O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

In article , PeterN
wrote:

if you print it, then the ppi is determined by the number of pixels /
size of print. if you don't print it, then there is no ppi because
there are no inches.

What does print have to do with anything. Stop twisting.

i'm not twisting a thing. ppi is only relevant when printing. if you're
not printing, it's meaningless.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Bracketing is only for wimps who are afraid of technology, and are
unsure of what they are doing.
Next thing you know they will have focus bracketing.

you're late to the party. focus bracketing exists already.

I say let the
camera take only "good" pictures. Let the engineers at the camera
company determine what is art. i will need only one camera, with a
superzoom. If it doesn't like where I point it, the shutter will not work.

you obviously don't understand a thing about the technology.

However, since technology sometimes fails, we can back up the selection
with software that filters out any imstakes the camera makes. Thus I
will only get to look at the really good pictures. That system will give
me more time to post in these newsgroups, whether or not I know what I
am talking about. Good Lord, I gan type even faster if I don't use
capitals letters.

maybe you should slow down and think before spouting, for a change.

On 8/13/2013 3:55 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Yes. What a fascinating world.

Indeed.

We have a camera that takes only good and interesting pictures

According to whom? Please quote.

and then we have an app that decides which images are good and
interesting.

What app? According to what source? Please quote.

Stop making things up, Peter. Stop exaggerating, it only weakens your
position in a thread. When you make **** up, no one believes you.


There exists cameras that marks images as rejects based on common
mistakes. It does not only take good and interesting pictures. No one
has claimed it takes only good and interesting pictures.

There are apps that have the ability to analyze images for common
mistakes (focus blur, closed eyes) and thus do some of your work for
you. No one said it decides anything. No one said it decides which
images are good and which are interesting. Those are your words.


Damn. I almost ruined my keyboard spitting out my morning coffee.
I strongly suggest you get yourself one of these. However, I don't know
how well they translate from English into Swedish.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.awolfamongwolves.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/sarcasmMeter-1266531711.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.awolfamongwolves.com/2013/05/ricky-rubio-is-going-all-out-to-woo-big-free-agents/&h=383&w=510&sz=21&tbnid=UlgDLwXXvAjpqM:&tbnh=102& tbnw=136&zoom=1&usg=__EAb9G8vBMTr71tlm3_dE2bUSNlI= &docid=-kM2qQzrSoOLgM&sa=X&ei=2kEKUu2NGse34APpwoHIDQ&ved=0 CC4Q9QEwAA&dur=6430

http://tinyurl.com/n3nmzxf


--
PeterN
In response to someone who thniks Guliver was a historical person.

On 8/13/2013 8:44 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


what if it works properly and really does filter out the crap?

I will be astonished.

the early users of autofocus, autoexposure and many other features were
astonished when they saw that the automation did as good or better than
they did.

Exposure, focus etc are the result of a physical measurement. Whether
or not an image is crap is not determined by measurement but often by
subjective judgement. I don't see how you can automate that.

if you want over- or underexposed photos or out of focus photos, don't
use something that filters them.


IOW it would filter out images like this. And tell you which ones work.

http://deniseippolito.com/blurs/



--
PeterN

On 8/13/2013 10:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-08-13 07:08:22 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/12/2013 11:08 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip


Most of us have cameras with "features" we don't use, but there's
nothing wrong about not using them. I might buy a camera with "best
shot", but I won't buy a camera just to get "best shot". I would
rather have, say, "bracketing".



Bracketing is only for wimps who are afraid of technology, and are
unsure of what they are doing.
Next thing you know they will have focus bracketing.

They do.



Your sarcasm meter needs a tune up ;-)

--
PeterN

On 8/13/2013 10:39 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:19:19 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-13 07:08:22 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/12/2013 11:08 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip


Most of us have cameras with "features" we don't use, but there's
nothing wrong about not using them. I might buy a camera with "best
shot", but I won't buy a camera just to get "best shot". I would
rather have, say, "bracketing".



Bracketing is only for wimps who are afraid of technology, and are
unsure of what they are doing.
Next thing you know they will have focus bracketing.

They do.

Re-install your irony/sarcasm detector. Like Sandman's killfile, it
stopped working.



Jinx

--
PeterN

On 8/13/2013 10:40 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:21:32 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Bracketing is only for wimps who are afraid of technology, and are
unsure of what they are doing.
Next thing you know they will have focus bracketing.

you're late to the party. focus bracketing exists already.

Another irony/sarcasm detector on the blink.

Don't think he owns one.




I say let the
camera take only "good" pictures. Let the engineers at the camera
company determine what is art. i will need only one camera, with a
superzoom. If it doesn't like where I point it, the shutter will not work.

you obviously don't understand a thing about the technology.

However, since technology sometimes fails, we can back up the selection
with software that filters out any imstakes the camera makes. Thus I
will only get to look at the really good pictures. That system will give
me more time to post in these newsgroups, whether or not I know what I
am talking about. Good Lord, I gan type even faster if I don't use
capitals letters.

maybe you should slow down and think before spouting, for a change.


--
PeterN

On 8/13/2013 10:21 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

if you print it, then the ppi is determined by the number of pixels /
size of print. if you don't print it, then there is no ppi because
there are no inches.

What does print have to do with anything. Stop twisting.

i'm not twisting a thing. ppi is only relevant when printing. if you're
not printing, it's meaningless.


Are you saying that an image that is 1200 x 1200 with 45 ppi will show
exactly the same as an an image that is 1200 x 1200 with 96 ppi on a
screen that is capable of displaying 96 ppi?

I really want to know.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Yes. What a fascinating world.

Indeed.

We have a camera that takes only good and interesting pictures

According to whom? Please quote.

and then we have an app that decides which images are good and
interesting.

What app? According to what source? Please quote.

Stop making things up, Peter. Stop exaggerating, it only weakens your
position in a thread. When you make **** up, no one believes you.


There exists cameras that marks images as rejects based on common
mistakes. It does not only take good and interesting pictures. No one
has claimed it takes only good and interesting pictures.

There are apps that have the ability to analyze images for common
mistakes (focus blur, closed eyes) and thus do some of your work for
you. No one said it decides anything. No one said it decides which
images are good and which are interesting. Those are your words.

Damn. I almost ruined my keyboard spitting out my morning coffee.
I strongly suggest you get yourself one of these. However, I don't know
how well they translate from English into Swedish.

I know, I know, your personal attacks on nospam are all just "jokes" and
"sarcasm" according to some funny dictionary unknown to the rest of the
world.

It's quite transparent, Peter, when you choose a sarcastic reply rather
than a factual one. That's the entire point.

Look up an irony meter when you're at it.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article 2013081305201886357-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So you might say it was my way of attempting to put a stop to the
dpi/ppi debate without getting too personal.

Fair enough


--
Sandman[.net]