rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Technical question about image scaling - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3278b82ec9bef3b1?hl=en
* life after Windows.... - 19 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
* Neck chain or foot cord better for stability? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cd89013c50daa40f?hl=en
* Olympus: Are they F----- CRAZY? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e68eefee518f24d1?hl=en
* General Parametrics VideoShow/PictureIt-convert to MS Powerpoint - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a6afa1877cdc1a52?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Technical question about image scaling
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3278b82ec9bef3b1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 12:08 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So everybody says optical zoom is good and digital zoom is
>bad, and in general I understand why. [...]
>
>If the final jpeg size is bigger [...] small jpeg sizes
Those are two totally different animals. Bigger JPEG and smaller JPEG
have nothing to do with zoom or focal length, be it digital or optical.
JPEG supports different compression rates and bigger JPEG simply means
less compression and thus less information loss and better picture
quality.
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 12:10 pm
From: Mxsmanic
aracari writes:
> All GUIs become integrated, but I was referring to the development
> of the op/sys's underlying functional components which are
> developed first and before the GUI is grafted on to give users
> access to them. I also mentioned that some commandline arguments
> which functional components support are not always integrated into
> the GUI. iexplore.exe is one good example in WinXP which supports
> a number of parms only accessible via the commandline used to
> start the program. Many apps follow this path too.
There are still many features of NT-derived versions of Windows, especially
file and security features, that are not exposed through any provided user
interface, command-line or GUI, although they are accessible through the API.
== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 12:12 pm
From: Mxsmanic
White Spirit writes:
> Linux is a kernel; GNU/Linux is an operating system.
Combining parts to simulate an operating system isn't the same as building one
from the ground up.
> They coded it so that parts of IE are used by Windows Explorer.
Which parts?
> XP and Vista certainly do.
In what way?
> Service calls, but no useful APIs.
A service call is an API.
== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 12:43 pm
From: Chris H
In message <gqi2ni$trf$1@news.motzarella.org>, White Spirit
<wspirit@homechoice.o.uk> writes
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> No. Most operating systems will run out of the box.
>
>All operating systems run out of the box. Otherwise they cannot be
>called an operating system.
That is complete CRAP. The OS supply need a BSP and to be configured
and then built. One of the is a SIL3 RTOS
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 12:54 pm
From: erilar
In article <fa3qs415om1rd7pat217fafcj5mk8ur61s@4ax.com>,
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> William Black writes:
>
> > The days of geeks and 'power users' have long gone.
>
> There are more of them now than ever before, although they are an increasingly
> small minority of the total population of computer users as a whole.
>
> > The computer became a domestic appliance years ago.
>
> If it were a domestic appliance, it wouldn't require technical support, and it
> wouldn't crash or have bugs.
My Mac doesn't.
>
> When was the last time you had to call technical support for your microwave
> oven, or load it with new firmware?
I did for my GPS.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 12:56 pm
From: "William Black"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:270320091055115936%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gqj370$ce$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > I would be very interested to hear your opinion on the observed fact
>> > that people who move from a PC to a Mac rarely go back, while people
>> > who
>> > move from a Mac to a PC often do.
>>
>> People who buy Apple computers spend about twice the money for the same
>> power.
>
> no they don't. macs and pcs cost approximately the same when
> configured as close as possible. quite often, the comparisons are
> between machines with specs that are are not at all similar.
I must assume you've forgotten the smiley face there.
I can buy a quad core AMD computer with 4Gigs of memory, Nvidia graphics and
a 500Gig hard disk for less than £500 and a 24 inch display for about £160.
The equivalent (but much slower, Intel Core 2 Duo chip) iMac is about
£1200.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 12:57 pm
From: aracari
'nospam' wrote this:
>In article <gqj64d.2s0.1@aracari.127.0.0.1>, aracari
><spamtrap@vailable.here.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > I know of no mainstream GUI op/sys that hasn't been developed
>> >> > in this way. Any other way would not pass muster.
>> >>
>> >> As I recall, Windows 3.x had an integrated GUI from the beginning, and
>> >> possibly also the old Mac OS. I don't know the internals of earlier
>> >> examples
>> >> of GUI-equipped operating systems.
>> >
>> >the original mac os was purely gui, with a command line bolted on much
>> >later.
>>
>> Probably nonsense.
>
>it's not 'probably nonsense.' it's exactly correct.
Well, perhaps you'd like to explain in simple words why you
believe this. You might start by giving me an example of a program
which runs under the old Mac op/sys and what you do/did to run it.
--
socialism is like chronic heart disease ...
you may not know you suffer from it, but it'll kill you in the end.
A socialist:"someone who knows everything but understands nothing"
== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 12:59 pm
From: erilar
In article <gqj0t9$cs2$1@news.motzarella.org>,
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "erilar" <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:drache-137327.10364827032009@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> > In article <gqilrv$cui$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> > "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> People don't need the controls to move every time they buy a new car.
