Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus u4/3rds, an overpriced bust in the making?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4d68d57742d3b85f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 9:02 am
From: Alan Browne

On 07-06-09 07:03, Troll Killers wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 03:23:36 -0700 (PDT), RichA<rander3127@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> $1000 for the body, no viewfinder, of any kind.

Rich: the whole point of micro 4/3 was to get rid of the VF and mirror.
There is no room between the sensor and the lens for a mirror. Do
some research before you barf all over the place and embarrass yourself
(again).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 9:40 am
From: Paul Furman

RichA wrote:
> $1000 for the body,

That sounds like too much for sure. The lenses will need to cost that
much each to match.

But... I really like the compact simple retro shape and tiny lens. I bet
it's a fake though, the bulky Lumix shown for comparison there is MUCH
bigger:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=32060474&page=2

> no viewfinder, of any kind. And no excuse for not
> having a viewfinder because the camera does not lack for space. To me
> (especially given the poor resolution performance of the latest 12 meg
> Olympus cameras) there is no reason to buy it over the G1 or GH1
> Panasonic. Apart from the movie mode, I can't see this as being
> anything other than a Sigma DP with interchangeable lenses. And the
> crappy silver-coloured plastic kit lens just looks cheap. At least
> the expensive Pentax "Limited" primes are METAL bodied.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32060474
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32059861

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 3:32 pm
From: Rich

On Jun 7, 12:02 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 07-06-09 07:03, Troll Killers wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 03:23:36 -0700 (PDT), RichA<rander3...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> $1000 for the body, no viewfinder, of any kind.
>
> Rich: the whole point of micro 4/3 was to get rid of the VF and mirror.
> There is no room between the sensor and the lens for a mirror. Do
> some research before you barf all over the place and embarrass yourself
> (again).

That's what simple optical viewfinders or EVFs are for, brain trust.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Style Ralph lauren polo mens Tshirts - Cheap
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/50034dc50f695b0e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 9:23 am
From: tanvon19@gmail.com

Designer New Style Ralph lauren polo mens Tshirts are fine quality.
You can check them:
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Ralph-lauren-polo-men-tshirt-11.html
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Ralph-lauren-polo-men-tshirt-12.html

And find more new fashionable apparels please view :
www.luxury-fashion.org

Welcome check our other pages or feel free contact us.
You can find what do you want here!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor....venting!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 9:32 am
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:43:37 -0500, "Dr.Smith" <jhnichols3@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Maybe all manufacturers design their vehicles this way now. Before I buy
>another vehicle I will find out if Fords are the same way. If they are, I
>am sorry to say that my next vehicle will be Japanese, Chinese, or Korean.
>If I have to be screwed my a auto company, I would preferred to be F(&k by
>an Asian company. Their dicks are smaller.

You won't be any better off with a Japanese brand.

My daughter used to own a 1988 Toyota. The right rear taillight was
damaged when she accidently backed into a post in a convenience store
parking lot. To repair the damage, I had to buy a complete rear
bumper assembly. What should have been a $20 repair job was several
hundred dollars. What should have been something that I could have
installed for her turned into a body shop repair job.

Anyone who has had mechanical work done on any automobile - any brand
- has paid extra for design deficiencies. If it's a mechanical
repair, chances are you will pay far, far more for the labor to get at
a part that needs replaced than you will for the part and labor
required to replace the part. The Japanese are not any smarter in
this regard than are Detroit designers. They design for *their* ease
of assembly, not the later needs for repairs.

I've owned Toyotas, Hondas, Volvos, and several American brands of
automobiles. I see no difference between them in what you have
described.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 9:45 am
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:59:28 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

>> Maybe all manufacturers design their vehicles this way now. Before I buy
>> another vehicle I will find out if Fords are the same way. If they are, I
>> am sorry to say that my next vehicle will be Japanese, Chinese, or Korean.
>
>The two brands that have the least faults in the first 3 years of
>ownership are:
>
>Lexus and Accura
>
>followed by
>
>Toyota and Honda.
>
Apples and oranges, Alan. The complaint is about what is required to
fix a car that has a part that needs replaced, not about manufacturing
defects. The complaint is also about parts that, when they need
replacing, require the purchase of an entire assembly instead of just
the part. This has nothing to do with manufacturing defects.

