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 Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More on the Mirrorless Battles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 15th 18, 11:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

In article ,
wrote:

I presented EXACTLY what I did.

It's hardly my fault if someone doesn't understand exponentials.

These are forms that represents many things, where something follows
change according to some rate, either negiaive ( i.e. - radioactive
decay, leaking vessel, etc. ) or posative ( i.e. - interest earning
account, etc. ).

The DSLR / Mirrorless issue has both, and follows exponentials quite
closely. I simply presented the relatinships as annual percentage
rates. Round off isn't an issue here.


yes it is. both are dwarfed by smartphones, which continue to improve.

computational photography is the future, not mirror versus mirrorless.

In a nutshell, photography is more popular than it has ever been
take a look at the rise of Instagram or Snapchat, for example,
Skafisk tells PetaPixel. But literally 98.4% of the consumer cameras
sold in 2016 were built into smartphones * only 0.8% were compacts,
0.5% DSLRs, and 0.2% mirrorless.

Come back in a few years, and there won't be
a mirror to be seen anywhere.


yes there will, just not a lot of them.

film is still used even though it's not as good as digital.
  #12  
Old September 16th 18, 12:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

( neg A tive, pos I tive ... )
  #13  
Old September 16th 18, 04:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 14:18:01 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


decrease and increase of what?

Just read the first post starting this thread, dumbass.


quote it in your post for context.


THis from the guy who routinely deletes text when replying to posts
and justifies it by saying that if you want to know what was
previously there you should look up the thread.

better yet, ignore it.


Refuge of someone who's lost an argument.


nope.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #14  
Old September 16th 18, 04:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 17:34:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


quote it in your post for context.

OK, with all due respect, here it is since it's apparently needed.

The initial post related to the DSLR / Mirrorless issue,
and referenced the following site :

https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews...irrorless.html

Here there was an article, which presented among other things, an
informative graphic related to DSLR and Mirrorless usage, in some
scale from 4 to 16 million, over a 5 year period. In addition to
yearly data points, linear expressions were presented.

I expressed, that an exponential fit to the points was prefferable to
a linear fit, and presented the exponential fits, which I computed
from the graphic.


fit it however you want. it's still a roundoff error compared to
smartphones.


Swift protective change of subject.

be sure to display the image at its full resolution, not scaled to the
browser window:
https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/03/cameraproductionchart.jpg

full article:
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/lat...t-reveals-deat
h-compact-camera/
³In a nutshell, photography is more popular than it has ever been Â*
take a look at the rise of Instagram or Snapchat, for example,²
Skafisk tells PetaPixel. ³But literally 98.4% of the consumer cameras
sold in 2016 were built into smartphones Â* only 0.8% were compacts,
0.5% DSLRs, and 0.2% mirrorless.²

slrs and mirrorless *combined* are *under* 1% of cameras sold.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #15  
Old September 16th 18, 11:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


quote it in your post for context.

OK, with all due respect, here it is since it's apparently needed.

The initial post related to the DSLR / Mirrorless issue,
and referenced the following site :

https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews...irrorless.html

Here there was an article, which presented among other things, an
informative graphic related to DSLR and Mirrorless usage, in some
scale from 4 to 16 million, over a 5 year period. In addition to
yearly data points, linear expressions were presented.

I expressed, that an exponential fit to the points was prefferable to
a linear fit, and presented the exponential fits, which I computed
from the graphic.


fit it however you want. it's still a roundoff error compared to
smartphones.


Swift protective change of subject.


nope.

there is no change of subject.
  #16  
Old September 16th 18, 11:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


decrease and increase of what?

Just read the first post starting this thread, dumbass.


quote it in your post for context.


THis from the guy who routinely deletes text when replying to posts
and justifies it by saying that if you want to know what was
previously there you should look up the thread.


i *always* quote the relevant context in my replies.

i delete what is superfluous. in other words, noise.


better yet, ignore it.

Refuge of someone who's lost an argument.


nope.


like that part that you didn't snip. you didn't comment on it and there
is no need to include it. it's noise.
  #17  
Old September 16th 18, 12:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

.... Round off isn't an issue here.

yes it is.


You'll have to explain pecisely how round off figures into this.
  #18  
Old September 16th 18, 12:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

Round off generally refers to a lowering of precision, to simplify or
clarify something. Take, Pie = 3.14159..., and e = 2.71828..., might
be rounded off to 3.14 and 2.72 .
  #19  
Old September 16th 18, 03:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

Normal screen resolution is 1920 x 1080 pixcels. If an image is
produced by a sensor with the same resolution, then enough
information, as levels of red, green and blue, ranging from 0 to 255,
are obtained for each of the 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixcels, and the
image can be displayed accordingly. Now, if the number of sensor
pixcels are doubled in both dirrections, then the image is produced at
a higher resolution, and fully 4 pixcels have to be mapped into each
of the full screen display pixcels. In this case, the 4 should be
resolved into one, using some kind of round off scheme.
  #20  
Old September 16th 18, 04:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default More on the Mirrorless Battles

In article ,
wrote:

Normal screen resolution is 1920 x 1080 pixcels.


nope. that's one of *many* display resolutions available today.

If an image is
produced by a sensor with the same resolution, then enough
information, as levels of red, green and blue, ranging from 0 to 255,
are obtained for each of the 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixcels, and the
image can be displayed accordingly. Now, if the number of sensor
pixcels are doubled in both dirrections, then the image is produced at
a higher resolution, and fully 4 pixcels have to be mapped into each
of the full screen display pixcels. In this case, the 4 should be
resolved into one, using some kind of round off scheme.


what you're describing is a retina display, except that it's a lot more
complicated than simply rounding off and may not be double either.
 




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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hasselblad mirrorless MF Alfred Molon[_4_] Digital Photography 34 July 1st 16 09:51 PM
New Nikon Mirrorless - DL Eric Stevens Digital Photography 7 April 13th 16 05:31 PM
Canon mirrorless let-down (maybe) Me Digital Photography 23 July 28th 12 10:52 PM
Mirrorless, filmless. Irwell Digital Photography 9 September 16th 10 02:55 AM
Nikon to go mirrorless Neil Harrington[_5_] Digital Photography 1 July 22nd 10 05:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 PM.


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.