A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital ZLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #631  
Old December 6th 07, 07:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.misc.]
On 2007-12-06, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Chris Malcolm wrote:


Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there
isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it
shouldn't be long in coming.


You are off by a factor of 30.


First off Konica Minolta claimed 0.92, not 9.2 MP.


You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the
moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in
the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years
for EVFs of around 3MP,


Err, if the trend is from nine hundred thousand, down to three hundred
thousand now it doesn't seem to be heading for three million to me.

which my guess is would be good enough for
at least most people.


Or maybe just passable for almost several people?

My guess is it isn't even on the marketroids' 'roadmaps' so technological
feasibility is neither here nor there.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
  #632  
Old December 7th 07, 02:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Chris Malcolm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,142
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
On Dec 6, 4:42 am, AndrewR wrote:
On 6 Dec 2007 09:18:20 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Chris Malcolm wrote:


Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there
isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it
shouldn't be long in coming.


You are off by a factor of 30.


First off Konica Minolta claimed 0.92, not 9.2 MP.


My typo.


Still 0.92 would be very impressive, if it were true, but they counted
the red green and blue pixels separately, in reality it was a vga
display with 640x480 pixels.


You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the
moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in
the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years
for EVFs of around 3MP, which my guess is would be good enough for
at least most people.


Why all this stupid speculation and argument? Just do the math. (And here they
keep wanting to believe how bright they are, yeah, right.) The resolution
doesn't have to be any higher than human perception. The absolute highest level
of detail perceivable by any human is no smaller than 28 seconds of arc. Most
people have a hard time trying to discern details with 1 minute of arc. Just ask
any of them to split Epsilon Lyrae (the famous double-double star) with their
eyes alone. 2.6 seconds separation for the 2 binary-pairs. They can't do it. It
was even used as an eyesight test for Roman military. If they couldn't see it as
2 stars they were rejected. Do the math on the EVF display angle of view wanted
and then you know what pixel resolution is needed.

30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40 degree FOV
(let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision) with 2.6
seconds of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average
person's perception. Quite frankly I find even that isn't necessary. I have been
using a 123k pixel display (30 degree FOV) for over 5 years, using the finely
pixelated image to a great advantage. Using it as a full area micro-prism screen
I am able to focus faster and quicker with the lower resolution than I could if
it was higher resolution.

Until you actually learn to use them properly you're all talking out of your
asses. The answer does not lie in resolution alone. But you'll never know this
because the only cameras that any of you have ever used are virtual cameras to
go along with your useless virtual lives and useless virtual advice.- Hide quoted text -


Your number should seem a bit odd with even a little thought.


My computer monitor is 1280 x 1024 and yet I can easily see the pixels
on the screen, even standing a fair bit back. And yet you believe
that 1024 x 768 is "beyond the average person's perception"?


Exactly what I was thinking. With an approx 30 degree field of view of
my 1280x1024 monitor as I sit typing here I can see the individual
pixels. I also note that the .25MP EVF of my R1 can do a double size
zoom image jump when using manual focus to aid focussing. Strange that
engineers would bother putting in a facility which is (according to
Scott) beyond the biophysical capability of human vision to exploit.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  #633  
Old December 7th 07, 02:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?


"Chris Malcolm" wrote:

On Dec 6, 4:42 am, AndrewR wrote:

30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40
degree FOV
(let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision)
with 2.6
seconds of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the
average
person's perception. Quite frankly I find even that isn't necessary. I
have been
using a 123k pixel display (30 degree FOV) for over 5 years, using the
finely
pixelated image to a great advantage. Using it as a full area
micro-prism screen
I am able to focus faster and quicker with the lower resolution than I
could if
it was higher resolution.


[ScottW's sensible stuff snipped]

With an approx 30 degree field of view of
my 1280x1024 monitor as I sit typing here I can see the individual
pixels. I also note that the .25MP EVF of my R1 can do a double size
zoom image jump when using manual focus to aid focussing. Strange that
engineers would bother putting in a facility which is (according to
Scott) beyond the biophysical capability of human vision to exploit.


That wasn't ScottW, that was AndrewR who wrote that.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #634  
Old December 7th 07, 05:50 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

AndrewR wrote:

What ****ingly useless, inexperienced, misinformation-spewing, and amazingly
ignorant trolls.


Mirror, mirror.

Or, in language of 5th graders, "I know you are, but what are we?"
fu set.
--
lsmft
  #635  
Old December 8th 07, 03:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,361
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?


"Scott W" wrote in message
news:0ed994cd-6434-4b0f-8b76-

An average person can resolve 0.7 line pairs per minute.
It takes at least 2 pixels to make a line pair so the minimum you
would need to match the human eye is 1.4 pixels per minute. But 2
pixels/min is the minimum, because of how the phasing occurs you
really would like to have about 1.5 times that amount, or about 2.1
pixels minute.

I wonder what Ted William's eyes could resolve? - Here is an excerpt from
his bio:

"Williams, doctors said, could see at 20 feet what people with normal
eyesight see from 10. Armed forces ophthalmologists said his eyesight was so
keen it was a one-in-100,000 proposition. "

I knew a guy in the Navy that could see the mast of ships peeking out over
the horizon when the rest of the ship was below it. They kept that poor slob
on the bridge 24-7.......He would say, "There's a ship over there, sir" and
you would look through these huge 20x binoculars, and see the tip of a mast
bobbing up and down, "over there". His name was Hooper, and he was from San
Francisco.....He was the only person I ever knew that could sleep standing
up leaning against a post.....


  #636  
Old December 8th 07, 11:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Chris Malcolm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,142
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

In rec.photo.digital.zlr AndrewR wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 02:32:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:


A clue for all the useless idiots, just like this one. Get your nose off of your
monitor with those pop-bottle-bottom nerd glasses of yours with +10 diopter
correction in them. View a 1024x768 display from a distance that provides a TRUE
30-40 degree FOV only. Don't be so ****ingly stupid. Do the math on a 17"
monitor with a width of 13+" on how far away you have to view it.


I hope it doesn't shock you too much to discover that some of us are
intelligent enough to have done that already. It's very simple school
trig which people who are used to it can do in their heads.

As for the moron that says 2.3' of arc are easily discerned by most humans,
there's another ****ingly useless troll revealing himself. I used to host
astronomer's events and would often ask the general public how many stars they
could see in Epsilon Lyrae. If lucky maybe 10% of them would raise their hands
on being able to see 2 stars there.


What ****ingly useless, inexperienced, misinformation-spewing, and amazingly
ignorant trolls.


You don't have much experience with discussing things, do you?

Let me just ask you one question. Think of those people in your life
who were educational beacons, people who knew much more than you
did. How many of those people were more foul mouthed than you are when
they came across someone who didn't know something that they did?

It's my own experience that people who swear a lot are either ignorant
or mentally ill. I just wondered if that was your experience too.

--
Chris Malcolm
DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  #637  
Old December 8th 07, 01:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.zlr AndrewR wrote:

What ****ingly useless, inexperienced, misinformation-spewing, and amazingly
ignorant trolls.


You don't have much experience with discussing things, do you?

Let me just ask you one question. Think of those people in your life
who were educational beacons, people who knew much more than you
did. How many of those people were more foul mouthed than you are when
they came across someone who didn't know something that they did?


Bad question I'm afraid! I'd be willing to bet that one
of the major reasons he knows so little and is so rude
is that his experience growing up *is* what you ask
above. The adults in his life probably knew little and
were abusive and foul mouthed when somebody else did.

For example, I'm always amused when I hear parents
berating their teenager children as assholes... because
invariably the kids are! They are just like their
parents...

It's my own experience that people who swear a lot are either ignorant
or mentally ill. I just wondered if that was your experience too.


I don't know about that... I don't tend to swear much
when I write, but my vocal skills include the common use
of useful selection of cuss words. However, there is a
time and a place, too.

I recall once, perhaps 15 years ago, when a collegue at
work did something that I was *extremely* annoyed at,
and I spent about 5 minutes explaining in precise detail
what was wrong with his actions. This was witnessed by
a lady who was somewhat younger (30's), who definitely
deferred to both of us as "older men". Her eyes just
about popped out of her head at the whole thing, because
she had never seen me even come close to giving anyone a
dressing down before.

Her most poignant observation? "When you're mad, you
*don't* cuss at all!" I chuckled and agreed that she
would now forever more know how to figure out when I was
putting someone on, or really serious. If I'm cussing,
you're safe, it's all in fun. No swearing... you'd
best listen real careful, your life is in danger! :-)

But, that is impossible to reproduce with written
language. It also helps that I live in Alaska, where
the women cuss more than the men anyway.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #638  
Old December 26th 07, 06:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:12:48 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:13:19 -0900,
(Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:02:51 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

Floyd is correct. Nikon's blinking warning is extremely useful, in some
respects better than a histogram since it shows exactly which parts of the
shot are overexposed, which a histogram cannot do. For example, if the only
overexposure is on specular highlights there may be no need for
correction -- and a histogram wouldn't tell you that.

Specular highlights are actually easy to spot on a histogram as a far
brightness spike, whereas burned out highlights are a tail.

False.


You say that based on direct experience. No, wait ... you've


No, wait...

I have zero direct experience with the cheap camera that
you use, that is true. But years of experience with
multiple different cameras that use both a histogram and
a blink on over exposure LCD display.

You have zero direct experience with *any* sort of the
blink on over exposure LCD display that we are talking
about.

Guess what that leaves us with John?


An incorrect statement by you.

acknowledged zero direct experience ...
so you're guessing. And, unfortunately, wrong.


Is it necessary to be dishonest? That does tell us that
you *know* you are wrong.


Name calling concedes the point.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? Bill Tuthill Digital Photography 1067 December 29th 07 03:46 AM
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? Helmsman3 35mm Photo Equipment 790 December 26th 07 06:40 PM
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR Jens Mander Digital Photography 0 August 13th 06 11:06 PM
Film lens on DSLR? [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 9 January 3rd 05 03:45 PM
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR Ged Digital Photography 13 August 9th 04 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.