Whether its a Toyota or a Chevrolet, the water pump may need to be
replaced at some time. If you have to pay for the labor to remove an
inaccessible water pump because of the design of the engine
compartment, you will be the victim of a design that was based on
assembly ease rather than for future repair economies.

Minor body work damage often requires the replacement of complete
assemblies because components are not designed as individually
replaceable. This is true of any brand of automobile.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 12:30 pm
From: "Peter"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mtqn251hhklspvguguu66arp7kisf1fudp@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:59:28 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Maybe all manufacturers design their vehicles this way now. Before I
>>> buy
>>> another vehicle I will find out if Fords are the same way. If they are,
>>> I
>>> am sorry to say that my next vehicle will be Japanese, Chinese, or
>>> Korean.
>>
>>The two brands that have the least faults in the first 3 years of
>>ownership are:
>>
>>Lexus and Accura
>>
>>followed by
>>
>>Toyota and Honda.
>>
> Apples and oranges, Alan. The complaint is about what is required to
> fix a car that has a part that needs replaced, not about manufacturing
> defects. The complaint is also about parts that, when they need
> replacing, require the purchase of an entire assembly instead of just
> the part. This has nothing to do with manufacturing defects.
>
> Whether its a Toyota or a Chevrolet, the water pump may need to be
> replaced at some time. If you have to pay for the labor to remove an
> inaccessible water pump because of the design of the engine
> compartment, you will be the victim of a design that was based on
> assembly ease rather than for future repair economies.
>
> Minor body work damage often requires the replacement of complete
> assemblies because components are not designed as individually
> replaceable. This is true of any brand of automobile.
>

summarily, headlamps.

--
Peter

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 2:41 pm
From: frank

Chicago trib has list of iconic GM cars on its car page today. One was
Pontiac Fiero. Remember that one? Had a habit of catching fire at
least in So Cal when they came out.

Absolute worst was Mazda rotary engine they came out with in mid late
80s, real bear to do any work on it. One of those everybody had to
have one for a while. then reality kicked in.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 4:35 pm
From: Faktor

Dr.Smith wrote:
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009051520202050073-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking like a
>> survivor, here is a little salute.
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Savageduck
>>
>
> I had to have the brakes replaced on my 2003 Silverado yesterday, and one of
> the calipers needed to be rebuilt. Because of the way General Motors
> designs these things now they could not be serviced and had to be completely
> replaced. Here is what the total cost was with oil change & fuel filter
> change. $779!!
>
> A few months back I had one set of front wheel bearings go bad. I had to
> buy a complete rotor, spindle, bearing, and speed sensor assembly. Cost:
> $298
>
> A few months before that I had "Check Engine Light". Years ago on my 1990
> Silverado, you could simply hook up a jumper (wire or bent paperclip)
> between a couple of the sockets on the diagnostic interface and the trouble
> code would blink out on the "Check Engine Light" on the dash. GM redesigned
> that so that mechanics or DIY's would have to buy expensive equipment to
> check this now. That cost me $70 to find out that I had a bad gas cap!
>
> I have stuck by GM since I was a teenager (just turned 42), but their idea
> of loyalty only goes one way.
>
> Maybe all manufacturers design their vehicles this way now. Before I buy
> another vehicle I will find out if Fords are the same way. If they are, I
> am sorry to say that my next vehicle will be Japanese, Chinese, or Korean.
> If I have to be screwed my a auto company, I would preferred to be F(&k by
> an Asian company. Their dicks are smaller.
>
>

You ain't seen nothing until you need to have an Audi repaired!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does anybody have an answer?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c4ad2c7afb485eca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 1:44 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:47:10 GMT, "footless crow"
<footless.crow@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>On 6-Jun-2009, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Clearly you have never used one of the modern cameras. There is no
>> easier way to check the exposure than by viewing the histogram or
>> having the burned out high-lights indicated.
>
>Clearly, you lose plenty of shots by messing about with histograms.
>Yes it's easy to check for over exposure - there's nothing clever
>about that- but you still have to correct the shot if you discover over
>exp. in the histogram.

And of course you don't if you have doubts about the first one. :-(
>
>>
>> >This is less time consuming than
>> >fiddling about with the tft display controls.
>>
>> By using the display properly you are not left unsure, you 'know' and
>> you know both what and why. Thats better than taking another shot on
>> the grounds that you weren't sure of the last one and hope to be more
>> sure of the next.
>
>Useless knowledge if your subject has walked, crawled or run away.