> >
> > Ah, but some of them DO! 8-) I drive the same car until it falls
> > apart. By that time, whatever I buy has controls that are different!
>
> Well some will.
>
> My choice of motor transport is a touch eccentric as well.
>
> But the major controls haven't moved in 60 years now.
Shift levers keep moving around, as do controls for lights and
occasionally necessary windshield wipers, to name a few. Yes, brake and
accelerator pedals have stayed put, but 60 years? No much else. Your
vehicle isn't quite THAT elderly yet 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:00 pm
From: "William Black"
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ne8qs4923atpf0m8fjnrvte8ttj0b7rslr@4ax.com...
> William Black writes:
>
>> That's like saying your car wouldn't need servicing and your washing
>> machine
>> doesn't need a new motor now and again.
>
> No. Bugs are design defects, not things that wear out. Motors and other
> serviceable parts are things that wear out, not design defects.
Never heard of a motor car being recalled for an in service modification?
Mine was, twice...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:01 pm
From: aracari
'Mxsmanic' wrote this:
>aracari writes:
>
>> All GUIs become integrated, but I was referring to the development
>> of the op/sys's underlying functional components which are
>> developed first and before the GUI is grafted on to give users
>> access to them. I also mentioned that some commandline arguments
>> which functional components support are not always integrated into
>> the GUI. iexplore.exe is one good example in WinXP which supports
>> a number of parms only accessible via the commandline used to
>> start the program. Many apps follow this path too.
>
>There are still many features of NT-derived versions of Windows, especially
>file and security features, that are not exposed through any provided user
>interface, command-line or GUI, although they are accessible through the API.
I have no doubt about that. And it furthers my pov, not yours!
--
socialism is like chronic heart disease ...
you may not know you suffer from it, but it'll kill you in the end.
A socialist:"someone who knows everything but understands nothing"
== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:00 pm
From: "William Black"
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vh8qs4li66jtlcajf4pp4q9fsk9u2klh35@4ax.com...
> William Black writes:
>
>> Just about all of them have engine options these days.
>
> Which characteristics do these options cover?
It depends on the car.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:04 pm
From: "William Black"
"erilar" <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:drache-C5DC0E.14594427032009@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> In article <gqj0t9$cs2$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "erilar" <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:drache-137327.10364827032009@news.airstreamcomm.net...
>> > In article <gqilrv$cui$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>> > "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> People don't need the controls to move every time they buy a new car.
>> >
>> > Ah, but some of them DO! 8-) I drive the same car until it falls
>> > apart. By that time, whatever I buy has controls that are different!
>>
>> Well some will.
>>
>> My choice of motor transport is a touch eccentric as well.
>>
>> But the major controls haven't moved in 60 years now.
>
> Shift levers keep moving around, as do controls for lights and
> occasionally necessary windshield wipers, to name a few. Yes, brake and
> accelerator pedals have stayed put, but 60 years? No much else. Your
> vehicle isn't quite THAT elderly yet 8-)
Been in production since 1948...
http://www.winwaed.com/landy/history/timeline.shtml
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:28 pm
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Mxsmanic wrote:
> William Black writes:
>
>> That's like saying your car wouldn't need servicing and your washing machine
>> doesn't need a new motor now and again.
>
> No. Bugs are design defects, not things that wear out. Motors and other
> serviceable parts are things that wear out, not design defects.
>
> How often do you have to replace your washing machine to resolve design
> defects?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:29 pm
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax writes:
>
>> The big change was MFC versus .NET
>
> You can write software without either of these.
But not Windows s/w, unless you're a super masochist with no life.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:31 pm
From: "William Black"
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:734r8oFs4i80U2@mid.individual.net...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax writes:
>>
>>> The big change was MFC versus .NET
>>
>> You can write software without either of these.
>
> But not Windows s/w, unless you're a super masochist with no life.
>
It didn't take you long to get Mixi summed up did it...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:36 pm
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
William Black wrote:
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:734r8oFs4i80U2@mid.individual.net...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax writes:
>>>
>>>> The big change was MFC versus .NET
>>> You can write software without either of these.
>> But not Windows s/w, unless you're a super masochist with no life.
>>
>
> It didn't take you long to get Mixi summed up did it...
>
A bit like those purists who sneer at IDEs and write everything using Vi
(when they can't find a vintage Edlin).
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:48 pm
From: nospam
In article <gqjb0n$14t$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> People who buy Apple computers spend about twice the money for the same
> >> power.
> >
> > no they don't. macs and pcs cost approximately the same when
> > configured as close as possible. quite often, the comparisons are
> > between machines with specs that are are not at all similar.
>
> I must assume you've forgotten the smiley face there.
nope.
