Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:44 am
From: Bob Larter

David J Taylor wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
> []
>>> You need to check exactly how many bits the Webcam has - the number
>>> of bits /before/ the A-D convertor.
>>
>> Hrm. There's no such creature as "the number of bits" until it hits
>> the A2D converter. ;^)
>
> Thanks, Bob. Arrgh! Of course. Now what did I mean to write......
>
> Check to how many bits whe video is digitised, before it is converted to
> JPEG where gamma correction may have taken place.

That's better. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:46 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Bob Larter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Bob Larter wrote:
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>> []
>>>> You need to check exactly how many bits the Webcam has - the number
>>>> of bits /before/ the A-D convertor.
>>>
>>> Hrm. There's no such creature as "the number of bits" until it hits
>>> the A2D converter. ;^)
>>
>> Thanks, Bob. Arrgh! Of course. Now what did I mean to write......
>>
>> Check to how many bits whe video is digitised, before it is
>> converted to JPEG where gamma correction may have taken place.
>
> That's better. ;^)

Thank you, sir!

David

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 7:49 am
From: nospam

In article <KCcJl.20052$OO7.7246@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:

> > Canon 1000D has 36-42 bits per pixel?? Don't think so.
>
> All cameras offering RAW data do.

almost all. :) medium format backs have a 16 bit a/d, pro dslrs are 14
bit, entry level & prosumer dslrs are 12 bit, sigma's cameras are 10
bit and the compact p&s cameras that offer raw are 8 bit.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 8:24 am
From: "David J Taylor"

nospam wrote:
> In article <KCcJl.20052$OO7.7246@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>> Canon 1000D has 36-42 bits per pixel?? Don't think so.
>>
>> All cameras offering RAW data do.
>
> almost all. :) medium format backs have a 16 bit a/d, pro dslrs are
> 14 bit, entry level & prosumer dslrs are 12 bit, sigma's cameras are
> 10 bit and the compact p&s cameras that offer raw are 8 bit.

All offer more than 8-bits when in linear, i.e. RAW mode, which was the
point being questioned.

Unless I'm wrong, the 8-bit data in some older camera's 8-bit TIFFs is
gamma-corrected, and the TIFF was offered simply to avoid JPEG's defects,
not as a RAW format. Some compact cameras today offer both full-precision
RAW and JPEG.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are todays LCD screen any good in bright weather
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d70e4ce3863b627f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:47 am
From: "Ken"

"Ken" <none@none.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49ef49a2$0$2544$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>I have an older Nikon 7900 with 2" screen and even in normal light
>sometimes have to take a guess when outside that I have got the subject in
>frame. I was thinking of getting a modern digi camera with 2.5 or bigger
>LCD screen but only if I feel convinced they are better to use outside.
>Whats the point in having to guess the shot???
>
> Anyone with a modern camera with the LCD that will work in brighter
> conditions?
>
> Ken

Thanks you to you all for helping with this.

Coincidently we had a friend stay this weekend who had a Paznasonic FZ18 so
was able to make comparisons with my Nikon. It does prove the modern cameras
LCD can be viewed in bright conditions. But it also proved that I don't want
to carry this size of camera around. So I am now looking for smaller like
the Panasonic TZ5 or TZ4 but the drawback is no viewfinder but good zoom.
The Canon G10 looks perfect but I haven't go that sort of budget £400!!!
Half that at most :-)

So 28mm, viewfinder, image stabilisation, £200 max and I will start looking
at Dpreview unless anyone shouts with suggestions. I see Sony DSC W170 looks
interesting and wonder if anyone has any experience of this camera?

Ken

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Those were the days.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0947d81d9ba98e9f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:57 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

Ï "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:GSbJl.24402$Db2.12338@edtnps83...
> Brings back great memories...
>
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery
>
>
>
Hi Dudley,
I can't see the two new photos on Internet Explorer 8 on win XP greek.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:33 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <noone@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gt4a4m$n61$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
>
> Ï "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
> news:GSbJl.24402$Db2.12338@edtnps83...
>> Brings back great memories...
>>
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Dudley,
> I can't see the two new photos on Internet Explorer 8 on win XP greek.
>
>
> --
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
> major in electrical engineering
> mechanized infantry reservist
> hordad AT otenet DOT gr
>
>

I've down-sized anduploaded the pics. Hopefully, they'll be viewable, this
time.

