Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > God warns that 34.8 MP is the end of the digital road

Reply
Thread Tools

God warns that 34.8 MP is the end of the digital road

 
 
Michael Gray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2008
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:39:36 +0000, Martin <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Yoshi wrote:
>
>>>

>> The primary flaw in this chain of reasoning is that there is no evidence
>> that a god exists.
>>
>>

>God exists, and the proof is oysters - he has a sense of humour


"She" has a sense of humour...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ilya Zakharevich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2008
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
large person
<(E-Mail Removed)>], who wrote in article <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> 34.8 MEGAPIXELS AND NO MORE. THAT IS FINAL, AND GOD RULED THIS.
>
> Long ago, God set out that 35 mm is the perfect film format bearing a
> nominal frame size of 24 x 36 mm and an exact frame size 24.084 x
> 36.126 mm (less a 0.9 mm wide border for film transparency masking).


Judging by your numbers, you are running v10.4.8 of G*d. It is long
time to overdue for upgrade. Everybody else and their friends
upgraded to v10.6.4 long time ago.

According to v10.6.4, the ruling is that 144MP is the official limit
for 24x36mm sensors.

Hope this helps,
Ilya
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ben brugman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2008

>
> God also declared that the top optical resolution available in any
> meaningful sense is 100 lines per mm, which is really 100 line-pairs
> per mm i.e., 200 dots per mm. No lens truly resolves higher.
>

To resolve 100 line-pairs per mm, Sqrt(2)*100 dots are needed. Only 200 dots
per mm can resolve 100 lines per mm if they are alligned properly. If they
are 'misalligned' the lines are not resolved but become a gray blur. If the
lines are alligned in some places and misalligned in other places you will
get moire.

So to resolve 100 line-pairs, you need 283 dots per mm. *)

Then you need real pixels which can resolve 100 line-pairs per mm for any
color, this bumps up the number of pixels by a factor of 3.

So 34.2*sqrt(2)*sqrt(2)*3, is the correct number of pixels according to your
reasoning. This works out to be 205 MP.


So next time when interpreting this kind of higher rules be more carefull.

ben

*)
Where does the sqrt(2) = 1.41 come from. In the sensor a pixels must be able
to distingisch between 'black' and 'white', to do that, at least half the
pixel should be 'black' or half the pixel should be white. The pixels should
be smal enough to fit a pixel in between two black lines to be at least for
50% white. To accomplisch this for all cases the pixels must be smaller than
the lines are. So the pixel must have an area twice the width of the line
squared. If the line is 1 wide the pixel should have an area of 2. So the
pixels sides are sqrt(2)=1.41 of the line thickness to resolve.
(Look at the resolution of different ccd's and you see that this sqrt(2)
works).

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robibnikoff
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2008

"large person" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 34.8 MEGAPIXELS AND NO MORE. THAT IS FINAL, AND GOD


What god?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nosterill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2008
On Mar 25, 11:09 pm, large person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 34.8 MEGAPIXELS AND NO MORE. THAT IS FINAL, AND GOD RULED THIS.
>
> Long ago, God set out that 35 mm is the perfect film format bearing a
> nominal frame size of 24 x 36 mm and an exact frame size 24.084 x
> 36.126 mm (less a 0.9 mm wide border for film transparency masking).


So Oskar Barnack is God? That would account for the perfection of the
Leica.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2008
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Robibnikoff <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "large person" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 34.8 MEGAPIXELS AND NO MORE. THAT IS FINAL, AND GOD


> What god?


The increasingly popular god of sloppy arithmetic.

--
Chris Malcolm http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2008
On Mar 25, 5:33 pm, John Locke <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2008 22:09:57 -0000, large person <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
> Well "God" didn't make the human eye. Its a product of nature. And
> at some point in time, nature will improve on it..unless of course man
> does it first.



We already have- binoculars, telescopes, etc. From now on humans
control evolution (on THIS planet, anyway). Of course, although I am
a retired physicist, I also think that God specified the laws of
nature, so he/she indirectly, in a way, designed the eye
 
Reply With Quote
 
rwalker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2008

"large person" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 34.8 MEGAPIXELS AND NO MORE. THAT IS FINAL, AND GOD RULED THIS.
>
> Long ago, God set out that 35 mm is the perfect film format bearing a
> nominal frame size of 24 x 36 mm and an exact frame size 24.084 x
> 36.126 mm (less a 0.9 mm wide border for film transparency masking).


snip

Well, my god's bigger than yours, because he decreed 6 x 7 cm. to be the
nominal frame size.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Gray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2008
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mar 25, 5:33 pm, John Locke <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2008 22:09:57 -0000, large person <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well "God" didn't make the human eye. Its a product of nature. And
>> at some point in time, nature will improve on it..unless of course man
>> does it first.

>
>
>We already have- binoculars, telescopes, etc. From now on humans
>control evolution (on THIS planet, anyway). Of course, although I am
>a retired physicist, I also think that God specified the laws of
>nature, so he/she indirectly, in a way, designed the eye


You were a physicist, yet you still believe in a bronze-age
superstition?
How can you support such blatant cognitive dissanance?
 
Reply With Quote
 
____
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Michael Gray <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> You were a physicist, yet you still believe in a bronze-age
> superstition? How can you support such blatant cognitive dissanance?


Yes; its twits like you that do make a rough argument out of intelligent
design.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
 
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
problem in running a basic code in python 3.3.0 that includes HTML file Satabdi Mukherjee Python 1 04-04-2013 07:48 PM
Re: [SI] Hit the road; "The Road Less Travelled" is up! Paul Furman Digital Photography 2 07-20-2009 07:14 PM
Cisco IP NGN Enables End-to-End Digital Video and IPTV Service Delivery for 'Video 2.0 studiescircle@yahoo.com Cisco 0 12-12-2006 03:11 PM
Moderately high-end digital vs middle-of-the-road film? Anthony Buckland Digital Photography 2 12-03-2003 04:14 PM



Advertisments