rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Future of the megapixel race - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c78a5377356e2e48?hl=en
* Anything for the Perfect Shot - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
* Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a72842738be30c46?hl=en
* Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware - 6
messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
* simple question...maybe - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/25aaf8517adc4c7e?hl=en
* HDR - how to get the photmatix colours? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0fb478b915c42705?hl=en
* Kodak kills Kodachrome film after 74 years - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffab234a019b33ac?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Future of the megapixel race
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c78a5377356e2e48?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 6:04 pm
From: Rich
On Jun 24, 11:25 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Many have decried the "megapixel race" that has resulted in ever smaller
> photosites, not just for compact digital cameras, but also for dSLR
> cameras, but I think this is not being borne out in real world
> performance -- images from current high megapixel sensors in both
> compact digital cameras (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ28) and dSLR cameras are
> unquestionably better than images from earlier comparable sensors with
> lower megapixel counts (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ8).
>
> The reasons are that sensors are better and that image quality has come
> to be dominated by in camera processing, especially as faster and more
> powerful processors have become available.
>
> I personally see no reason not to increase the sensor resolution as long
> as in camera processing keeps pace -
Lens quality = cost. Processing can't create detail out of thin air,
they can only refine what is there.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 7:46 pm
From: Me
Robert Spanjaard wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:25:30 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>
>> Many have decried the "megapixel race" that has resulted in ever smaller
>> photosites, not just for compact digital cameras, but also for dSLR
>> cameras, but I think this is not being borne out in real world
>> performance -- images from current high megapixel sensors in both
>> compact digital cameras (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ28) and dSLR cameras are
>> unquestionably better than images from earlier comparable sensors with
>> lower megapixel counts (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ8).
>>
>> The reasons are that sensors are better and that image quality has come
>> to be dominated by in camera processing, especially as faster and more
>> powerful processors have become available.
>>
>> I personally see no reason not to increase the sensor resolution as long
>> as in camera processing keeps pace
>
> You don't see any reason because there's no direct comparison. If you
> build a 6 MP APS-C sensor with current technology, you can use much
> larger and better photosites than in the days of 6 MP-DSLRs. And if you
> use current processing techniques afterwards, the image will get even
> better.
>
> I'm not saying that less is better, but you can't claim that more is
> better either. As I said, there's no comparison available.
>
I tend to agree. I can see the OP's point, but from what I've seen of
resolution with APS-c dslrs moving from ~12 to ~15mp, there's a
considerable overhead (file size, in camera processing affecting battery
life etc) for at best negligible benefit - sometimes not even measurable
(resolution).
If there were visible "issues" such as aliasing, moire / bayer
demosaicing artifacts at existing pixel densities, then it might be
"worth it". But I haven't seen such problems since using a D70 and
Canon 5d (Mk 1).
Unless there were suddenly much better lenses available, then there
seems to be little to gain. Perhaps the only clue we've got as to what
could be achieved using better technology at the same pixel density was
when Nikon used "only" 12mp in the D3. Was it significantly better than
the Canon 5d sensor? I think so.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 11:55 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:03:25 +1000, ribbit <ribbit@news.group> wrote
> in <7aft6gF1ur09gU1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> The notion that you cannot tell the difference between a shot from a
>> P&S and one from a DSLR with good quality glass is silly. Of course
>> you can... Unless you only want to look at outlines.
>
> Nope. Sorry.
I've tried the test with the cameras I have, John, and the difference was
quite obvious.
David
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 6:50 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:90g545lnt2mhmfvjprho390lrm2mtjnqro@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:51:38 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> wrote in <z4idnWeYSOB0At_XnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>>"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4a4207c0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>> You know that in most browsers you can resize the fonts on websites,
>>> right?
>>
>>No. I have no idea how to do that.
>
> Ctrl key and + key
> Ctrl key and - key
>
>>But, I would also have to be able to
>>change the contrast, to get them to like print BLACK on WHITE (for
>>example)
>>For some stupid reason, many sites print dark gray on light gray, or gray
>>on
>>a black background. (in order to waste gallons of my ink when I try to
>>print
>>anything out)
>
> Select and Copy the text to the Clipboard; Paste into Notepad; Print.
>
>>I have Windows VISTA. Trying to do anything on Windows Vista
>>is kind of like pulling teeth with a pair of long nosed pliers.