Yet you say "I re-take the shot if I'm unsure of exposure etc.". I
suppose you have to walk, crawl or run after your subject.
>
>
>>
>> >As modern DSLRs are festooned
>> >with controls, it's too easy to accidentally put the camera into an
>> >unintended
>> >mode and it's not possible to use an ever-ready case due to the controls
>> >on the back of the camera.
>>
>> You are writing rubbish and I strongly suspect you are a troll.
>
>Not even incorrect.

Double-negative = 'correct'.
>
>You sound more like a gadget freak than a photographer.

Eric Stevens

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 1:49 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:57:46 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:29:09 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>> Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:09:56 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>> Davidson) wrote:
>>>>> Oops, not a intrinsic characteristic of voltage, but rather a
>>>>> specific environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> There a couple hundred thousand others just like that...
>>>> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/15/5/017
>>>> "Quantum electrodynamic theory of voltage carrying states..."
>>> That *is* one of the couple hundred thousand just like that!
>>>
>>> Don't look up "voltage quantization" to learn more about it
>>> Eric. What you want is "josephson quantization".
>>>
>>> You are continuing to claim voltage is digital just because
>>> it can be quantized by an environmental influence.
>>>
>>> That is a patently absurd claim.
>>
>> Not so. I've been trying to point out that what you regard as analog
>> voltage can be used to digitise voltage signals.
>>
>> Your problem is that you are stuck on the one paradigm and _will_not_
>> try to come to grips with any other.
>
>The problem you're having is that you're trying to apply quantum
>mechanics to ordinary electronics when it's not appropriate to do so.
>Image sensors simply don't count photons or electrons.

I agree I was stretching things there :-)

However, while the sensor does not actually count electrons (otherwise
you would not have to digitize the signal later) the senso does detect
the presence of light via individual photons and electrons.

Eric Stevens

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 1:51 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:11:57 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:29:09 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>You are continuing to claim voltage is digital just because
>>>it can be quantized by an environmental influence.
>>>
>>>That is a patently absurd claim.
>>
>>Not so.
>
>Yes so. All voltage is analog by definition. No matter
>what voltage you have, you can increase it by some fraction.
>And between any two voltage values, there are an infinite number
>of values. (That is true even if the voltage is the result of a
>single charged particle, simply because the particle can move at
>different speeds and in different directions.)
>
>Note that what you think is a "digital voltage" is a digital
>signal using analog voltage encoded with digital information.

That's an amazing discovery. That's what I've been trying to tell you
from even before my 'bricks' analogy.
>
>>I've been trying to point out that what you regard as analog
>>voltage can be used to digitise voltage signals.
>
>What do you mean? Your statement is ambiguous. It is also
>distinctly different than what you've been saying. It isn't
>necessarily untrue, it just doesn't have anything to do with
>what you've said before. (At least it doesn't in any way that
>is valid. I assume you have some way to relate it to the absurd
>claims you made previously, and if so it will necessarily be
>invalid.)
>
>>Your problem is that you are stuck on the one paradigm and _will_not_
>>try to come to grips with any other.
>
>You are flailing away, going from one mistaken claim to another
>trying to find a way to trip me up. You've failed every time,
>and haven't come to grips with the reality that you probably
>never will.
>
>If I wanted to trip you up... well, I'd probably bring up
>something like Eb/No for the digital signals used by analog
>satellite radio systems. That is the energy-per-bit to
>noise-power-spectral-density ratio of the analog carrier... :-)

Eric Stevens

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 1:58 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:53:36 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:02:01 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>
>>> <heavily edited for brevity>
>>>
>>>> Dingbat - interpolation is an assential part of going from the Bayer
>>>> array to the RAW data file. Please don't continue to pretend
>>>> otherwise.
>>> <edited>
>>>
>>> Hello, Eric:
>>>
>>> "Dingbat," eh? Why don't youss dummy up, ya meathead, ya! <g>
>>
>>
>> I'd got suckered off onto a tangent at that point. There is no
>> interpolation if the raw data is written to file in unmodified form.
>> However, as more recent chunks of this thread have made clear (to all
>> except possibly Floyd L Davidson) many/most raw files are a modified
>> form of the raw sensor data. This is likely to involve interpolation.
>
>In general, no, because interpolation is done by the RAW converter, not
>the camera.

That's a separate issue. I'm referring to processing of the signal
between the sensor and the recording of the so-called raw data. Nikon
certainly does something and, from what Chris Hills has written so too
probably do others.