The thumbnail module of my gallery software is rather annoying, and docs
sketchy.

Thanks for your patience,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Highest Megapixels Possible in APS-Cs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b91b9724c6671278?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:03 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

? "lastico" <lasticoman@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:c01725a0-4c7a-498a-a03c-7f6d4f40f913@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> What's the highest megapixels possible in APS-C
> DSLRs before noise makes the quality bad... 20
> Megapixels? 40 Megapixels? There will come
> a time when the pixel sizes will match the point
> & shoot department. Will DSLRs go back to 35mm
> lens? What's the roadmaps for Nikon, Canon, Sony
> in years, decades ahead?? What new technology
> will produce 50 megapixels DSLR with lightweight
> lens like the EFs. Or will DSLRs reach a certain
> limit like 30 megapixels where the manufacturers
> would no longer push it above but maintain it for
> decades or centuries to come?? Or will new
> pixel technology resistance to noise produce 120 Megapixels or even 1
> Gigapixels and beyond?
>
No idea, nobody can predict the future. Maybe cameras will evolve in a
totally different way that we today cannot even imagine. If you think what
people believed in the '80s the 21st century would be like, you will be
amazed. Everybody thought that we would be having flying cars, colonies in
the moon, starships travelling to jupiter.... OTOH, we have now mobile
phones, the soviet bloc doesn't exist since 1989, the internet and in
general the digital revolution.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:53 am
From: Don Stauffer

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
> ? "lastico" <lasticoman@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
> news:c01725a0-4c7a-498a-a03c-7f6d4f40f913@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> What's the highest megapixels possible in APS-C
>> DSLRs before noise makes the quality bad... 20
>> Megapixels? 40 Megapixels? There will come
>> a time when the pixel sizes will match the point
>> & shoot department. Will DSLRs go back to 35mm
>> lens? What's the roadmaps for Nikon, Canon, Sony
>> in years, decades ahead?? What new technology
>> will produce 50 megapixels DSLR with lightweight
>> lens like the EFs. Or will DSLRs reach a certain
>> limit like 30 megapixels where the manufacturers
>> would no longer push it above but maintain it for
>> decades or centuries to come?? Or will new
>> pixel technology resistance to noise produce 120 Megapixels or even 1
>> Gigapixels and beyond?
>>
> No idea, nobody can predict the future. Maybe cameras will evolve in a
> totally different way that we today cannot even imagine. If you think what
> people believed in the '80s the 21st century would be like, you will be
> amazed. Everybody thought that we would be having flying cars, colonies in
> the moon, starships travelling to jupiter.... OTOH, we have now mobile
> phones, the soviet bloc doesn't exist since 1989, the internet and in
> general the digital revolution.
>
>
>
I am not sure of the exact format size of APS-C, so I cannot compute it
right now. However, even though "photo"lithography has moved to
submicron feature size, I doubt if sensor pixels will go below 1 micron
anytime soon. I see real problems with submicron pixels, although it is
theoretically possible. So a fair benchmark would be an array of 1
micron pixels.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 7:20 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

Don Stauffer wrote:
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
>> ? "lastico" <lasticoman@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
>> news:c01725a0-4c7a-498a-a03c-7f6d4f40f913@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What's the highest megapixels possible in APS-C
>>> DSLRs before noise makes the quality bad... 20
>>> Megapixels? 40 Megapixels? There will come
>>> a time when the pixel sizes will match the point
>>> & shoot department. Will DSLRs go back to 35mm
>>> lens? What's the roadmaps for Nikon, Canon, Sony
>>> in years, decades ahead?? What new technology
>>> will produce 50 megapixels DSLR with lightweight
>>> lens like the EFs. Or will DSLRs reach a certain
>>> limit like 30 megapixels where the manufacturers
>>> would no longer push it above but maintain it for
>>> decades or centuries to come?? Or will new
>>> pixel technology resistance to noise produce 120 Megapixels or even
>>> 1 Gigapixels and beyond?
>>>
>> No idea, nobody can predict the future. Maybe cameras will evolve in
>> a totally different way that we today cannot even imagine. If you
>> think what people believed in the '80s the 21st century would be
>> like, you will be amazed. Everybody thought that we would be having
>> flying cars, colonies in the moon, starships travelling to
>> jupiter.... OTOH, we have now mobile phones, the soviet bloc doesn't
>> exist since 1989, the internet and in general the digital revolution.
>>
>>
>>
> I am not sure of the exact format size of APS-C, so I cannot compute