>
> Not so hard if you use the Help system.
>
>>The only way
>>I can disable programs (for example) is to change the names on their
>>folders, so my machine can't find them on start up and I can get to
>>actually
>>use my machine for something within a half hour or so from when I turn it
>>on......
>
> Just Uninstall them in Control Panel.
>
It says, "You are not authorized to do that." and, I can't seem to find out
how to authorize myself.......I am able to change the name of the folders,
however, so I have done that to all the programs I want to disable.....Now,
my machine can't find them...:^) I changed the name of "the Weather Channel"
to "the Heather Channel" (for example) so I don't get that stupid pop-up
anymore. And there's a good example of a useless program that Microsoft
incorporates into their Windows Program list.......It has no purpose
whatsoever, other than to pay back some guy for some favor he must have done
for Bill Gates or somebody..........
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 7:00 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:F76dnQ_jBvdwSt_XnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:90g545lnt2mhmfvjprho390lrm2mtjnqro@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:51:38 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
>> wrote in <z4idnWeYSOB0At_XnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>>"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4a4207c0$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>>> You know that in most browsers you can resize the fonts on websites,
>>>> right?
>>>
>>>No. I have no idea how to do that.
>>
>> Ctrl key and + key
>> Ctrl key and - key
>>
>>>But, I would also have to be able to
>>>change the contrast, to get them to like print BLACK on WHITE (for
>>>example)
>>>For some stupid reason, many sites print dark gray on light gray, or gray
>>>on
>>>a black background. (in order to waste gallons of my ink when I try to
>>>print
>>>anything out)
>>
>> Select and Copy the text to the Clipboard; Paste into Notepad; Print.
>>
>>>I have Windows VISTA. Trying to do anything on Windows Vista
>>>is kind of like pulling teeth with a pair of long nosed pliers.
>>
>> Not so hard if you use the Help system.
>>
>>>The only way
>>>I can disable programs (for example) is to change the names on their
>>>folders, so my machine can't find them on start up and I can get to
>>>actually
>>>use my machine for something within a half hour or so from when I turn it
>>>on......
>>
>> Just Uninstall them in Control Panel.
>>
> It says, "You are not authorized to do that." and, I can't seem to find
> out how to authorize myself.......I am able to change the name of the
> folders, however, so I have done that to all the programs I want to
> disable.....Now, my machine can't find them...:^) I changed the name of
> "the Weather Channel" to "the Heather Channel" (for example) so I don't
> get that stupid pop-up anymore. And there's a good example of a useless
> program that Microsoft incorporates into their Windows Program
> list.......It has no purpose whatsoever, other than to pay back some guy
> for some favor he must have done for Bill Gates or somebody..........
I also stopped Google Desktop from working by changing it's name to
"Deskhop". - The problem is, after I'm dead, when some teenager tries to use
my machine, he/she won't have the slightest idea why it doesn't work right!
Teenagers don't know how to read anymore, and that will be their
undoing......I will be laughing my ass off. (assuming there's an afterlife)
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 7:15 pm
From: John A.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:00:58 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
wrote:
[...]
>I also stopped Google Desktop from working by changing it's name to
>"Deskhop". - The problem is, after I'm dead, when some teenager tries to use
>my machine, he/she won't have the slightest idea why it doesn't work right!
>Teenagers don't know how to read anymore, and that will be their
>undoing......I will be laughing my ass off. (assuming there's an afterlife)
At that point I believe it just kinda sluffs off by itself.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 10:28 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Bill Graham wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
[]
>> Just Uninstall them in Control Panel.
>>
> It says, "You are not authorized to do that." and, I can't seem to
> find out how to authorize myself.......I am able to change the name
> of the folders, however, so I have done that to all the programs I
> want to disable.....Now, my machine can't find them...:^) I changed
> the name of "the Weather Channel" to "the Heather Channel" (for
> example) so I don't get that stupid pop-up anymore. And there's a
> good example of a useless program that Microsoft incorporates into
> their Windows Program list.......It has no purpose whatsoever, other
> than to pay back some guy for some favor he must have done for Bill
> Gates or somebody..........
