Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp?

"Floyd L. Davidson"
Agree. Often messages are not trimmed, so you have to scroll down all
the way, so top posting is better. But some people are very religious
about this issue.

That does *not* make top posting better. It makes excessive quoting
a pain.

Try to be more tolerant to others and respect other people opinions...)
That's the first we all have to learn when we start writing to the public
news groups. Actually many people don't follow this simple rule and we see
overquoting, flame (Fidonet therm, if you can accept it without tons of
different explanations like below...))

Fidonet was restricted in many ways, and message editing

Sure and the main reason that we were working with so terrible phone lines
and modems that you even can't imagine on Alaska. There are a lot of very
old jokes about it, but all they are off-topic here, sorry. Maybe I can tell
you them some day in person.

facilities was just one example.

I would not say so. Maybe you were using commands like:
\echo blablabla message.txt
to type your own messages? Yes, I started with machines occupying 2
floors and 3 rooms on each floor and any XT would be a great jump ahead
comparing to these ones, but it was many years ago and I'm sure the majority
of this NG even has no idea about these monsters. Also I have no idea
what's your experience with Fido if you had any, but the editors as well as
all other programs including *******, packers, mailers, etc. went a very
long way all together and their progress was very obvious for years.
Actually this network is still alive and you can see that's gating to/from
usenet groups. In most cases the gates are R/O because very polite internet
users are flooding all networks including Fido with the spam and viruses
using any possible gate. That's the reality. But I'm not writing about that
to cause a new flame here in this NG. It's not my purpose and hopefully this
thread will be done pretty soon. At least it's Off-Topic here. I just
decided to start this thread because I saw some kind of discussion and I
replied using another subj.

A. It has an illogical structure.
Q. What's wrong with your method?

Usually when you open a new message from the same thread you already see the
subj and can recall what was in the previous message. That's simple for
those who really reads. It's especially convenient when all messages that I
read are grouped by subj and the messages that I opened are automatically
hid. Pretty simple and no efforts from my side at all.

Actually the reason people argue against your system is because
they have enough experience to know which methods work best, and
are not really concerned about a user's existing habits.

I wrote you before in my first message that I don't care, I can use any way
because I'm professional who spent whole life with computers. But there are
a lot of people ignoring that, or just barking finding any possible reason
for that. These people just don't realize that somebody's opinion can exist
as well.

Usenet was not restricted in the way Fidonet was. That was, in

Mainly because people were paying for the traffic from their own pockets and
and it was a good reason to avoid overquoting, flaming, sending trash,
worthless messages, etc.

general, a manifestation of the origins. A group of exceedingly
bright fellows, with a broad range of backgrounds, came up with
the basics for Usenet, while Fidonet was the work of a single,
very aggressive, individual (who's expertise was making due with
an IBM PC, not text formatting). The extra smarts, not to
mention the added technical facilities, is fairly obvious in the
design... and one of the clearest examples is the default
message formatting style.

Very funny explanation. You just forgot one thing - who created that and
actually WHEN. Regarding individuals... Without these enthusiasts the whole
network would be impossible at all. Maybe you were much less lucky and
didn't find good groups on Fido or somebody offended you? I saw many
brilliant people on Fidonet as well as very good specialists in their
fields. Btw, don't forget the history of Linux. I suspect you can say - it
was stolen from Unix by some aggressive diletants who are still working
nobody knows what for, etc. Similar?

Fidonet users basically had the functionality of a very crude
line editor. Usenet users had the functionality of either an
extremely well developed line editor or a fairly crude screen
editor.

2-3 lines from the previous message is more than enough to remind the
people
what's all that about.

That is not only not true, that is not the purpose of quoting
text from previous messages. It is not intended to be a
reminder, nor to be something general in regard to what it was
all about. Quoted text show *exactly* what a comment refers to.

Yea-yea, you will read 10 answers to the same message and each one will
quote the original one. Very convenient. Although for those who is not able
to recall the topic it could be useful.

