O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed
and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos
that aren't.

Then they will miss some damn good photographs.

not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the
limits. they want well exposed and in focus images.

That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images
out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are
at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that
are less than well exposed or focussed.

i said all along you can not use it.

it's not judging a photo on composition. it just filters out the
mistakes. everyone has some of those.

They are not always mistakes.

then don't delete them.

learn how to properly use such a tool and when to use it, rather than
dismiss it outright without even considering how it could be useful.

By all accounts the tool deletes what it regards as less than perfect
photographs before the photographer has a chance form an opinion of
their own.

it doesn't have to delete them. it can flag them for further review.

do you not realize that these types of tools can have user selectable
options??

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

They are built into the
hardware. So if the native display pitch of your monitor is 96 ppi
that's all it will ever display. It will ignore instructions to
display at (say) 72dpi simply because it can't do that. That's why if
the file doesn't change the image size displayed on the screen remains
constant as it is dependent only on the number of pixels to be
displayed.

which is why some computers are no longer using pixels for imaging.
they're using points, which may be more than one pixel. this is because
individual pixels can no longer be seen.

Then why have smaller pixels?

because then pixels are no longer a limitation.

you can see pixelization on non-retina displays. you *can't* on a
retina display. the difference is very noticeable, which is why
companies are now making them.

It is often possible to set up your monitor to display at a different
resolution from the native pitch but it will be still using its native
(say) 96 ppi. What it will be doing is resampling your image on the
fly with a probably cheap and nasty (but fast) algorithm. This will
result in the displayed image being inferior to the one you would see
if it was displayed at the native resolution.

not necessarily.

try a retina display sometime.

I bet it's possible to resample an image in a fashion which would make
it appear to its disadvantage on a Retina display.

sure, if you want to game the system and intentionally display crap, go
for it.

Nevertheless I
accept that in most cases most people would be hard put to notice the
difference.

noticing the difference between retina & non-retina displays is not
that hard, although many people don't notice it right away. they get a
retina display and don't see much of a difference, then they go back to
their older display and realize how crappy it really was.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Exactly

"sarcasm in lieu of a coherent argument "

I wasn't sarcastic. Nor was I part in the argument you had with nospam.

Which argument was that as I wasn't aware of it.

The one you were in reference to when you quoted me above.

I just jumped in with a pejorative against your abysmal spelling, which
means that reading your posts is more like decoding hieroglyphs than
reading a coherent line of thinking.

For you maybe but most people, well humans anyway, have abilities that mean
they can decode such things, obviously beyond you it seems.

Very few can decode hieroglyphs, Tipsy Dave.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:55:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed
and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos
that aren't.

Then they will miss some damn good photographs.

not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the
limits. they want well exposed and in focus images.

That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images
out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are
at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that
are less than well exposed or focussed.

i said all along you can not use it.

Of course I can't. My camera doesn't have that capability.

Even if the camera had that capability, and I could use it, I would
choose not to do so.

it's not judging a photo on composition. it just filters out the
mistakes. everyone has some of those.

They are not always mistakes.

then don't delete them.

learn how to properly use such a tool and when to use it, rather than
dismiss it outright without even considering how it could be useful.

By all accounts the tool deletes what it regards as less than perfect
photographs before the photographer has a chance form an opinion of
their own.

it doesn't have to delete them. it can flag them for further review.

do you not realize that these types of tools can have user selectable
options??
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:55:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

They are built into the
hardware. So if the native display pitch of your monitor is 96 ppi
that's all it will ever display. It will ignore instructions to
display at (say) 72dpi simply because it can't do that. That's why if
the file doesn't change the image size displayed on the screen remains
constant as it is dependent only on the number of pixels to be
displayed.

which is why some computers are no longer using pixels for imaging.
they're using points, which may be more than one pixel. this is because
individual pixels can no longer be seen.

Then why have smaller pixels?

because then pixels are no longer a limitation.

you can see pixelization on non-retina displays. you *can't* on a
retina display. the difference is very noticeable, which is why
companies are now making them.

I can see pixels on my screen if I get up real close but it's not
meant to be viewed that way. Similarly I can see pixels on my iPad if
I use a magnifying glass. But it's not meant to be used that way
either.

It is often possible to set up your monitor to display at a different
resolution from the native pitch but it will be still using its native
(say) 96 ppi. What it will be doing is resampling your image on the
fly with a probably cheap and nasty (but fast) algorithm. This will
result in the displayed image being inferior to the one you would see
if it was displayed at the native resolution.

not necessarily.

try a retina display sometime.

I bet it's possible to resample an image in a fashion which would make
it appear to its disadvantage on a Retina display.

sure, if you want to game the system and intentionally display crap, go
for it.

Whatever. Gaming or not, you have accepted my point.