Bill,
"the Weather Channel" is not part of a standard Vista install. So if you
can't uninstall it, please blame the provider of the software and not
Vista. Or if your hardware supplier added it, ask them.
David
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 11:03 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-24 22:28:31 -0700, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> said:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> []
>>> Just Uninstall them in Control Panel.
>>>
>> It says, "You are not authorized to do that." and, I can't seem to
>> find out how to authorize myself.......I am able to change the name
>> of the folders, however, so I have done that to all the programs I
>> want to disable.....Now, my machine can't find them...:^) I changed
>> the name of "the Weather Channel" to "the Heather Channel" (for
>> example) so I don't get that stupid pop-up anymore. And there's a
>> good example of a useless program that Microsoft incorporates into
>> their Windows Program list.......It has no purpose whatsoever, other
>> than to pay back some guy for some favor he must have done for Bill
>> Gates or somebody..........
>
> Bill,
>
> "the Weather Channel" is not part of a standard Vista install. So if
> you can't uninstall it, please blame the provider of the software and
> not Vista. Or if your hardware supplier added it, ask them.
>
> David
That's what happens when you do all your PC shopping at a road side
swap meet. :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a72842738be30c46?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 6:53 pm
From: Eric Stevens
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:08:13 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:00:59 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in
><elt445dcmdr7c9rmq511ikob6kmu3h5ava@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:32:02 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
>>>> Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
>>>> colours on the paper.
>>>
>>>Stick a glossy inkjet print under a good magnifier some time.
>>
>>With the purpose of seeing what, exactly?
>
>Lack of continuous tone.
I've had a look at two
Eric Stevens
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 7:22 pm
From: Eric Stevens
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:08:13 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:00:59 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in
><elt445dcmdr7c9rmq511ikob6kmu3h5ava@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:32:02 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
>>>> Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
>>>> colours on the paper.
>>>
>>>Stick a glossy inkjet print under a good magnifier some time.
>>
>>With the purpose of seeing what, exactly?
>
>Lack of continuous tone.
I have studied three prints on Epson 13" x 19" Premium Photo Paper
Glossy. There are two different photographs involved both taken with a
D300 set to RAW. The first photograph was of a surf beach scene and
was printed on an Epson 1800 at (I think) 1440 x 720 dpi. I could see
no evidence of discontinuous tone. That's why I asked what exactly I
should be looking for.
I had two examples of the second photograph which was a much edited
(NX2) photograph of a most spectacular sunset. Both prints were on
Epson 13" x 19" Premium Photo Paper Glossy. The first was printed by
the Epson 1800 at (I think) 1440 x 720 dpi. I could see no evidence of
discontinuous tone but I could see a mottled texture resembling noise
in the clouds. I'm not sure what caused that but I suspect excessive
editing. The second print came from an Epson 3800 still in the process
of being set up. It was also printing at 1440 x 720 and its print was
similar to the print from the 1800 but seemed more 'noisy'.
Examination of the +100% image on the screen shows that the 'noise' I
could see present in the prints was present in the edited RAW file.
I'm still puzzled as to what you think I should be seeing.
Eric Stevens
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 7:09 pm
From: John A.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:17:33 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:55:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
><ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
><kgnah6-pjd.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>
>>karl k <karlk@address.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Good photographers try to be attentive to even the most minute of
>>> details.
>>
>>So anyone who is a good photographer can change microSD cards,
>>that's what you say?
>
>Pretty much.
Or have their assistants to do it. If they're *really* good
photographers. ;)
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 7:28 pm
From: karl k
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:55:48 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>I've never been canoeing in the Everglades where I got lost and
>needed maps from pole to pole. You must be really inattentive
>to come out of the swamps, go south past Cuba, through the
>Panama canal and never notice until you are halfway to Cape Horn.
>
No no no ... learn to comprehend what you are reading. Even though I have
the depth and coastal data for the whole hemisphere in my GPS, only a small
subset of that is needed to keep from getting trapped in that vast coastal
and wetlands expanse known as the 10,000 Islands area.
I was checking out my mapping software just about an hour ago, retracing
some of my routes through that region, just for fun. I noticed that some of
the waypoints on the mapping software had little Park Service "notes" that
I had never accessed nor bothered to read before. Some were interesting.