I fail to see how writing ambiguous commentary is easier than
writing to specifics unique to the quoted text. (Assuming of

Sorry, but this is what you wrote. I wrote just my own history trying to
explain some stuff that most of the readers of this NG have never even seen
in their lives. But you wrote that all I wrote and the Fidonet as well are
just piece of crap. Thanks. Maybe your favorite group there was common.place
where people were just practicing in F-language, I was reading/writing
from/to high professional echoes. There are still a lot of very interesting
discussions there including professional photo, video, software, hardware,
programming, history, whatever, probably more than hundred thousands
different echoes.

course that the object is to inform a *reader*... and I would
agree with you if the object is to generate therapeutic noise to
benefit the writer.)

No comments.

When using decent viewing software, and a good text editor to
generate messages, none of that is difficult.

Sure, only my 20" 1600x1200 is not enough to read the answers without
scrolling every time down.

Regardless, why people want to post articles that are more
difficult to read and understand, is an interesting study in
psychology. Not trimming, placing comments out of context,
using odd quote marks, failing to use blank lines between
paragraphs, long lines, and many other habits that in general

Actually long lines will be rounded by the editors when you receive the
message, but I know many people who will just skip the whole message if they
can't see the answer without scrolling down to it. It's easier.

are adaptions to the use of a specific editor to make _writing_
easy, are illogical! The point should be to generate and

You didn't get, not WRITING, but READING. Maybe you didn't notice that I
wrote about reading of thousands of messages in one try. Less scrolling,
faster reading. Since the groups are ordered by the subj I always know all
previous answers, my memory is enough to keep them at least I read the
thread. But you can follow any rules you want, as it was mentioned earlier -
it's usenet...)

article that is easier to read and understand, and that might
mean use of an editor that is highly configured specifically for
Usenet article generation.

I just wrote an explanation why some people are doing that thinking that
it's more convenient, I didn't want to make you do this way. If you didn't
get, then my try was worthless. Sorry about that.

As for me I can follow any rules absolutely easy now because I used to see
many people, mostly newbie, barking at others because they are doing the
right things.

Pay more attention to folks that have been using Usenet since
the early years. There are benefits that might not be
obvious... one being that early on most Usenet writers had more
education than the average person, and specifically were more
aware of the development of "communications skills". Usenet,

Well, I'm not a boy as well and I got my own 3 master degrees including
computers, plus... And once again, I just explained why people are doing
that. You like psychology as you wrote above, but you're the first who
started arguing against everything I wrote, very funny.

unlike the vast majority of other computer conversational
networks, was actually well thought out and implemented with the
idea of *communications*.

Better kills the best, that's true. But without all previous experience we
can't do anything better, or at least we'd never know that it's better.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

I'd like this thread to be finished with this long message, but who knows...
I have already seen several messages in this NG before trying to press
others about quoting, message style, etc. Well if my message was able to
explain at least something then I hope that I made a good thing.

Sorry, photographers, who don't care of all this stuff, I just wanted to
explain these obvious things.

Just D.

THO writes:
You're supposed to chop out the parts that don't need to be read.
And how many people do that? If they did, there wouldn't be any
complaints about bottom posting.

Those complaints aren't really about bottom posting per se. They're
really about bottom posting without bothering to chop out the parts
that don't need to be read.

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
of data?

Inadequate. Also for 6MP.

Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
4/3"?

Or even bigger. I think I'd be happier with my D200 if the sensor were
divided up into 8 or even 6 MP instead of the 10 it actually is -- I
think that'd get me better ISO 1600 and maybe a real 3200, and for me
that tradeoff is easily worth the MP loss.

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
There is no solid concensus. Some people get irritated that they
have to scroll, and get mad at people who don't top post.

But there's a consensus, and while not terribly solid, it's established
here that trimming and bottom posting are preferred.