It varies slightly among the so-called APS-C cameras; there is no "exact
format size." For example, a Nikon D70s has a sensor size of 23.4 x 15.6 mm,
while a D80 sensor is 23.6 x 15.8 mm. Those dimensions are typical for other
6- and 10-megapixel models respectively in Nikon's DSLR line.

> it right now. However, even though "photo"lithography has moved to
> submicron feature size, I doubt if sensor pixels will go below 1
> micron anytime soon. I see real problems with submicron pixels,
> although it is theoretically possible. So a fair benchmark would be
> an array of 1 micron pixels.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is my monitor not coping with the number of pixels in my shots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/60f3dd9082d09c83?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:13 am
From: "Ken"

As per the heading I have a new monitor which is wide screen but when I look
at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom in they get
sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or photography says
perhaps the photos, these days, have too many pixels and the screen is
cramming them in and so distorting what I see. Couldhe be right or what?

Help please - Ken

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:58 am
From: Don Stauffer

Ken wrote:
> As per the heading I have a new monitor which is wide screen but when I
> look at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom in
> they get sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or
> photography says perhaps the photos, these days, have too many pixels
> and the screen is cramming them in and so distorting what I see. Couldhe
> be right or what?
>
> Help please - Ken

Few monitors today can fully resolve the high pixel count cameras.

Do you have a Mac or a PC? Macs rate pixels per inch, while PC monitors
give the total number of pixels in each direction. My monitor is 1440 x
900 pixels. That is a total number of 1.3Mp, so I cannot resolve even
my older 3MP P&S, let alone my 10Mp SLR.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 7:02 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Ken wrote:
> As per the heading I have a new monitor which is wide screen but when
> I look at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom
> in they get sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or
> photography says perhaps the photos, these days, have too many
> pixels and the screen is cramming them in and so distorting what I
> see. Couldhe be right or what?
> Help please - Ken

Ken,

Ensure that your monitor is running at its native resolution, and not an
interpolated one. If the monitor, on the box, says, for example 1680 x
1050 pixels, and sure that your computer is sending 1680 x 1050, and not
1024 x 768 pixels......

Cheers,
David

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 7:23 am
From: "Not Given"

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:wViJl.20166$OO7.11209@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Ken wrote:
>> As per the heading I have a new monitor which is wide screen but when
>> I look at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom
>> in they get sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or
>> photography says perhaps the photos, these days, have too many
>> pixels and the screen is cramming them in and so distorting what I
>> see. Couldhe be right or what?
>> Help please - Ken
>
> Ken,
>
> Ensure that your monitor is running at its native resolution, and not an
> interpolated one. If the monitor, on the box, says, for example 1680 x
> 1050 pixels, and sure that your computer is sending 1680 x 1050, and not
> 1024 x 768 pixels......
>
> Cheers,
> David
Also some "wide format" monitors out of the box will stretch an image to fit
the screen. so a 1024x768 may be stretched to fit a 1280 x 720 field so that
can be distorting the image.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 7:48 am
From: ray

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:13:30 +0100, Ken wrote:

> As per the heading I have a new monitor which is wide screen but when I
> look at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom in
> they get sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or
> photography says perhaps the photos, these days, have too many pixels
> and the screen is cramming them in and so distorting what I see. Couldhe
> be right or what?
>
> Help please - Ken

Or what. Specifically, your software is not doing what it should be. The
image should look sharp at any resolution.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 8:04 am
From: "Matt Clara"

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:75luumF18be3aU16@mid.individual.net...
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:13:30 +0100, Ken wrote:
>
>> As per the heading I have a new monitor which is wide screen but when I
>> look at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom in
>> they get sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or
>> photography says perhaps the photos, these days, have too many pixels
>> and the screen is cramming them in and so distorting what I see. Couldhe
>> be right or what?
>>
>> Help please - Ken
>
> Or what. Specifically, your software is not doing what it should be. The
> image should look sharp at any resolution.
>

Then why do images in Photoshop look like crap at 66%, but great at 50% or
100%?