Even the data included in the GPS mapping software suggests to allocate at
least 7 days to get from one end of that region to the other by canoe, and
no watercraft over 18 ft. in length should ever be used. The convoluted
paths through the seemingly hundreds of miles of mangrove tunnels and
mud-flat expanses won't allow it. And that's only if you stick to the
"recommended" most direct route. Why go where everyone else has gone
before?
Really, you aught to get out more often.
>> Out in the middle of nowhere in some
>> remote campground we can enjoy some popcorn while re-watching 2.5 hour-long
>> "Lord of the Rings" episodes using nothing but the camera's swing-out LCD
>> display alone.
>
>Yes, it's a grand idea to watch a movie (for example "Lord of
>the Rings") definitively meant for the big screen on a tiny LCD,
>running down your batteries in the middle of nowhere.
Ah, you're one of those lame "bit-heads". You think it's all about the
number of pixels and the quality of the image. Never about the content
being the most important factor. Here's some, probably rather disturbing,
news for you. Did you know the whole "Lord of the Rings" series was popular
for many decades and entertained millions as just (GASP) B&W TEXT ONLY?!?
Oh my! How did they ever pull that off without the widescreen
surround-sound presentation? That must have been some pretty fancy
ASCII-art no doubt.
Content, me boy. Content. It's all about the content. Always has been,
always will be.
Batteries being run down? I take it you've done little, to no, of the more
adventurous type of photography trip. One of my most favorite folding
solar-panels for recharging cameras and batteries packs down to only
9"x4"x1" when folded up in its soft cloth casing. Yet unfolded in bright
sunlight it will recharge a run-down Li-Ion battery in under 3 hours.
Giving me over 500 minutes (>8.3 hours) of photo shooting time. My other 2
panels aren't as compact, but will run a laptop without any battery in it,
by sunlight alone. Not that I care to lug a lap-top around very often, nor
those extra solar-panels. I like to travel as light as possible, going
places where no photographer has ever gone before. (Cue Star Trek theme
music if you must.) Computers, to borrow for the few hours needed at
times, are available everywhere when back in more "civilized" areas. The RV
campgrounds are crawling gate to gate with computers for the borrowing. I
have to be careful though. If I fix just one person's computer problem for
them then word gets out and I get trapped as "computer guru" in a park for
a week. All the free dinners and stuff are nice, but ...
>
>Let me put it that way: you'll go far as an orator for an extremist
>party, where easy, cheap and wrong solutions are preferred to
>understanding the problems or even looking closely.
>
>-Wolfgang
Let me put it this way, you're a talentless "clutz". :-) One who can't even
begin to comprehend the vast benefits of a nearly universal memory storage
device. Your loss, not mine.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 10:49 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
J. Clarke wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> []
>>> I'm curious--what are you using? My etrex Vista loses lock on a
>>> regular basis in Connecticut forests in the summer. Maybe it's time
>>> to upgrade again.
>>
>> I'm using a Garmin GPSmap 60CSx, and I hardly ever see a loss of lock
>> except inside buildings (although top floors and near windows can be
>> OK). The unit locks near windows on buses, in cars, near cruise liner
>> cabin portholes, and even in aircraft (permission obtained, of
>> course).
>
> Thanks. I would get a new one just before the SiRF chips hit.
.. and now with the MTK GPS chipset, I understand, so possibly even
better.
David
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 11:08 pm
From: nospam
In article <f0r44598cp0cfu2sbhkvac4ciubpdusul9@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Density matters. Height doesn't.
> GPS needs a clear view of the sky,
a clear view helps but is not required with decent gps units. older
ones do require a clear view, however.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 11:08 pm
From: nospam
In article <24i4455t0il27jbkurpvefql288lpef1d9@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>>b) GPS's (now) track amazingly well in autos even if they don't have a
> >>>clear view of the sky. ...
> >
> >> Actually not so good.
> >
> >Personal experience tells me someting quite different to your
> >claims. Maybe you only drive in tunnels. Maybe you should
> >upgrade your GPS receiver to something sold in recent years.
>
> I'm talking state of the art Garmin receivers.
garmin gps units with the sirf star iii chipset work amazingly well
indoors and under obstructions. i know someone who has a bluetooth gps
logger and he leaves it in his glove compartment and it tracks just
fine.
when i was shopping for a gps, i was able to get a 3d fix inside a
department store at a shopping mall (steel frame construction) with no
less than *six* satellites tracking, all with medium to high signal
strength. the older non-sirf star iii chipset gps had absolutely no
satellites. i easily get gps fixes indoors, and not on the top floor
either.