Eric Stevens

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 1:59 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:21:41 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:02:01 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <heavily edited for brevity>
>>>>
>>>>> Dingbat - interpolation is an assential part of going from the Bayer
>>>>> array to the RAW data file. Please don't continue to pretend
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>> <edited>
>>>>
>>>> Hello, Eric:
>>>>
>>>> "Dingbat," eh? Why don't youss dummy up, ya meathead, ya! <g>
>>> I'd got suckered off onto a tangent at that
>>> point. There is no
>>> interpolation if the raw data is written to file in unmodified form.
>>> However, as more recent chunks of this thread have made clear (to all
>>> except possibly Floyd L Davidson) many/most raw files are a modified
>>> form of the raw sensor data. This is likely to involve interpolation.
>>
>>In general, no, because interpolation is done by the RAW converter, not
>>the camera.
>
>Virtually *every* current digital camera does interpolation.
>Many photographers never use an image that is not interpolated
>in the camera.
>
>In specific though, Eric is wrong because once the data has
>been interpolated, it simply is not "raw data".

Tell that to Nikon.

Eric Stevens

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 2:00 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 05:52:02 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>In message <87zlck1e7u.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>><floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>>Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:02:01 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <heavily edited for brevity>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dingbat - interpolation is an assential part of going from the Bayer
>>>>>>> array to the RAW data file. Please don't continue to pretend
>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>> <edited>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello, Eric:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dingbat," eh? Why don't youss dummy up, ya meathead, ya! <g>
>>>>> I'd got suckered off onto a tangent at that
>>>>> point. There is no
>>>>> interpolation if the raw data is written to file in unmodified form.
>>>>> However, as more recent chunks of this thread have made clear (to all
>>>>> except possibly Floyd L Davidson) many/most raw files are a modified
>>>>> form of the raw sensor data. This is likely to involve interpolation.
>>>>
>>>>In general, no, because interpolation is done by the RAW converter, not
>>>>the camera.
>>>
>>>Virtually *every* current digital camera does interpolation.
>>
>>Proof please?
>
>They can all produce JPEG images.
>
>>>In specific though, Eric is wrong because once the data has
>>>been interpolated, it simply is not "raw data".
>>
>>Proof please. Specifically for Eric's camera and mine
>
>Interpolated data is not raw data by definition.

Tell that to Nikon.
>
>Of course we know that *you* are not concerned with standard
>definitions (little things like what Public Domain means
>vs. Copyrighted) so I'll not be too amazed if you now say that
>interpolated data is "raw data" too. (Granted it may take me
>several minutes to stop laughing but I still won't be too
>amazed.)

Eric Stevens

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 2:02 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:38:01 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>"Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>news:87hbys1799.fld@apaflo.com...
>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>In message <87zlck1e7u.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>>>><floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>>>>Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:02:01 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <heavily edited for brevity>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dingbat - interpolation is an assential part of going from the Bayer
>>>>>>>>> array to the RAW data file. Please don't continue to pretend
>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>> <edited>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello, Eric:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Dingbat," eh? Why don't youss dummy up, ya meathead, ya! <g>
>>>>>>> I'd got suckered off onto a tangent at that
>>>>>>> point. There is no
>>>>>>> interpolation if the raw data is written to file in unmodified form.
>>>>>>> However, as more recent chunks of this thread have made clear (to all
>>>>>>> except possibly Floyd L Davidson) many/most raw files are a modified
>>>>>>> form of the raw sensor data. This is likely to involve interpolation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In general, no, because interpolation is done by the RAW converter, not
>>>>>>the camera.
>>>>>
>>>>>Virtually *every* current digital camera does interpolation.
>>>>
>>>>Proof please?
>>>
>>> They can all produce JPEG images.
>>
>>And JPEG interpolates...how, exactly?
>>And so, that proves exactly what?
>
>The camera's sensor produces analog data, which is converted to
>digital and if the camera is set to shoot in RAW mode that data
>is saved in a "RAW file". If the camera is set to shoot in JPEG
>mode that data is *interpolated*, which produces an RGB data set
>and that data is formatted into a JPEG image and saved to a
>file.
>
>If a camera can directly produce a JPEG image file, it
>*necessarily* can interpolate the raw data.
>
>Therefore, it is clear that the "interpolation is done by RAW
>converter, not the camera" statement is not valid as a counter
>to the statement by Eric Stevens above it (granted that Eric's
>comments are not correct, just that it isn't demonstrated by
>that particular response).

The only problem with your argument is that I have quite specifically
NOT been talking about JPEG. (or TIFF or any other similar image file)

Eric Stevens

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 2:03 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:15:52 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>I'd got suckered off onto a tangent at that point. There is no
>>interpolation if the raw data is written to file in unmodified form.
>>However, as more recent chunks of this thread have made clear (to all
>>except possibly Floyd L Davidson) many/most raw files are a modified
>>form of the raw sensor data. This is likely to involve interpolation.
>
>Errr, Eric... were did you get that idea from?
>
>If the camera raw data has been interpolated, it is no longer
>raw data. If it is then saved to a file, it isn't a "RAW file".
>
Tell that to Nikon

>And I assure you that "many/most" raw files do not have any raw
>data that has been interpolated.
>
>You appear to have been suckered again...

Eric Stevens

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 5:25 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:11:57 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>>Note that what you think is a "digital voltage" is a digital
>>signal using analog voltage encoded with digital information.
>
>That's an amazing discovery. That's what I've been trying to tell you
>from even before my 'bricks' analogy.

Get real Eric. I've been explaining that to people on Usenet
for literally decades. You can't even figure out what digital
is yet.

Your bricks analogy was flawed (I don't even remember the
details). If you want to compare voltage encoded digital
signals to bricks, the cement is a voltage, and the brick is a
pulse of cement.

How fast the brick is moving when it hits you up the side of the
head will determine the amount of information imparted. That
makes it analog cement... If it takes three times to knock you
out, then your state of consciousness is controlled by a digital
signal.

>>>I've been trying to point out that what you regard as analog
>>>voltage can be used to digitise voltage signals.
>>
>>What do you mean? Your statement is ambiguous. It is also

The least you could have done is disambiguate that statement.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 5:27 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:53:36 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:02:01 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <heavily edited for brevity>
>>>>
>>>>> Dingbat - interpolation is an assential part of going from the Bayer
>>>>> array to the RAW data file. Please don't continue to pretend
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>> <edited>
>>>>
>>>> Hello, Eric:
>>>>
>>>> "Dingbat," eh? Why don't youss dummy up, ya meathead, ya! <g>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd got suckered off onto a tangent at that point. There is no
>>> interpolation if the raw data is written to file in unmodified form.
>>> However, as more recent chunks of this thread have made clear (to all
>>> except possibly Floyd L Davidson) many/most raw files are a modified
>>> form of the raw sensor data. This is likely to involve interpolation.
>>
>>In general, no, because interpolation is done by the RAW converter, not
>>the camera.
>
>That's a separate issue. I'm referring to processing of the signal
>between the sensor and the recording of the so-called raw data. Nikon
>certainly does something and, from what Chris Hills has written so too
>probably do others.

It is not interpolation.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 5:28 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:21:41 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:02:01 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <heavily edited for brevity>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dingbat - interpolation is an assential part of going from the Bayer
>>>>>> array to the RAW data file. Please don't continue to pretend
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>> <edited>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello, Eric:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dingbat," eh? Why don't youss dummy up, ya meathead, ya! <g>
>>>> I'd got suckered off onto a tangent at that
>>>> point. There is no
>>>> interpolation if the raw data is written to file in unmodified form.
>>>> However, as more recent chunks of this thread have made clear (to all
>>>> except possibly Floyd L Davidson) many/most raw files are a modified
>>>> form of the raw sensor data. This is likely to involve interpolation.
>>>
>>>In general, no, because interpolation is done by the RAW converter, not
>>>the camera.
>>
>>Virtually *every* current digital camera does interpolation.
>>Many photographers never use an image that is not interpolated
>>in the camera.
>>
>>In specific though, Eric is wrong because once the data has
>>been interpolated, it simply is not "raw data".
>
>Tell that to Nikon.

Nikon is well aware of it. You won't find *anything* they
do or say which suggests otherwise.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 5:29 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>Interpolated data is not raw data by definition.
>
>Tell that to Nikon.

That is true by definition, and Nikon of course is well aware of
it. Lets see you find *anything* credible that says otherwise.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Use your build-in flash better!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e73c75a13086e0a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 4:43 pm
From: "Bertram Paul"

Most answers will quote automatically. I don't know what this guy is using,
but it doesn't work here and I'm not going to place > marks all over the
place by hand.
If these few lines are too hard to follow....

