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

 
 
John Locke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:11:11 -0400, ____
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>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.
>

You've got it backwards. So called "Intelligent Design" (really just
creationism disguised) is the rough argument. Apparently you're
not familiar with Kitzmiller v. Dover. The ID crowd got their asses
kicked but good in Federal court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District

"Intelligent Design" characters are the real "twits". After reading
the transcripts it becomes obvious that these characters are
two cans short of a six pack. No contest in comparison to real
science.




"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Non scrivetemi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
Frank Arthur wrote:

>
> "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).

>
> Sorry but God goofed. 24mm x 30mm which would yeild 8 x 10 inch
> prints.
> As far as I know God once produced the British Wrayflex camera
> using 35mm
> film producing 24mm x30mm images. All others were heathens.
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> > It was also set into stone by God that the A2 size (420 x 594
> > mm) is the maximum print size that has any relevance to
> > photographic work to
> > be viewed close-up. Of course there can be larger sizes but
> > they will
> > be viewed from further away.
> >
> > Lastly, God made the human eye incapable of distinguishing
> > detail (in
> > what is viewed close-up) greater than 300 dpi (dots per inch).
> >
> > If we do the mathematics on what God gave to us:
> >
> > A2 @ 300 dpi requires 34,802,530 pixels (=420*594*(300/25.4)^2)
> >
> > 35mm format @ 100 lp/mm requires 34,802,343 pixels
> > (=24.084*36.126*200^2)
> > which is 99.9995% of the previous value.
> >
> > Do you think that is coincidence? 34802530 and 34802343 ?
> >
> > Certainly not. Only a fool could think so.
> >
> > Like the fact that the lunar and solar disks subtend almost
> > exactly the
> > same angle when viewed from earth, and that the moon's orbital
> > period is
> > almost perfectly synchronous with the earth's rotational
> > period, it is
> > a sure sign that God designed it that way.
> >
> > So it follows that God has set 34.8 MP to be the holy grail of
> > digital
> > photography. When that is reached in 35mm format, development
> > may stop
> > and turn instead to improving S/N ratio, sensitivity, color
> > accuracy and similar parameters.
> >
> > Canon and Nikon take note. Exceed 34.8 Megapixels and face
> > God's righteous
> > wrath!
> >
> >
> >
> > Footnote
> >
> > God overlooked that the aspect ratio for 35mm is exactly 1.5000
> > and for
> > A2 paper it is approximately SQRT(2) = 1.41421(etc)
> > But then, such small details are only for small people!
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing
> > services.
> > The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From
> > header
> > is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to
> > groups other
> > than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit
> > www.panta-rhei.eu.org
> > for abuse and hashcash info.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

>
>

























































































 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael Gray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:11:11 -0400, ____
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>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.


Eh?
What the **** are you babbling about?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
John Locke 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.
>
>
> "It is far better to grasp the Universe
> as it really is than to persist in delusion,
> however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan



You mean like Geordi (Levar Burton) and his hair brush VISOR?
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Baker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:11:11 -0400, ____
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>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.



You apparently haven't heard about ID "guru" Michael Behe's
spectacular crash and burn in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The moron couldn't
even explain or defend his own "theories". He tried to use science
fiction as a supporting argument for ID. **SCIENCE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE
FICTION!!** "Intelligent Design"? Give me a ****ing break. There's
nothing remotely resembling intelligence about it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Painter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
John Baker wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:11:11 -0400, ____
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
>
> You apparently haven't heard about ID "guru" Michael Behe's
> spectacular crash and burn in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The moron couldn't
> even explain or defend his own "theories". He tried to use science
> fiction as a supporting argument for ID. **SCIENCE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE
> FICTION!!** "Intelligent Design"? Give me a ****ing break. There's
> nothing remotely resembling intelligence about it.


Skin is pretty good. Clearly our designer was a drop out from a third rate
mail order school and it stole the idea of skin from one of the good
designers.

If everybody's skin disappears one day it will prove I am right and that our
designer lost in court.

Maybe there is a new religion in that. SOS SMD Save Our Skin Send Money for
the defense fund.


 
Reply With Quote
 
____
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Michael Gray <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Eh?
> What the **** are you babbling about?


Ah- the typical stone age response. You've made my point again.

Next response- please.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
 
Reply With Quote
 
____
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
John Baker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> Give me a ****ing break. There's
> nothing remotely resembling intelligence about it.


Nor are you resembling it.

I am sure you have a point somewhere, besides being a a foul mouth
idiot.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
 
Reply With Quote
 
____
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
In article <ndQGj.10829$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Mike Painter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Skin is pretty good. Clearly our designer was a drop out from a third rate
> mail order school and it stole the idea of skin from one of the good
> designers.
>
> If everybody's skin disappears one day it will prove I am right and that our
> designer lost in court.
>
> Maybe there is a new religion in that. SOS SMD Save Our Skin Send Money for
> the defense fund.


If your skin burns off in disbelief, I think I would attribute it to
many factors.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ilya Zakharevich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-27-2008
[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.


This posting inspires a different question: what is the useful limit
of resolution for CASUAL photo prints TODAY?

I'm thinking of somebody having "a nice photo" of a sort which wins
from high resolution: the more details you have on the print, the
better it looks (of course, not every photo is of this type). You
plan to visit one of your friends, and want to make a present. What
is a reasonable MP count of the print you can make?

Looking at the question this way, El-Co takes $1 per 60 sq in of
250dpi print (with one side 30in). Taking a limit of $25 for a casual
present, this leads to 94MP print. (This is what is available TODAY.)

[The way to obtain the image for such a print is kinda limited. The
best (rangefinder) lenses for 36x24mm have enough resolution for a
good 60MP image. With something absolutely exceptional (such as
Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM; due to long focal length, it supports
even SLRs) one could probably reach the 100MP limit for the image.

However, I do not think it happens very often that an image from a
200mm lens wins a lot from a very-high-resolution print. So,
essentially, with 35mm-formfactor sensors, one MUST use mosaics to
obtain such an image.

And, of course, to get a very clear N megapixels image, one must
use about 2N megapixel sensor... Thus to obtain such an 100MP
image, one needs to mosaic a 200MP image; with overlap, it would
take about 20 individual shots with a 20MP camera...]

Yours,
Ilya
 
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