To keep flying in the face of that is eccentric, egocentric, or just
plain Dutch (with a wink to Bart).

--
John McWilliams

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
of data?

Inadequate. Also for 6MP.

Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
4/3"?

Or even bigger. I think I'd be happier with my D200 if the sensor
were divided up into 8 or even 6 MP instead of the 10 it actually is
-- I think that'd get me better ISO 1600 and maybe a real 3200, and
for me that tradeoff is easily worth the MP loss.

What is to stop you resampling the 10MP down to 6MP to achieve the same
noise level as a 6MP sensor?

David

"Just D" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson"
Agree. Often messages are not trimmed, so you have to scroll down all
the way, so top posting is better. But some people are very religious
about this issue.

That does *not* make top posting better. It makes excessive quoting
a pain.

Try to be more tolerant to others and respect other people opinions...)
That's the first we all have to learn when we start writing to the public
news groups. Actually many people don't follow this simple rule and we see
overquoting, flame (Fidonet therm, if you can accept it without tons of
different explanations like below...))

I expect that "flame" was used on Usenet before it was on
Fidonet, though I'm not positive. Granted that everyone called
Fidonet "Fight-Oh Net", and that alt.flame on Usenet was
actually a kinder/gentler place than the average Fidonet echo.

Fidonet was restricted in many ways, and message editing

Sure and the main reason that we were working with so terrible phone lines
and modems that you even can't imagine on Alaska. There are a lot of very
old jokes about it, but all they are off-topic here, sorry. Maybe I can tell
you them some day in person.

So how is that unique? And why wouldn't someone in Alaska
imagine terrible phone lines and modems? I don't know what you
were doing back then... but I was working on the long distance
telephone network in Alaska. Same "terrible phone lines and
modems" that everyone else was dealing with!

What difference does it make if you think the jokes are off
topic? I doubt you have any. If you did, you'd have posted
them. Your entire article (as well as mine) is off topic... not
that that is of any great significance, but that's the point: it
isn't of any significance.

facilities was just one example.

I would not say so. Maybe you were using commands like:
\echo blablabla message.txt
to type your own messages?

Fidonet nodes provided a very very simple line editor for users
to generate messages with.

Usenet's newsreaders (rn, for example) typically used vi, and
could be configured for any editor.

There simply was no comparison, and primarily that was because
the average Fidonet node and user were both working with a IBM
PC (or clone) with MS-DOS running on it. The average Usenet
user was using either Unix or VMS, both of which were *far* more
advanced than anything from Microsoft.

Yes, I started with machines occupying 2
floors and 3 rooms on each floor and any XT would be a great jump ahead
comparing to these ones, but it was many years ago and I'm sure the majority
of this NG even has no idea about these monsters.

What has that got to do with Usenet or Fidonet?

Also I have no idea
what's your experience with Fido if you had any, but the editors as well as
all other programs including *******, packers, mailers, etc. went a very
long way all together and their progress was very obvious for years.

By comparison to vi??? You gotta be kidding.

A. It has an illogical structure.
Q. What's wrong with your method?

Usually when you open a new message from the same thread you already see the
subj and can recall what was in the previous message.

You are assuming a great deal...

Actually the reason people argue against your system is because
they have enough experience to know which methods work best, and
are not really concerned about a user's existing habits.

I wrote you before in my first message that I don't care, I can use any way
because I'm professional who spent whole life with computers. But there are
a lot of people ignoring that, or just barking finding any possible reason
for that. These people just don't realize that somebody's opinion can exist
as well.

Opinions are fine, and there are dozens to choose from. Facts
are a different matter, and you cannot pick and choose which to
use. I spent my whole life in the communications business, and
from my perspective it is a science as to what does or does not
work as well. But regardless of what type of formatting one might
want to choose, the *fact* is that when every other individual
formats followup messages differently it causes less effective
communications.