Nevertheless I
accept that in most cases most people would be hard put to notice the
difference.

noticing the difference between retina & non-retina displays is not
that hard, although many people don't notice it right away. they get a
retina display and don't see much of a difference, then they go back to
their older display and realize how crappy it really was.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:28:26 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

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

Actually the quoted figure of 72ppi is relevant to the older Apple
displays. (It may still be relevant but I don't know that). The
Microsoft standard was 1/3 greater - 96dpi - for the usual Microsoft
reasons.

it's was never relevant.

It is true that the original Macintosh had a 72 ppi screen, but it isn't
true that the "Microsoft standard" was 96 ppi, because Microsoft sold no
displays (as far as I know.

True, but they displayed their output on screens sold by other people.
Micosoft designed their standard fonts around a hypothetical screen of
96ppi. I believe they may have now gone to 120ppi but I don't really
know.

A 17" screen with the resolution of 1280x1024 has a ppi of 96, but back
when the 72/96 ppi myth started, there were no such high resolution
screen, and when they were common, the original Macinosh was just a
memory and the screens were as common for Macs as for PCs.

You need to go down to a 13" screen at 1024x768 to get 96ppi again, but
13" desktop screens weren't very common (15" was the common step). 13"
was more for laptops, and again, when people had laptops to start such a
myth, the original Mac was again a memory.

Many older CRTs used to have a pitch of 72dpi but towards the end they
began creeping up. My present LCD has 92dpi.

that's very low.

Indeed, 92ppi is quite low. That's a 20" at 1600x900 or 24" at
1920x1080. I can't think of any other resolution that would match and be
current.

The latter.

I once wrote a PPI calculator that I just remember:

http://sandman.net/misc/ppi

That's to calculate the PPI of your screen, or any screen.

It doesn't have 24" screens.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed
and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos
that aren't.

Then they will miss some damn good photographs.

not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the
limits. they want well exposed and in focus images.

That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images
out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are
at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that
are less than well exposed or focussed.

i said all along you can not use it.

Of course I can't. My camera doesn't have that capability.

it doesn't have to be in the camera. it could run on the computer.

nikon bss is just one example of how it could be done. it's not the
only way.

Even if the camera had that capability, and I could use it, I would
choose not to do so.

that's fine. nobody said it has to always be used in all situations,
without any way to configure it to the user's preferences.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

They are built into the
hardware. So if the native display pitch of your monitor is 96 ppi
that's all it will ever display. It will ignore instructions to
display at (say) 72dpi simply because it can't do that. That's why if
the file doesn't change the image size displayed on the screen remains
constant as it is dependent only on the number of pixels to be
displayed.

which is why some computers are no longer using pixels for imaging.
they're using points, which may be more than one pixel. this is because
individual pixels can no longer be seen.

Then why have smaller pixels?

because then pixels are no longer a limitation.

you can see pixelization on non-retina displays. you *can't* on a
retina display. the difference is very noticeable, which is why
companies are now making them.

I can see pixels on my screen if I get up real close but it's not
meant to be viewed that way. Similarly I can see pixels on my iPad if
I use a magnifying glass. But it's not meant to be used that way
either.

you don't have to get real close to see pixelization on a non-retina
display. that's the point. they are much sharper.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:50:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed
and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos
that aren't.

Then they will miss some damn good photographs.

not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the
limits. they want well exposed and in focus images.

That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images
out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are
at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that
are less than well exposed or focussed.

i said all along you can not use it.

Of course I can't. My camera doesn't have that capability.

it doesn't have to be in the camera. it could run on the computer.

The original discussion was about an 'in camera' function.

nikon bss is just one example of how it could be done. it's not the
only way.

Even if the camera had that capability, and I could use it, I would
choose not to do so.

that's fine. nobody said it has to always be used in all situations,
without any way to configure it to the user's preferences.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:50:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

They are built into the
hardware. So if the native display pitch of your monitor is 96 ppi
that's all it will ever display. It will ignore instructions to
display at (say) 72dpi simply because it can't do that. That's why if
the file doesn't change the image size displayed on the screen remains
constant as it is dependent only on the number of pixels to be
displayed.

which is why some computers are no longer using pixels for imaging.
they're using points, which may be more than one pixel. this is because
individual pixels can no longer be seen.

Then why have smaller pixels?

because then pixels are no longer a limitation.

you can see pixelization on non-retina displays. you *can't* on a
retina display. the difference is very noticeable, which is why
companies are now making them.

I can see pixels on my screen if I get up real close but it's not
meant to be viewed that way. Similarly I can see pixels on my iPad if
I use a magnifying glass. But it's not meant to be used that way
either.

you don't have to get real close to see pixelization on a non-retina
display. that's the point. they are much sharper.

You must have better eyes than me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens