8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

Brian C. Baird wrote:

I think you're grasping at straws.

I think you're on a crusade to display
your inability to discuss technical issues
in a cogent manner. This is, of course,
on of the perqs of Usenet.

Alan Browne wrote:
McLeod wrote:

Calgary, Alberta.


Where the men are men and the sheep are nervous.

no need to be nervous if they are white sheep!

on of the perqs
~~~ s.b.
one of the perqs

on of the perks
~~~ s.b.
one of the perqs (or "perks", if you insist,
but I like this shortened form of "perquisites")

Sorry for the multiple corrections.
OE suddenly started doing something
I've not seen before, substituting the
"replay all" routine for "reply group"
and I was receiving "File not sent"
errors since the mail to by spamblocked
email return addy were bounced. I didn't
realize what was happening, kept rewriting
the correction and resending.

Either that or, as many of you have said
already, I am a puswit. Could be.
Maybe you have a point. ;-)

"replay all"
~~~~
"reply all"

I'm going to bed.

mickey dunston wrote:
Brian C. Baird wrote:


I just hope you don't treat 120.0000 inches
divided by 2.0000 inches as 60.0000 inches...


Another display of vast ignorance. Trailing zeroes
are never counted as significant digits. Duh!

They most certainly are if they're to the right of the decimal
point, as any high school or college chemistry text should tell
you. They're even significant to the left of the decimal point
if the decimal point is expressly indicated. The number "1200."
has four significant digits, while "1200" is a form which should
be avoided since it's technically ambiguous; it could have two,
three, or four significant digits, though two is often what is
assumed.

As for the division problem above, I come up with an answer
of 60.000 (unitless, the inches cancel out) if I use what I
recall as the basic rules of thumb for sig. figs.

BJJB

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
:

the fact is the world is changing to digital imaging.
More and more stores will scan film and print on a digital machine,
or print direct from digital files. It is becoming rarer to find
wet chemistry printing services. Publications are moving to
digital images and digital processes.

This is a reflection of three primary things: skill, cost, and time.
I might point out, neither of these reflect any degree of quality.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
:

You can argue arcane numbers all you want, but SHOW ME THE IMAGES.

So basically, you want to hide behind qualitative gobbeldigook instead of
making repeatable, quantifiable judgements.
That's not very scientific at all.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Mickey, before vanishing, I suggest you read Brian's post a little
more carefully and try to let it sink in.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Even on one point alone, the one of
common units - in the initial example, Jon Pike changed the units by a
factor of 10..

The ONLY time 2 digit-after-decimal precision is worthwhile is not
only with common units, but also when all the ratios and manipulations
are of a similar magnitude.

And as for that 25.4 vs .3937 example - you are NOT comparing commun
units again!, and by definition, the 25.4 is EXACT - there is no need
for any extra zeros to be included. However, if you were specifiying
the dimensions of a precise object, you would either have to add the
required number of zeroes, or a tolerance. Otherwise, the engineer
who has to follow your instructions should come to you asking for more
information.

To a REAL engineer who doesn't make assumptions:
- 25.4mm means anything above 25.35mm and below 25.45mm.

- 0.3937" means anything above 0.39365" (9.9987mm) and below 0.39375"
(10.001mm)


Which is the more accurate, Mickey?

(O;