you do that, you're ignoring the original question and reframing it to suit your own agenda. Dave |
#1135
|
|||
|
|||
"me" wrote in message
... Film, I'm bored, me What, bored with film, already? (Sorry, I know I said I was done, but I couldn't resist pointing out your capitulation.) -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#1136
|
|||
|
|||
"me" wrote in message
... Film, I'm bored, me What, bored with film, already? (Sorry, I know I said I was done, but I couldn't resist pointing out your capitulation.) -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#1137
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike writes:
What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of resolution when film gets scanned. No, it shows that when a single test piece of film was scanned on a single CCD scanner in one trial, there was a 10% loss of limiting resolution. Extrapolating this result to other scanners, particularly drum scanners with completely different optics and scanning mechanisms, is extremely unscientific. Besides, the very same tests show that the resolution of the scanned film is only 28 lp/mm at 50% contrast. This is far worse than any of the digital cameras tested. Since we know the resolution of the film plus scanner is 79 lp/mm, the scanner contrast must be quite high at only 1/3 this frequency, so the low 50% MTF must be due to the film only. So, this test allows us to conclude, with at least as much justification as your "10%" claim, that scanned film has a 44% resolution loss at 50% contrast compared to an 8 MP camera. This seems to be much more relevant to the original question that started the thread. Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!", nobody has yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim. Until someone does, the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of resolution when film gets scanned) is from this page. Anyone who thinks that data from a linear CCD scanner that scans the full width of the frame simultaneously is in any way applicable to a drum scanner that illuminates and measures only one point on the film at once is seriously out to lunch. Except for the name "scanner", the two devices have virtually nothing in common in optics or electronics. Dave |
#1138
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike writes:
What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of resolution when film gets scanned. No, it shows that when a single test piece of film was scanned on a single CCD scanner in one trial, there was a 10% loss of limiting resolution. Extrapolating this result to other scanners, particularly drum scanners with completely different optics and scanning mechanisms, is extremely unscientific. Besides, the very same tests show that the resolution of the scanned film is only 28 lp/mm at 50% contrast. This is far worse than any of the digital cameras tested. Since we know the resolution of the film plus scanner is 79 lp/mm, the scanner contrast must be quite high at only 1/3 this frequency, so the low 50% MTF must be due to the film only. So, this test allows us to conclude, with at least as much justification as your "10%" claim, that scanned film has a 44% resolution loss at 50% contrast compared to an 8 MP camera. This seems to be much more relevant to the original question that started the thread. Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!", nobody has yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim. Until someone does, the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of resolution when film gets scanned) is from this page. Anyone who thinks that data from a linear CCD scanner that scans the full width of the frame simultaneously is in any way applicable to a drum scanner that illuminates and measures only one point on the film at once is seriously out to lunch. Except for the name "scanner", the two devices have virtually nothing in common in optics or electronics. Dave |
#1139
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike writes:
What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of resolution when film gets scanned. No, it shows that when a single test piece of film was scanned on a single CCD scanner in one trial, there was a 10% loss of limiting resolution. Extrapolating this result to other scanners, particularly drum scanners with completely different optics and scanning mechanisms, is extremely unscientific. Besides, the very same tests show that the resolution of the scanned film is only 28 lp/mm at 50% contrast. This is far worse than any of the digital cameras tested. Since we know the resolution of the film plus scanner is 79 lp/mm, the scanner contrast must be quite high at only 1/3 this frequency, so the low 50% MTF must be due to the film only. So, this test allows us to conclude, with at least as much justification as your "10%" claim, that scanned film has a 44% resolution loss at 50% contrast compared to an 8 MP camera. This seems to be much more relevant to the original question that started the thread. Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!", nobody has yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim. Until someone does, the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of resolution when film gets scanned) is from this page. Anyone who thinks that data from a linear CCD scanner that scans the full width of the frame simultaneously is in any way applicable to a drum scanner that illuminates and measures only one point on the film at once is seriously out to lunch. Except for the name "scanner", the two devices have virtually nothing in common in optics or electronics. Dave |
#1140
|
|||
|
|||
'me', I've seen your work, and don't need to return to that thread to
take a wild guess that you were, as usual, posting abuse and stupidity without a shred of any useful, relevant information. Just like here - there is absolutely f@ck-all ontopic, decent information in your posts. It is clear your entire life is devoted to pretending you are a photographer and stalking anyone who bites (CHOMP!) on your trolling. Well, I'm happy to do that. So stalk away and abuse away. And I'll just continue to point out your lame posts. I'm here for information - you are here to try to make a man of yourself. But you're clearly ****ing into a headwind. I'm happy for you and I to both be judged on content of posts. Repeated kindergarten-level cliches, along with zero information or examples, added to continual abuse of anyone who doesn't lick your ass, seems to be your style. My style is a little different. And if you post this CRAP on a public forum, whether or not it is aimed at me, don't be too shocked and surprised if I point out your inadequacies. So, if you reckon that's 'begging for abuse', knock yourself out. Everyone here is REAL impressed with you. And you do SO much good for your cause. (The last two sentences were sarcasm. You might need to look it up.) |
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 10:51 PM |