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 » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #781  
Old December 7th 07, 11:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Matthew Winn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:48:34 -0600, AndrewR
wrote:

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.


Rubbish. The separation of epsilon Lyrae is 208", a distance that is
easily resolved with the naked eye. The only way 90% of them could
fail to resolve it is if the sky was bright or the seeing was poor.
You're the first person I've ever heard try to claim that human sight
has so poor a resolution that it can't resolve two bright points on
a dark field at a separation of over 200', and I suspect (I'm damned
sure, in fact) that you started from the EVF resolution you wanted
and then made up figures to suit.

You can't even get your numbers straight. You gave the separation of
the two pairs as 2.6 seconds. That's actually the separation of the
brighter of the pairs. The two pairs are separated by nearly 3.5
minutes. In good atmospheric conditions anyone with normal eyesight
can separate them. I'd give it a try myself right now but Lyra's too
close to the horizon.

You also claimed "The absolute highest level of detail perceivable by
any human is no smaller than 28 seconds of arc". I assume that by "no
smaller than" you mean "nearly twice as large as", because the maximum
resolution of the eye is about 37 cycles per degree, corresponding to
a minimum resolvable size at 5% contrast of 0.8 minutes.

Keep trying, though. You're funny when you start swearing at people.
Nobody would bother replying to you if you weren't.

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
  #782  
Old December 8th 07, 03:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,361
Default 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.....


  #783  
Old December 8th 07, 08:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr, rec.photo.misc
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Dec 7, 4:52 pm, "William Graham" wrote:
"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.....


Let's thaw out his head and see what it can do.

Scott
  #784  
Old December 8th 07, 11:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Chris Malcolm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,142
Default 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/]

  #785  
Old December 8th 07, 12:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr, rec.photo.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,311
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Dec 8, 12:48 am, AndrewR wrote:
View a 1024x768 display from a distance that provides a TRUE
30-40 degree FOV only. Don't be so ****ingly stupid.


I don't need to repeat what four others have now pointed out about
your errors, Mr Magoo.

But I will repeat - this idiocy is a very useful, telling reflection
of your complete incompetence and ridiculously low standards.

It's good to see it only took about two weeks for your true colors to
be revealed to all. But do, oh do, keep posting these long diatribes.

It'll keep you off the streets. (O:
  #786  
Old December 8th 07, 01:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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)
  #787  
Old December 8th 07, 11:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr, rec.photo.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,311
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

OFF TOPIC

On Dec 8, 11:13 pm, AndrewR wrote:
useless idiots
****ingly stupid
****ingly useless troll
****ingly useless
The ****ingly useless trolls
totally ****ing useless wastes of flesh

.....(grin - you can almost see the spittle flying onto his screen..!)

Hey, 'AndrewR', I'm curious - is your vocabulary limitation genetic,
learned, from brain injury, or drug-induced?

Anyway, 1024x768 is good enough for Mr Magoo, and now he has shown his
ability to express himself.

An artiste extraordinaire! Oh if only we were worthy of seeing his
body of work. But under which name?

(O;
  #788  
Old December 26th 07, 06:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:12:48 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:13:19 -0900,
(Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:02:51 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

Floyd is correct. Nikon's blinking warning is extremely useful, in some
respects better than a histogram since it shows exactly which parts of the
shot are overexposed, which a histogram cannot do. For example, if the only
overexposure is on specular highlights there may be no need for
correction -- and a histogram wouldn't tell you that.

Specular highlights are actually easy to spot on a histogram as a far
brightness spike, whereas burned out highlights are a tail.

False.


You say that based on direct experience. No, wait ... you've


No, wait...

I have zero direct experience with the cheap camera that
you use, that is true. But years of experience with
multiple different cameras that use both a histogram and
a blink on over exposure LCD display.

You have zero direct experience with *any* sort of the
blink on over exposure LCD display that we are talking
about.

Guess what that leaves us with John?


An incorrect statement by you.

acknowledged zero direct experience ...
so you're guessing. And, unfortunately, wrong.


Is it necessary to be dishonest? That does tell us that
you *know* you are wrong.


Name calling concedes the point.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 




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
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? Bill Tuthill Digital Photography 1067 December 29th 07 03:46 AM
Film lenses on dslr quess who Digital Photography 4 September 22nd 06 10:07 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 03:45 PM
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR Ged Digital Photography 13 August 9th 04 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:50 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.