> I can buy a quad core AMD computer with 4Gigs of memory, Nvidia graphics and
> a 500Gig hard disk for less than £500 and a 24 inch display for about £160.
link to exact specs, please.
> The equivalent (but much slower, Intel Core 2 Duo chip) iMac is about
> £1200.
except that a fair comparison with an imac would be with something with
a built-in screen, such as a gateway one.
in any event, the imac has features such as 802.11a/b/g/n, bluetooth
2.1+edr, firewire 800, a built-in camera and includes os x which is
equivalent to vista ultimate. the pc probably just has 802.11g and
vista home, and that's it.
here's a comparison with a 20" imac done two years ago and the mac is a
dollar *cheaper*:
<http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2007/0927_dt1300.html>
== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:51 pm
From: nospam
In article <gqjb32.1sg.1@aracari.127.0.0.1>, aracari
<spamtrap@vailable.here.com> wrote:
> >> >the original mac os was purely gui, with a command line bolted on much
> >> >later.
> >>
> >> Probably nonsense.
> >
> >it's not 'probably nonsense.' it's exactly correct.
>
> Well, perhaps you'd like to explain in simple words why you
> believe this.
because i've been writing software for macs for a long time and i know
the internals inside out.
perhaps you'd like to explain why you doubt it.
> You might start by giving me an example of a program
> which runs under the old Mac op/sys and what you do/did to run it.
double-click it.
== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:53 pm
From: "Deep Reset"
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gqjb0n$14t$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:270320091055115936%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <gqj370$ce$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
>> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> > I would be very interested to hear your opinion on the observed fact
>>> > that people who move from a PC to a Mac rarely go back, while people
>>> > who
>>> > move from a Mac to a PC often do.
>>>
>>> People who buy Apple computers spend about twice the money for the same
>>> power.
>>
>> no they don't. macs and pcs cost approximately the same when
>> configured as close as possible. quite often, the comparisons are
>> between machines with specs that are are not at all similar.
>
> I must assume you've forgotten the smiley face there.
>
> I can buy a quad core AMD computer with 4Gigs of memory, Nvidia graphics
> and a 500Gig hard disk for less than £500 and a 24 inch display for about
> £160.
And the OS?
>
> The equivalent (but much slower, Intel Core 2 Duo chip) iMac is about
> £1200.
== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:12 pm
From: "William Black"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:270320091348239458%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gqjb0n$14t$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> People who buy Apple computers spend about twice the money for the
>> >> same
>> >> power.
>> >
>> > no they don't. macs and pcs cost approximately the same when
>> > configured as close as possible. quite often, the comparisons are
>> > between machines with specs that are are not at all similar.
>>
>> I must assume you've forgotten the smiley face there.
>
> nope.
>
>> I can buy a quad core AMD computer with 4Gigs of memory, Nvidia graphics
>> and
>> a 500Gig hard disk for less than �500 and a 24 inch display for about
>> �160.
>
> link to exact specs, please.
Base unit from this lot
Display from Ebuyer.
>
>> The equivalent (but much slower, Intel Core 2 Duo chip) iMac is about
>> �1200.
>
> except that a fair comparison with an imac would be with something with
> a built-in screen, such as a gateway one.
Why?
You're playing games with the spec to make it fit your requirements not
mine.
> in any event, the imac has features such as 802.11a/b/g/n, bluetooth
> 2.1+edr, firewire 800, a built-in camera and includes os x which is
> equivalent to vista ultimate. the pc probably just has 802.11g and
> vista home, and that's it.
Who buys a computer with the OS built in?
The rest of it costs pennies, I got an external Bluetooth box with 6 USB
ports for �10, a camera costs about �15, if you don't have an old digital
camera kicking about (and who doesn't), wireless is about �15 as well, and
who needs it for a desktop anyway?
That's �40, plus a few quid for someone who doesn't have a decent keyboard
and mouse about the house.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Neck chain or foot cord better for stability?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cd89013c50daa40f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 12:16 pm
From: tony cooper
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:40:05 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:07:30 +0000, bugbear
>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:54:02 +0000, bugbear
>>>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:57:10 +0000, bugbear
>>>>>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think you are expecting too much out of this solution to camera
>>>>>>>> shake. The cord *minimizes* shake because you are concentrating on
>>>>>>>> keeping the cord taut and making an effort to hold the camera still.
>>>>>>>> No matter what cord you use, the camera can still move. ############
>>>>>>> Not vertically, it can't, ###################
>>>>>> Of course it can. If your body moves, the camera moves. #################
>>>>> If there's a piece of (more or less) inelastic
>>>>> cord running more-or-less vertically to
>>>>> a fixed point on the ground (your foot), how
>>>>> can the camera move up or down?
>>>>>
>>>>> left and right, yes, forward and back, also yes,
>>>>> but vertically? I don't see how.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you explain?
>>>> When you move your body forward and back it results in a movement of a
>>>> camera extended at arm's length in a vertical arc. All you have to do
>>>> to understand this is to try it.
>>> yes, but if the angle of the arc is small, the vertical change
>>> is very small. Try it, or do the math.
>>
>> What is not clear about "the cord *minimizes* shake"?
>>
>>>> The objective of the string is to steady the camera. It helps do
>>>> this, but it does not immobilize the camera.
>>> This trivial point is already agreed on.
>>
>> Then why are you disagreeing?
>
>On the narrow point of your claiming that a camera fixed to the ground
>by an inelastic cord can move VERTICALLY.
>
>(in the lines marked with #'s above)
>
> BugBear
The only way you are going to understand this is to do it. Get
yourself a camera and a string. Point the camera to some specific
point. Now, sway forward or backwards. Notice that the camera is
then pointed higher or lower. That's vertical movement. The string
did not stop you from swaying. Just a slight sway will move the
actual point of focus several inches.
The fact that the camera is fixed to the ground by an inelastic cord
doesn't stop the movement. Try it with a monopod. In that case,
you've fixed the camera to the ground with a rigid pole. Swaying will
still cause vertical movement in an arc.
The idea of a string-pod is to minimize movement of the camera because
we involuntarily move our bodies. Swaying is an involuntary movement
that we don't really notice.
Ever been to a meeting with a speaker who sways (usually left and
right) during his presentation? It'll drive you nuts. Ask him, after
the meeting, if he's aware that he sways. He'll deny it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus: Are they F----- CRAZY?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e68eefee518f24d1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:38 pm
From: Alfred Molon
In article <260320092059076075%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> you don't get to ignore the difference in f/stops. both lenses give
> the same field of view, but the nikon lens is faster, not to mention
> that a full frame sensor has two stops better signal/noise ratio. the
> olympus lens would actually need to be an f/1.4 to match the image
> quality that one would get from a full frame sensor, and it's an f/4.
It is pointless to compare the SNR of a small sensor with that of a big
sensor. The full-frame camera has the better SNR, but is also much
larger and heavier.
The F-number simply is the ratio of the entry pupil and the sensor size.
By your logic one would have to calculate an "equivalent F-number" to
match noise levels. Can you imagine how this would look like if you
compared a compact camera with a 1/2.33" sensor with a full frame
camera? You'd be claiming that the compact camera needs an f/0.4 lens.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:51 pm
From: "Deep Reset"
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.243765b0ae15b78e98c07f@news.supernews.com...
> In article <260320092059076075%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
>> you don't get to ignore the difference in f/stops. both lenses give
>> the same field of view, but the nikon lens is faster, not to mention
>> that a full frame sensor has two stops better signal/noise ratio. the
>> olympus lens would actually need to be an f/1.4 to match the image
>> quality that one would get from a full frame sensor, and it's an f/4.
>
> It is pointless to compare the SNR of a small sensor with that of a big
> sensor. The full-frame camera has the better SNR, but is also much
> larger and heavier.
>
> The F-number simply is the ratio of the entry pupil and the sensor size.
It is?
You mean, all these years I've been...?
Bugger.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:59 pm
From: nospam
In article <MPG.243765b0ae15b78e98c07f@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <260320092059076075%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
> > you don't get to ignore the difference in f/stops. both lenses give
> > the same field of view, but the nikon lens is faster, not to mention
> > that a full frame sensor has two stops better signal/noise ratio. the
> > olympus lens would actually need to be an f/1.4 to match the image
> > quality that one would get from a full frame sensor, and it's an f/4.
>
> It is pointless to compare the SNR of a small sensor with that of a big
> sensor.
why is it pointless?
> The full-frame camera has the better SNR, but is also much
> larger and heavier.
true. that's a tradeoff one makes for better image quality and has
been true for ages.
> The F-number simply is the ratio of the entry pupil and the sensor size.
> By your logic one would have to calculate an "equivalent F-number" to
> match noise levels.
yes, that's correct.
> Can you imagine how this would look like if you
> compared a compact camera with a 1/2.33" sensor with a full frame
> camera? You'd be claiming that the compact camera needs an f/0.4 lens.
true. for the same image quality in terms of noise, depth of field,
etc., a compact would need a lens that fast and that's impossible.
however, the larger sensor camera can crank the iso to match the noise
levels and an equivalent f/stop can then be used, providing the same
depth of field.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: General Parametrics VideoShow/PictureIt-convert to MS Powerpoint
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a6afa1877cdc1a52?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 1:56 pm
From: eljainc
Hello,
I was wondering if there is a way to convert the PIC file from an
obsolete product from General Parametrics VideoShow or PictureIt into
PowerPoint or a format that may be imported into PowerPoint.
Thanks
Mike
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment