O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

dunno but pretty much everyone who uses a retina display notices a
difference, especially when they go back to the older non-retina
display.

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.

no it wasn't.

i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only
one.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -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.

no it wasn't.

i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only
one.

True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and
so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making
specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera
before the photographer had even seen them?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

dunno but pretty much everyone who uses a retina display notices a
difference, especially when they go back to the older non-retina
display.

I go from an iPad to a matte 24" colour calibrated 1920 x 1200. Apart
from PPI there are too many other differences to enable me to select
one to explain why the two look different.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-08-14 19:00:46 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -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.

no it wasn't.

i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only
one.

True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and
so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making
specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera
before the photographer had even seen them?

I did.
My Nikon CP-5700 had a "best shot selector" (BSS) feature. With BSS on
the camera takes pictures as long as the shutter-release button is held
down, to a maximum of 10. The sharpest of these 10 (highest level of
detail) is saved to the memory card. Flash is turned off, and focus,
exposure, and white balance is determined by the first shot in the
series. So the shooter never gets to see any of the rejected 9 shots.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:20:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-14 19:00:46 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -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.

no it wasn't.

i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only
one.

True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and
so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making
specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera
before the photographer had even seen them?

I did.
My Nikon CP-5700 had a "best shot selector" (BSS) feature. With BSS on
the camera takes pictures as long as the shutter-release button is held
down, to a maximum of 10. The sharpest of these 10 (highest level of
detail) is saved to the memory card. Flash is turned off, and focus,
exposure, and white balance is determined by the first shot in the
series. So the shooter never gets to see any of the rejected 9 shots.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-08-14 21:16:48 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:20:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-14 19:00:46 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -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.

no it wasn't.

i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only
one.

True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and
so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making
specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera
before the photographer had even seen them?

I did.
My Nikon CP-5700 had a "best shot selector" (BSS) feature. With BSS on
the camera takes pictures as long as the shutter-release button is held
down, to a maximum of 10. The sharpest of these 10 (highest level of
detail) is saved to the memory card. Flash is turned off, and focus,
exposure, and white balance is determined by the first shot in the
series. So the shooter never gets to see any of the rejected 9 shots.

Did you intend to comment, or did you just have a spontaneous click on
the send button?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:25:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-14 21:16:48 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:20:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-14 19:00:46 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:47 -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.

no it wasn't.

i gave an example of an in-camera implementation but it's not the only
one.

True. But your original reference was to an 'in camera' function and
so too was subsequent discussion. Don't remember somebody making
specific reference to the deletion of 'faulty' images by the camera
before the photographer had even seen them?

I did.
My Nikon CP-5700 had a "best shot selector" (BSS) feature. With BSS on
the camera takes pictures as long as the shutter-release button is held
down, to a maximum of 10. The sharpest of these 10 (highest level of
detail) is saved to the memory card. Flash is turned off, and focus,
exposure, and white balance is determined by the first shot in the
series. So the shooter never gets to see any of the rejected 9 shots.

Did you intend to comment, or did you just have a spontaneous click on
the send button?

It must have been the latter. I was not even aware that I had cited
your article to enable me to respond to it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Very few can decode hieroglyphs, Tipsy Dave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieroglyph

Which I don't use.
This is a text based medium such charaters can;t be genrated unless you're
refering to ASCII art.

*swosh*


--
Sandman[.net]

On 8/14/2013 5:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:37:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:


snip


nothing is perfect.

But some are desirable.



As the evening merges into night, the less than perfect woman at the
other end of the bar becomes more desirable.

Similarly with digital images.



--
PeterN