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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#631
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.misc.]
On 2007-12-06, Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote: On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Chris Malcolm wrote: Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it shouldn't be long in coming. You are off by a factor of 30. First off Konica Minolta claimed 0.92, not 9.2 MP. You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years for EVFs of around 3MP, Err, if the trend is from nine hundred thousand, down to three hundred thousand now it doesn't seem to be heading for three million to me. which my guess is would be good enough for at least most people. Or maybe just passable for almost several people? My guess is it isn't even on the marketroids' 'roadmaps' so technological feasibility is neither here nor there. -- Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather? - Billy Bragg |
#632
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote:
On Dec 6, 4:42 am, AndrewR wrote: On 6 Dec 2007 09:18:20 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote: In rec.photo.digital.zlr Scott W wrote: On Dec 5, 12:51 am, Chris Malcolm wrote: Why not? Konica Minolta's Dimage A2 had a 9.2MP EVF in 2004. If there isn't already a higher resolution EVF than that in the marketplace it shouldn't be long in coming. You are off by a factor of 30. First off Konica Minolta claimed 0.92, not 9.2 MP. My typo. Still 0.92 would be very impressive, if it were true, but they counted the red green and blue pixels separately, in reality it was a vga display with 640x480 pixels. You're right. It seems to be the case that around 0.3MP is at the moment a good EVF resolution. If the historical rates of progress in the technology continue to apply, and I see no reason why they shouldn't, we shouldn't have to wait more than a few to several years for EVFs of around 3MP, which my guess is would be good enough for at least most people. Why all this stupid speculation and argument? Just do the math. (And here they keep wanting to believe how bright they are, yeah, right.) The resolution doesn't have to be any higher than human perception. The absolute highest level of detail perceivable by any human is no smaller than 28 seconds of arc. Most people have a hard time trying to discern details with 1 minute of arc. Just ask any of them to split Epsilon Lyrae (the famous double-double star) with their eyes alone. 2.6 seconds separation for the 2 binary-pairs. They can't do it. It was even used as an eyesight test for Roman military. If they couldn't see it as 2 stars they were rejected. Do the math on the EVF display angle of view wanted and then you know what pixel resolution is needed. 30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40 degree FOV (let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision) with 2.6 seconds of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average person's perception. Quite frankly I find even that isn't necessary. I have been using a 123k pixel display (30 degree FOV) for over 5 years, using the finely pixelated image to a great advantage. Using it as a full area micro-prism screen I am able to focus faster and quicker with the lower resolution than I could if it was higher resolution. Until you actually learn to use them properly you're all talking out of your asses. The answer does not lie in resolution alone. But you'll never know this because the only cameras that any of you have ever used are virtual cameras to go along with your useless virtual lives and useless virtual advice.- Hide quoted text - Your number should seem a bit odd with even a little thought. My computer monitor is 1280 x 1024 and yet I can easily see the pixels on the screen, even standing a fair bit back. And yet you believe that 1024 x 768 is "beyond the average person's perception"? Exactly what I was thinking. With an approx 30 degree field of view of my 1280x1024 monitor as I sit typing here I can see the individual pixels. I also note that the .25MP EVF of my R1 can do a double size zoom image jump when using manual focus to aid focussing. Strange that engineers would bother putting in a facility which is (according to Scott) beyond the biophysical capability of human vision to exploit. -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
#633
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Chris Malcolm" wrote: On Dec 6, 4:42 am, AndrewR wrote: 30 to 40 degrees is about the average FOV in any viewfinder. For a 40 degree FOV (let's pick a larger display just to appease those with poor vision) with 2.6 seconds of arc detail, a 1024x768 (786k) display would be beyond the average person's perception. Quite frankly I find even that isn't necessary. I have been using a 123k pixel display (30 degree FOV) for over 5 years, using the finely pixelated image to a great advantage. Using it as a full area micro-prism screen I am able to focus faster and quicker with the lower resolution than I could if it was higher resolution. [ScottW's sensible stuff snipped] With an approx 30 degree field of view of my 1280x1024 monitor as I sit typing here I can see the individual pixels. I also note that the .25MP EVF of my R1 can do a double size zoom image jump when using manual focus to aid focussing. Strange that engineers would bother putting in a facility which is (according to Scott) beyond the biophysical capability of human vision to exploit. That wasn't ScottW, that was AndrewR who wrote that. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#634