Usenet was not restricted in the way Fidonet was. That was, in

Mainly because people were paying for the traffic from their own pockets and
and it was a good reason to avoid overquoting, flaming, sending trash,
worthless messages, etc.

I don't agree with that at all. Fidonet was build on consumer
quality hardware, to be affordable by home users. Usenet was
built on professional quality hardware for use by institutions.
In virtually every way, that base shows up in the product.
Fidonet was fun as a way to play with techie toys at home, but
it was also very crudely engineered. Usenet wasn't something
that could be played with at home, but it was in fact very well
engineered.

general, a manifestation of the origins. A group of exceedingly
bright fellows, with a broad range of backgrounds, came up with
the basics for Usenet, while Fidonet was the work of a single,
very aggressive, individual (who's expertise was making due with
an IBM PC, not text formatting). The extra smarts, not to
mention the added technical facilities, is fairly obvious in the
design... and one of the clearest examples is the default
message formatting style.

Very funny explanation. You just forgot one thing - who created that and
actually WHEN. Regarding individuals... Without these enthusiasts the whole
network would be impossible at all. Maybe you were much less lucky and
didn't find good groups on Fido or somebody offended you? I saw many
brilliant people on Fidonet as well as very good specialists in their

I never saw much value in using Fidonet. It was available, but
the value of it in the 1980's just wasn't there, compared to
Usenet.

fields. Btw, don't forget the history of Linux. I suspect you can say - it
was stolen from Unix by some aggressive diletants who are still working
nobody knows what for, etc. Similar?

No, not at all. Linux isn't stolen, from UNIX or anywhere else.
I don't see anything about Usenet or Fidonet that is the same...

I fail to see how writing ambiguous commentary is easier than
writing to specifics unique to the quoted text. (Assuming of

Sorry, but this is what you wrote. I wrote just my own history trying to
explain some stuff that most of the readers of this NG have never even seen
in their lives. But you wrote that all I wrote and the Fidonet as well are
just piece of crap. Thanks.

Please note that "crap" is *your* term, not mine. I have not
suggested that either what you wrote or Fidonet is crap. It
just doesn't compare well against Usenet in most ways.
Obviously, as I've noted, there *are* ways where it compares
better. They just aren't what you seem to think they are
though. (For a programmer interested in networking people with
IBM PC technology, Fidonet was simply *fabulous*. Since most
people could not get access to Usenet in the 1980's, Fidonet was
simply the best that was available.)

Maybe your favorite group there was common.place
where people were just practicing in F-language, I was reading/writing
from/to high professional echoes. There are still a lot of very interesting
discussions there including professional photo, video, software, hardware,
programming, history, whatever, probably more than hundred thousands
different echoes.

Right. That's why it was commonly called Fight-O Net... ;-)

Back then, anyone could get access to Fidonet, but only those
with industry or educational access could usually get Usenet.
The difference in "professionalism" was very noticeable. Indeed,
it was about the time that Fidonet people migrated to Usenet
that things really went to Hell on Usenet as far as polite
discussion! ;-) (No, I do *not* blame Fidonet for the change.
It's a matter of allowing full public access.)

Sure, only my 20" 1600x1200 is not enough to read the answers without
scrolling every time down.

From the headers on your article, we see

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028

that you are not exactly using, ahemmm, "high quality"
newsreading software. (Isn't that referred to as "Outhouse
Express" for a reason?)

Regardless, why people want to post articles that are more
difficult to read and understand, is an interesting study in
psychology. Not trimming, placing comments out of context,
using odd quote marks, failing to use blank lines between
paragraphs, long lines, and many other habits that in general

Actually long lines will be rounded by the editors when you receive the

I don't want *your* editor to decide the formatting for the
material that I post... Your editor hasn't got a clue about
what I want to express with the words I write, hence I would go
to extremes to prevent your editor from changing my formatting.

are adaptions to the use of a specific editor to make _writing_
easy, are illogical! The point should be to generate and

You didn't get, not WRITING, but READING.