--
---
Bertram Paul

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h0e05r$3tt$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bertram Paul wrote:
>> l
>> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
>> And next week "reflectors". I can hardly wait. Get out your aluminum
>> foil and crinkle it up !!!
>>
>> If you're not able to invent something yourself, you can always make fun,
>> right? DO you feel better now?
>
> Could you quote correctly, and remove sig lines, since your method of
> posting doesn't do it?
>
> --
> john mcwilliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Overpopulation: Treading on a taboo
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8ed84e6fa42d0ba4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 4:49 pm
From: wismel@yahoo.com

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 02:40:12 -0700, <tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! .!> wrote:

>
>"Robert of St Louis" <free.tuneup@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c4f8bcc6-7d3d-45ca-b1ad-157b6910ce66@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 7, 11:18 am, martin.secrest...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 8:53 am, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.populationpress.org/publication/2008-3-hart.html
>>
>> > by Jack Hart
>>
>> > A strange taboo keeps us from talking about the actual cause of global
>> > warming and a deadly smorgasbord of other environmental problems. In
>> > this supposedly plain-talking era, a former presidential candidate
>> > will tell us how Viagra cured his ED, but hardly anybody will talk
>> > about what's trashing the Earth. Erectile dysfunction's a bummer. But
>> > the fate of our planet is a little more worrisome.
>>
>> > The taboo afflicts most media, including this newspaper. The
>> > Oregonian's Earth Day editorial urged support for politicians who back
>> > energy-efficient buildings, wind power, public transportation and so
>> > on. Everything but population control.
>>
>> > Leaving out the key ingredient can be downright misleading. A March 29
>>> > headline read, "Portland lessens its 'carbon footprint.' " But
>.> > Portland did no such thing. Portlanders may have indeed reduced their
>>> > per-capita driving by 5% over five years, as the story reported, but
>>> > the metro area's population grew by 8% over the same period. The
>>> > number of vehicles registered in Multnomah County has increased 45%
>>> > since 1990. You do the math.
>>
>>> > [This is just commonsense. Why won't people admit what the real cause
>>> > of man-made global warming is? Overpopulation is the root cause of
>>> > most of the world's problem's, but somehow talking about that clear
>>> > and obvious fact has become taboo. It's really weird.]
>>
>>> It is a world-wide problem but the USA continues to admit about 1
>>> million legal
>>> immigrants a year. Total insanity.
>>
>>> Martin
>>
>>. http://www.numbersusa.com/ Numbers USA- Hide quoted text -
>>
And America keeps welcoming 1 million legal immigrants a year.
Insanity.

ted
>> -
>

>
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is Canon about to do something good?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e2fa28d295029dc5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 4:49 pm
From: Robert Coe

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:03:04 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com>
wrote:
:
: "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
: > Making DSLRs in Japan? Wow!
:
: They always have. Both my 5D and 5D2 (and all my lenses and the 300D as
: well) say "Made in Japan" on them.
:
: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Canon_revives_DSLR_factory_as_demand_surges_news_284006.html

Haven't we been down this road already in recent months? I remember reporting
that all my Canons were made in Japan. Rich appears to be just babbling as
usual. We shouldn't encourage him.

Bob

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 5:17 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:49:57 -0400, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:03:04 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com>
>wrote:
>:
>: "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>: > Making DSLRs in Japan? Wow!
>:
>: They always have. Both my 5D and 5D2 (and all my lenses and the 300D as
>: well) say "Made in Japan" on them.
>:
>: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Canon_revives_DSLR_factory_as_demand_surges_news_284006.html
>
>Haven't we been down this road already in recent months? I remember reporting
>that all my Canons were made in Japan. Rich appears to be just babbling as
>usual. We shouldn't encourage him.
>
Rich does babble, but I took the comment above as sarcasm. I think
you and David have been whooshed.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Filters" is up, pleast take a look!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2364e0c5cced6fcd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 7 2009 5:14 pm
From: "Bowser"

All the usual suspects have shot tons of pics, filtered out the best ones,
and submitted for your viewing pleasure. Take a look here:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/filters

Next mandate: The Road Less Travelled (Courtesy of Alan Browne)
Due date to follow sometime this week. I need to arrange my business and
vacation travel first.

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

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