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
AndrewR wrote:
What ****ingly useless, inexperienced, misinformation-spewing, and amazingly ignorant trolls. Mirror, mirror. Or, in language of 5th graders, "I know you are, but what are we?" fu set. -- lsmft |
#635
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Scott W" wrote in message news:0ed994cd-6434-4b0f-8b76- An average person can resolve 0.7 line pairs per minute. It takes at least 2 pixels to make a line pair so the minimum you would need to match the human eye is 1.4 pixels per minute. But 2 pixels/min is the minimum, because of how the phasing occurs you really would like to have about 1.5 times that amount, or about 2.1 pixels minute. I wonder what Ted William's eyes could resolve? - Here is an excerpt from his bio: "Williams, doctors said, could see at 20 feet what people with normal eyesight see from 10. Armed forces ophthalmologists said his eyesight was so keen it was a one-in-100,000 proposition. " I knew a guy in the Navy that could see the mast of ships peeking out over the horizon when the rest of the ship was below it. They kept that poor slob on the bridge 24-7.......He would say, "There's a ship over there, sir" and you would look through these huge 20x binoculars, and see the tip of a mast bobbing up and down, "over there". His name was Hooper, and he was from San Francisco.....He was the only person I ever knew that could sleep standing up leaning against a post..... |
#636
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In rec.photo.digital.zlr AndrewR wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 02:32:06 -0800 (PST), wrote: A clue for all the useless idiots, just like this one. Get your nose off of your monitor with those pop-bottle-bottom nerd glasses of yours with +10 diopter correction in them. View a 1024x768 display from a distance that provides a TRUE 30-40 degree FOV only. Don't be so ****ingly stupid. Do the math on a 17" monitor with a width of 13+" on how far away you have to view it. I hope it doesn't shock you too much to discover that some of us are intelligent enough to have done that already. It's very simple school trig which people who are used to it can do in their heads. As for the moron that says 2.3' of arc are easily discerned by most humans, there's another ****ingly useless troll revealing himself. I used to host astronomer's events and would often ask the general public how many stars they could see in Epsilon Lyrae. If lucky maybe 10% of them would raise their hands on being able to see 2 stars there. What ****ingly useless, inexperienced, misinformation-spewing, and amazingly ignorant trolls. You don't have much experience with discussing things, do you? Let me just ask you one question. Think of those people in your life who were educational beacons, people who knew much more than you did. How many of those people were more foul mouthed than you are when they came across someone who didn't know something that they did? It's my own experience that people who swear a lot are either ignorant or mentally ill. I just wondered if that was your experience too. -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
#637
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.zlr AndrewR wrote: What ****ingly useless, inexperienced, misinformation-spewing, and amazingly ignorant trolls. You don't have much experience with discussing things, do you? Let me just ask you one question. Think of those people in your life who were educational beacons, people who knew much more than you did. How many of those people were more foul mouthed than you are when they came across someone who didn't know something that they did? Bad question I'm afraid! I'd be willing to bet that one of the major reasons he knows so little and is so rude is that his experience growing up *is* what you ask above. The adults in his life probably knew little and were abusive and foul mouthed when somebody else did. For example, I'm always amused when I hear parents berating their teenager children as assholes... because invariably the kids are! They are just like their parents... It's my own experience that people who swear a lot are either ignorant or mentally ill. I just wondered if that was your experience too. I don't know about that... I don't tend to swear much when I write, but my vocal skills include the common use of useful selection of cuss words. However, there is a time and a place, too. I recall once, perhaps 15 years ago, when a collegue at work did something that I was *extremely* annoyed at, and I spent about 5 minutes explaining in precise detail what was wrong with his actions. This was witnessed by a lady who was somewhat younger (30's), who definitely deferred to both of us as "older men". Her eyes just about popped out of her head at the whole thing, because she had never seen me even come close to giving anyone a dressing down before. Her most poignant observation? "When you're mad, you *don't* cuss at all!" I chuckled and agreed that she would now forever more know how to figure out when I was putting someone on, or really serious. If I'm cussing, you're safe, it's all in fun. No swearing... you'd best listen real careful, your life is in danger! :-) But, that is impossible to reproduce with written language. It also helps that I live in Alaska, where the women cuss more than the men anyway. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Bill Tuthill | Digital Photography | 1067 | December 29th 07 02:46 AM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 790 | December 26th 07 05:40 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 02:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |