Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digital camera noise reduction idea

Reply
Thread Tools

Digital camera noise reduction idea

 
 
a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2007
On Dec 5, 4:10 am, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 9:04 pm, Viator <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> I think your tinfoil helmet has slipped.
> >> Dealing with quality people like you is the spice of life.

>
> > Dealing with retarded ideas from clueless people is the leftover
> > meatloaf of life.
> > Oh, BTW *light* IS electromagnetic!

>
> Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
> studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
> 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
> wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
> at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?


Oh and another thing to cook your noodle; gamma rays are
electromagnetic and can cause nuclear reactions.
How you like that? Learn that 40 years ago?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2007
On Dec 5, 4:10 am, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 9:04 pm, Viator <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> I think your tinfoil helmet has slipped.
> >> Dealing with quality people like you is the spice of life.

>
> > Dealing with retarded ideas from clueless people is the leftover
> > meatloaf of life.
> > Oh, BTW *light* IS electromagnetic!

>
> Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
> studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of


Maybe you should get a refund from your school? Or at least burn the
diploma so they're not associated with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich Grise
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2007
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:52:15 -0800, acl wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
>> Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
>> studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
>> 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
>> wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
>> at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?

>
> No but there seems that there's some confusion here: light is precisely
> coupled undulations in the electric and magnetic fields. These are
> quantised, and the quantum is called the photon.
>
> The flow of electrons is another story. But it can be cast in the same
> terms. For that matter, sound waves in solids can be cast in the same
> form: there, you'd probably think of them as "waves", but in fact they
> can also be thought of as consisting of particles-phonons. And so on.


Somebody once told me that even machine-gun bullets will show a
diffraction pattern.

That'd be a fun experiment!

Cheers!
Rich

 
Reply With Quote
 
acl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2007
On Dec 5, 8:00 pm, Rich Grise <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:52:15 -0800, acl wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
> >> Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
> >> studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
> >> 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
> >> wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
> >> at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?

>
> > No but there seems that there's some confusion here: light is precisely
> > coupled undulations in the electric and magnetic fields. These are
> > quantised, and the quantum is called the photon.

>
> > The flow of electrons is another story. But it can be cast in the same
> > terms. For that matter, sound waves in solids can be cast in the same
> > form: there, you'd probably think of them as "waves", but in fact they
> > can also be thought of as consisting of particles-phonons. And so on.

>
> Somebody once told me that even machine-gun bullets will show a
> diffraction pattern.
>
> That'd be a fun experiment!
>


Hah, in fact, everything will; for that matter, the person who told
you that could, in principle, form a diffraction pattern with you
The reason we don't see all these effects is that the wavelength of
the wavepacket describing you is, basically, zero, so you behave
classically (just like for light we can use ray optics so long as the
light doesn't pass through an aperture comparable to its wavelength or
smaller).

The largest objects for which wave effects have been observed so far
are buckyballs (c60 fullerenes), by the group of Zeilinger in austria:
http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/research...c60/index.html
(well, maybe larger things have been already done, but I haven't heard
about them). People are now trying to diffract a virus, which is
practical if difficult; this should start posing interesting
philosophical problems!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2007
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:40:19 -0800, acl wrote:
> On Dec 5, 8:00 pm, Rich Grise <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Somebody once told me that even machine-gun bullets will show a
>> diffraction pattern.
>>
>> That'd be a fun experiment!
>>

> Hah, in fact, everything will; for that matter, the person who told you
> that could, in principle, form a diffraction pattern with you The
> reason we don't see all these effects is that the wavelength of the
> wavepacket describing you is, basically, zero, ...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah! Now I get it! I Am The Zero Point! ;-D

Thanks!
Rich
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Henry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2007
On Dec 2, 3:00 pm, Viator <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
> reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
> electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
> just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
> the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
> that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
> internal origin (the circuits) or optical.
>
> But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
> have a digital camera.


If you are seeing images on the display caused by external rf, then
you are holding a television, not a digital camera.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2007
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Dec 5, 4:10 am, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 9:04 pm, Viator <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> I think your tinfoil helmet has slipped.
>>>> Dealing with quality people like you is the spice of life.
>>> Dealing with retarded ideas from clueless people is the leftover
>>> meatloaf of life.
>>> Oh, BTW *light* IS electromagnetic!

>> Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
>> studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
>> 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
>> wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
>> at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?

>
> Oh and another thing to cook your noodle; gamma rays are
> electromagnetic and can cause nuclear reactions.
> How you like that? Learn that 40 years ago?


Yep, although not nearly as penetrating as some others.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2007
Rich Grise wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:52:15 -0800, acl wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
>>> studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
>>> 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
>>> wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
>>> at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?

>> No but there seems that there's some confusion here: light is precisely
>> coupled undulations in the electric and magnetic fields. These are
>> quantised, and the quantum is called the photon.
>>
>> The flow of electrons is another story. But it can be cast in the same
>> terms. For that matter, sound waves in solids can be cast in the same
>> form: there, you'd probably think of them as "waves", but in fact they
>> can also be thought of as consisting of particles-phonons. And so on.

>
> Somebody once told me that even machine-gun bullets will show a
> diffraction pattern.
>
> That'd be a fun experiment!
>
> Cheers!
> Rich
>


Can you imagine trying to convince the teacher that you only brought
that machine gun to school as part of your science project? Grin.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich Grise
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2007
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:12:59 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:52:15 -0800, acl wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>> Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
>>>> studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
>>>> 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue
>>>> of wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of
>>>> electrons, at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?
>>> No but there seems that there's some confusion here: light is
>>> precisely coupled undulations in the electric and magnetic fields.
>>> These are quantised, and the quantum is called the photon.
>>>
>>> The flow of electrons is another story. But it can be cast in the same
>>> terms. For that matter, sound waves in solids can be cast in the same
>>> form: there, you'd probably think of them as "waves", but in fact they
>>> can also be thought of as consisting of particles-phonons. And so on.

>>
>> Somebody once told me that even machine-gun bullets will show a
>> diffraction pattern.
>>
>> That'd be a fun experiment!
>>

> Can you imagine trying to convince the teacher that you only brought
> that machine gun to school as part of your science project? Grin.


I think for an effective demo your target needs to be something
like prison bars.

Cheers!
Rich

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Noise Reduction software (Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.) John Navas Digital Photography 0 10-19-2007 03:22 PM
In Camera Noise Reduction And RAW Ali Digital Photography 1 10-13-2007 05:47 PM
In camera noise reduction setting saxophool Digital Photography 4 02-02-2007 03:23 AM
Sharpening & Noise Reduction- In Camera, or After? Richard DeLuca Digital Photography 7 12-10-2006 01:38 AM
noise reduction on digital camera purely post-processing? jos Digital Photography 2 11-30-2004 03:36 AM



Advertisments