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 8:16 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Matt Clara wrote:
[]
> Then why do images in Photoshop look like crap at 66%, but great at
> 50% or 100%?

Interpolation?

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Old Canon Lenses
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3326f6a583b4e980?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:14 am
From: JoelH

On Apr 26, 8:48 pm, p...@removethis.iinet.net.au (PeterD) wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have come accross my old Canon EOS 1000, probably an early 90s model.
>
> What is has with it is a 35-70mm lens and 70-210mm lens both auto focus and
> are EF lens.
>
> Can these be used with the modern Canon DSLRs? If so will look at selling
> them or grabing an old 30 or 40D.
>
> Thanks in anticipation.

Yes, they will work on dSLRs. The consumer-grade dSLRs have smaller
sensors than the older 35mm cameras, so the lenses will behave as
though they were longer, about 55-110 and 110-330, respectively. So
your pair of lenses becomes a "normal to extreme close-up" setup,
instead of a "wide to close up" one.

-Joel
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelmhoffman/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:48 am
From: pkd@removethis.iinet.net.au (PeterD)

Thanks Joel

In article <f655949b-7cfc-4fa2-b8f8-126eb513a0df@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
JoelH <JoelAtExcCom@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 26, 8:48 pm, p...@removethis.iinet.net.au (PeterD) wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I have come accross my old Canon EOS 1000, probably an early 90s model.
>>
>> What is has with it is a 35-70mm lens and 70-210mm lens both auto focus and
>> are EF lens.
>>
>> Can these be used with the modern Canon DSLRs? If so will look at selling
>> them or grabing an old 30 or 40D.
>>
>> Thanks in anticipation.
>
>Yes, they will work on dSLRs. The consumer-grade dSLRs have smaller
>sensors than the older 35mm cameras, so the lenses will behave as
>though they were longer, about 55-110 and 110-330, respectively. So
>your pair of lenses becomes a "normal to extreme close-up" setup,
>instead of a "wide to close up" one.
>
>-Joel
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelmhoffman/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Webcam vs DSLR Target Field of View
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d0a7b8fbb27d6247?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:24 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

? "Hughes" <eugenhughes@gmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:8479d386-8227-4251-89b3-8ec474bba630@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 11:06 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hughes wrote:
> > Here is a photo I shot with the 1000mm telephoto with webcam.
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/image/111769165/original
>
> I don't believe you. I think that photo was taken of a half-toned colour
> image.
>

What? It was taken at a distance of 3.8 meters from the target
brochure with size of 7" horizontal, 5" vertical. Only the central
portion can be seen using the 1/2" 640x480 webcam sensor,
a Canon 1000D with 3888 x 2592 resolution can show
image 6 times larger.

I don't understand why you said you don't believe me and
you believe the picture was taken of a half-toned colour
image. You mean I print the scanned portion and take
picture of it 1X at 5 inches away? No. It was at 3.8 meters
away as indicated. The resolution is great because it was
a 4" aperture, telephoto used was the 4" Russian Rubinar
showned at:

http://www.kremlinoptics.com/catalog/item/rubinar_10_1000_telephoto_lens.html

That seems quite a good lens, at $ 1300. I used to have a soviet TLR (120
film), an automatic Zenit, a manual Zenit... Although no comparison to my
Nikon FM-2.
In the meanwhile, see Leonid and Nikita's favourite tools:
www.esnips.com/web/dimtzortsphotos

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It Starts from the Beginning
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4ab4d50051a44d47?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 6:46 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

? "Jurgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:mpfav49dha2ne7a8immj093an3vk9v65vu@4ax.com...
> "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <noone@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>? "Jurgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
>>news:mmu8v4541hd8a186v54suirpuoiiflurcf@4ax.com...
>>> "Talal" <titani@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>>I have two digital picture frames.
>>>
>>> Ok, there are about half a gazillion different makes and models of
>>> digital pictures frames.
>>>
>>See here about the USSR,
>> http://englishrussia.com/?p=715
>>they used to have 2-3 makes of everything.
>
> And the relevance to the number of makes and models of digital picture
> frames worldwide 20 years after the end of the USSR is what?
>
Nothing, I just found the photos and found them interesting. Back on topic,
my mp3 player has such a feature, playback resumes each time you turn it on,
from the point it stopped. This needs some kind of flash memory. If the
frame hasn't capability to write to flash memory, some flag, it cannot
fulfil this feature.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c74cad4ac255f35?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 7:24 am
From: George Kerby