<http://www.gpslodge.com/archives/006739.php>
Both the Nuvi 350 and the Nuvi 360 come with the SiRF star III
chipset, which is very sensitive and recently I was able to get a
signal with the SiRF star III in my basement.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 11:32 pm
From: "Charles E Hardwidge"
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:nd57h6-c9f.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> [1] Bluetooth is widely available in mobile phones, smart phones,
> PDAs, netbooks, laptops, etc. Computers can easily be
> upgraded to bluetooth. Interfaces for bluetooth should
> be all standardized, as I understand it, and usable for
> transmitting data. It's also not hampered by the wish for
> even tinier memory packages for mobile phones and mutually
> incompatible flash memory interface designs.
By a remarkable coincidence Brad Templeton has an interesting blog topic on
cameras, connectivity, and additional functionality that covers a lot of
what's being discussed in this topic:
http://ideas.4brad.com/features-high-end-digital-cameras
--
Charles E Hardwidge
==============================================================================
TOPIC: simple question...maybe
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/25aaf8517adc4c7e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 7:14 pm
From: "Frank ess"
Ofnuts wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>>
>>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:16:32 -0500, Nicko
>>>> <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> <h1s29m$emq$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>>>> Frank ess wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about
>>>>>> screen resolution used by all visitors to sites measured by
>>>>>> that service over 425 days ending 31 March 2009:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fri Feb 1 00:01:02 2008 - Tue Mar 31 23:58:00 2009 425.0 Days
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1024x768 27 290 629 (44%)
>>>>>> 1280x1024 19 687 161 (31%)
>>>>>> Unknown 7 979 641 (12%)
>>>>>> 800x600 4 375 444 (7%)
>>>>>> 1152x864 2 026 010 (3%)
>>>>>> 1600x1200 398 074 (0%)
>>>>>> 640x480 108 717 (0%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject to all statistic-gathering shortcomings,
>>>>
>>>> Especially in this case -- I have no idea where you're getting
>>>> that data, but it's wildly inconsistent with the data I've seen,
>>>> which shows that smaller images dominate. Try a Google Image
>>>> search.
>>>
>>> Screen size, not image size.
>>>
>>> Here's a javascript web page that resizes your browser window to
>>> various sizes:
>>> http://edgehill.net/1/Misc/html-coding/screen-scale/index.htm
>>> Firefox blocked it, I used IE. It doesn't account for scroll bars
>>> or anything, so should be shrunk manually for that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> That was almost exactly the information I was seeking. Thank
>>>>> you, so much, Frank, and everyone else.
>>>>
>>>> As President Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify!"
>>
>> The resizer worked OK in my probably-less-secure Firefox.
>>
>> Speaking of blocking, I think John was:
>> "My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about
>> screen resolution ... " gives some idea of where I got the
>> report, and TheCounter.com gathered the data. We don't know if
>> their customers' viewers are typical, but with those sample sizes
>> it's likely the percentages are at least in the ballpark.
>>
>
> Something that worries me with your figures is that these are all
> 4/3 screens while the 16/10 and 16/9 ones abound especially on
> laptops... are they included in the "unknown"?
That's the only reasonable conclusion I can see. Doesn't allow for my
1680x1050, otherwise.
--
Frank ess
==============================================================================
TOPIC: HDR - how to get the photmatix colours?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0fb478b915c42705?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 8:18 pm
From: John McWilliams
byran t decker wrote:
>
> Tools, no matter how good, in the hands of idiots will always create more
> landfill.
Not when only electrons are abused.......
--
john mcwilliams
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kodak kills Kodachrome film after 74 years
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffab234a019b33ac?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 10:34 pm
From: Twibil
On Jun 24, 5:45 pm, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> 74 years is a pretty darn good run for ANY technology, don't you think?
In an unrelated story, a bone flute was found not too long ago in a
stone-aged German cave. It works just exactly like a modern flute
except that it plays fewer notes.
It carbon dates to plus or minus 35,000 years.
You were saying?
==============================================================================
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