*You* didn't get. I'm saying that most of the formatting
variations are used by people who find they make *writing*
easier (with the given editor they are using). My point is that
it is *far* better to reconfigure the editor (or get another
editor) in a way that makes it easier to write articles in a
format that is easier to read.

The list of examples I gave have to do with *writing*, not with
reading:

"Not trimming, placing comments out of context, using odd
quote marks, failing to use blank lines between paragraphs,
long lines, and many other habits that in general are
adaptions to the use of a specific editor to make _writing_
easy..."

Maybe you didn't notice that I
wrote about reading of thousands of messages in one try. Less scrolling,
faster reading. Since the groups are ordered by the subj I always know all
previous answers, my memory is enough to keep them at least I read the
thread. But you can follow any rules you want, as it was mentioned earlier -
it's usenet...)

You are assuming that all readers have the same manner of access
to messages that you do. I assume that they don't. They may
not have seen *any* other messages in the same thread, and in
particular may not have seen the one I am replying to. They
might also be interested in an in depth analysis looking for
precise technical meanings, rather than scanning "thousands of
messages in one try". They may not be reading the message within
minutes of when I post it either.

Now, granted that for chit-chat type messages what you describe
may well be useful. But for example, this is a "technical"
newsgroup and the chances that your criteria do no apply are
great.

article that is easier to read and understand, and that might
mean use of an editor that is highly configured specifically for
Usenet article generation.

I just wrote an explanation why some people are doing that thinking that
it's more convenient, I didn't want to make you do this way. If you didn't
get, then my try was worthless. Sorry about that.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say you wrote an
explanation. I'm sure you are thinking of something specific,
but *I* don't remember each and ever one of the hundreds or
thousands of Usenet news articles that I scan through every day.


As for me I can follow any rules absolutely easy now because I used to see
many people, mostly newbie, barking at others because they are doing the
right things.

Pay more attention to folks that have been using Usenet since
the early years. There are benefits that might not be
obvious... one being that early on most Usenet writers had more
education than the average person, and specifically were more
aware of the development of "communications skills". Usenet,

Well, I'm not a boy as well and I got my own 3 master degrees including
computers, plus... And once again, I just explained why people are doing
that. You like psychology as you wrote above, but you're the first who
started arguing against everything I wrote, very funny.

I'm sure that is supposed to mean something, but darned if I can
tell what you want to say.

I'd like this thread to be finished with this long message, but who knows...
I have already seen several messages in this NG before trying to press
others about quoting, message style, etc. Well if my message was able to
explain at least something then I hope that I made a good thing.

I wish it *had* explained something.

Sorry, photographers, who don't care of all this stuff, I just wanted to
explain these obvious things.

But if we discuss it, rather than run away from it, perhaps some
of these "obvious things" would in fact be obvious.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

THO wrote:

It is a pain when you have to press the keys over and over and over
again for no good reason as you read 50-100 messages in a session.

Unless its a nested reply, most people don't even bother reading the
quoted text when they are following a thread since they've already read
the text in a previous message.

Yep - that's why you should edit it before you bottom
post.

Bottom posting *without* editing is probably the worst
option of all.

BugBear

THO wrote:
You're supposed to chop out the parts that don't need to be read.

And how many people do that? If they did, there wouldn't be any
complaints about bottom posting.

Give the man a cigar!

BugBear

You seem a very arrogant, unpleasant person. Not worth
continuing any conversation with.

It's a perception thing. Those who are able to perceive the
significance of doing it the right way, do. Others don't.

You say POE TAY TOE, I say French Fries.

There's plenty of room for both schools of thought. No harm, no
foul.

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
There is no solid concensus. Some people get irritated that
they have to scroll, and get mad at people who don't top post.

But there's a consensus, and while not terribly solid, it's
established here that trimming and bottom posting are
preferred.
To keep flying in the face of that is eccentric, egocentric,
or just plain Dutch (with a wink to Bart).