On 4/27/09 3:07 AM, in article
993b7$49f567bf$5469b618$5987@cache90.multikabel.net, "Robert Spanjaard"
<spamtrap@arumes.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:47:58 +0100, Fred wrote:
>
>>> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way
>>> to use a DSLR each and every time.
>>
>> Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into
>> photography", just pretending to be!
>>
>> If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the
>> time, then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that
>> the more savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete
>> cameras when the situation warrants it.
>>
>> If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset
>> of 40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.
>
> And even if you're stuck in old technology, lots of 'serious'
> photographers used small 35mm-cameras back then. Ofcourse, Leica has the
> best known example of such a small system.
>
>
>
>
Minox! Minox, I say!!!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 8:07 am
From: "Matt Clara"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49f5a2d4$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Gary Edstrom wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:24:44 -0700, "NBC" <cbnbc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> More Megapixels=Better Digital Zoom
>>>
>>> Some P&S cameras have 10x to 24x optical zooms that you can add 4x
>>> digital zoom too.
>>>
>>> Its nice to be able to analyze and frame a 40x or more stabilized image
>>> in a bright 3 inch screen.
>>>
>>> Give me More Megapixels!
>>
>> There is a limit as to what can be achieved with technology in smaller
>> and smaller sensors. It has to do with the laws of physics,
>> diffraction, and the particle nature of light. The smaller the pixel
>> sensor, the poorer a job it is going to do, even if perfectly
>> manufactured, and no amount of technology can change that.
>>
>> It's like with telescopes: There is no limit to how much magnification
>> you can achieve, but beyond a certain point, all you are doing is making
>> a small fuzzy image into a large fuzzy image. This applies to even
>> perfectly manufactured optics.
>
> Nicely put.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>

It's funny, Bob, but you have the exact same sig file a fella named Lionel
used to use here on the photo forums.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 8:11 am
From: "Matt Clara"

"Gary Edstrom" <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote in message
news:4ah9v4h0gejel2k3nk3963khm40mttk0bp@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:24:44 -0700, "NBC" <cbnbc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>More Megapixels=Better Digital Zoom
>>
>>Some P&S cameras have 10x to 24x optical zooms that you can add 4x
>>digital zoom too.
>>
>>Its nice to be able to analyze and frame a 40x or more stabilized image
>>in a bright 3 inch screen.
>>
>>Give me More Megapixels!
>
> There is a limit as to what can be achieved with technology in smaller
> and smaller sensors. It has to do with the laws of physics,
> diffraction, and the particle nature of light. The smaller the pixel
> sensor, the poorer a job it is going to do, even if perfectly
> manufactured, and no amount of technology can change that.
>
> It's like with telescopes: There is no limit to how much magnification
> you can achieve, but beyond a certain point, all you are doing is making
> a small fuzzy image into a large fuzzy image. This applies to even
> perfectly manufactured optics.
>
> Gary
>

Aren't those two separate issues? With telescopes, there's the issue of the
atmosphere making images blurry, so that further magnification is of no use
in extracting more data; whereas, with image sensors, current technology
needs x number of photons per pixel to come up with something we humans
perceive as an image that accurately reflects reality?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scary Info. From a PhD. On Deadly Swine Flu Outbreak, Illegal Mexican
Aliens & Epidemics
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c1fc297327ffb4a3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 7:34 am
From: George Kerby

On 4/26/09 7:46 PM, in article
Ru6dnbQYIvbOnWjUnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com, "HeyBub"
<heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> sA. wrote:
>>>>
>>> Awaken? or kill a lot of the American public?
>>>
>>> DCI
>>
>> But Bush made Americans safer.......................
>
> Bush founded the Department of Homeland Security, which I'm sure is on the
> case.
>
>
Not with that moron Janet O II at the helm.

==============================================================================

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, April 27, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, April 27, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic