Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


>> A PROM is mighty analog, yes. Either the connection is open
>> or closed.


> Unless it fails, in which case you don't really know the state of the
> connection.


A film that fails, even if it's analog, doesn't show anything
either.

>> Good camera + crappy display. But I can send off the shot to
>> a professional lab and have them print it. The result is not
>> influenced by the display quality.


> It's influenced by the quality of the lab. QED.


You snipped the relevant part you said:
| The quality of any digital system is thus never any greater than the lesser of
| display quality or image capture quality.

>> Please expand.


> I already have. Any real-world digital system is constrained by its analog
> interfaces with the physical world.


Any real-world analog system is too. And since real-world analog
is lossy whereas digital can be lossless, a real-world analog
system with analog interfaces is beaten by a properly designed
and used digital system.

> And they will always be as good
> or better than any digital system, because they have to be a part of any
> digital system, at the endpoints, as I've explained several times.


Your record is not only broken, but also wrong: The analog
process in the middle is lossy.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
On May 27, 11:02*pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:


> You said you'd read Shannon's work, but apparently you
> didn't understand even the bare essentials of what he
> said. *And analog system *cannot* capture infinite
> detail any more than can a digital system.


Here we go again with the "Shannon's work" bull....
Shannon's work has to do with information theory. Period. End of
story.
It has NOTHING to do with capturing analog data and digitizing it.
Although it has everything to do with what happens after that capture.
That is the simple transformation you are unable to realize.



> >Digital systems guarantee perfect copies by lowering the capacity of the
> >channel. The greater the amount of channel capacity that one is willing to
> >discard, the lower the error rate can be pushed. Digital systems accomplish
> >this by setting an arbitrary division between signal and noise. Anythingbelow
> >the threshold is treated as noise, even if it's signal, and anything about the
> >threshold is treated as signal, even if it's noise.

>
> That's an odd way to say it, but isn't wrong.


Actually, that is the perfectly correct way of saying it...

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
On May 26, 12:07*pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> >> If it were "faith-based reverence", why has the entire
> >> world shifted in the direction that Shannon *proved

>
> >I was not talking about the entire world, that is your specialty.
> >I was talking about your specific case.

>
> That is exactly what the discussion was about. *Why can't you
> manage to keep track of what the topic is?


Reality call: "entire world" and "your specific case" have nothing to
do with this discussion.
Try undestanding the topic: it might make what you say more credible?


> >When are you gonna realize that "industry" is not a synonym for
> >"individual"?

>
> We weren't talking about that, so why are you?


It's you and your off-topic incorrect quoting of Shannon's work that
is totally out of it.


> >What is daft is your conviction that what the "entire industry" does
> >is what each individual must do.

>
> That has never been my conviction. *It comes *only from you*.


No, it is *you* who said, very clearly and using your own words above,
to validate your point that we should all be using digital:

"As noted, the entire audio recording industry, almost the entire
video and photography industries, and certainly the
entire telecommunications industry are all now solidly
digital. "

It's truly regretable and indicative of your low level of argument
that you cannot remember the very words you mentioned, quoted above
verbatim from your post.


> The question was whether or not digital is inherently superior to
> analog for photography. *The obfuscation you continue to recite is
> absurd. *Your arguments are daft.


The question was never that. It's *you* who claims that is the
question.

ALL imaging processes ARE analog. You MUST go through an analog-to-
digital conversion to be able to use digital thereon.
As soon as you do that, you are subjected to losses - perfectly
defined and identified by Shannon.
The question if anything is if the losses are acceptable or not or
even comparable, when considering the different methods of a-d
conversion.
In this particular case: film and eventual scan (if that's the case),
and the a-to-d converter in digital sensors.
Try to stay on topic instead of quoting Shannon out of context.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 30/05/2011 7:04 PM:


>>>> Digital systems guarantee perfect copies by lowering the capacity of the
>>>> channel. The greater the amount of channel capacity that one is willing to
>>>> discard, the lower the error rate can be pushed. Digital systems accomplish
>>>> this by setting an arbitrary division between signal and noise. Anything below
>>>> the threshold is treated as noise, even if it's signal, and anything about the
>>>> threshold is treated as signal, even if it's noise.
>>>
>>> That's an odd way to say it, but isn't wrong.

>>
>> Actually, that is the perfectly correct way of saying it...

>
> This definition of digital noise has been stated several times but I
> think it is wrong.
>
> The idea of noise being something at a low level above which one can
> consider the signal to be useful information is, subject to certain
> qualifications, appropriate to analogue signals. It is totally
> inappropriate to digital signals.


Not really. I think the problem is with the wording. For digital and assuming
binary, you must have two arbitrary levels of analog signal to encode the 1 and
0. Whatever they may be. Anything outside of those two levels can be included
in noise, be that a higher or lower level of signal. That includes under as
well as overload.


>
> If one has a bus conveying digital signals to (say) base 16, the
> arrival on the bus of a random noise signal can amount to a value of
> anywhere between 1 and F. It is not proper to consider anything below
> (say) 2 as noise and above 2 as valid signal. It just does not make
> sense.


You can only have for each individual channel two levels for binary encoding.
Base 16 is a different proposition, to do with the encoding of the digital
binary signal itself. Nothing to do with how it is transmitted across an analog
channel. Of course: you can have different bands of analog signal transmitting
various binary encodings. But that has nothing to do with base 16 or any other
base.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
Floyd L. Davidson wrote,on my timestamp of 30/05/2011 7:41 PM:


>> It has NOTHING to do with capturing analog data and digitizing it.
>> Although it has everything to do with what happens after that capture.
>> That is the simple transformation you are unable to realize.

>
> Nothing at all to do with digitizing it...


That is not what I said, moron. Read again. You are NOT authorized to change
what I said to match your beliefs. Capice?


> What do you think "information theory" is?
>


The theory that deals with the transmission of information using a binary
encoding. Whatever format that encoding might take, even if carrier pigeons are
used.
Including dealing with small little details that you are apparently totally
ignorant about. Such as information encoding into binary - how many bits do you
really need to transmit any given amount of information. Hint: a byte is a
convention. Not a necessity. So is ASCII. And all such.
And error avoidance and correction. Not analog error. Digital one. As in: what
happens when you lose three units of information in a transmission? Do you
start again or do you reconstruct it from error correction redundancy?

THAT is what information theory deals with, boofhead. The encoding and decoding
to/from analog media is a totally different discipline to do mostly with
electronics and engineering. Get informed and stop sprouting "wikipedia" bull
as if you knew what's going on.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 30/05/2011 7:07 PM:

>>
>> ALL imaging processes ARE analog. You MUST go through an analog-to-
>> digital conversion to be able to use digital thereon.

>
> Not so. The creation of the image begins with the gathering of the
> electrical charges created by the arrival of photons. These are
> quantized i.e. digital and in no way can beclassified as analogue.


Please direct that statement to the MIT: I'm quite sure they will be incredibly
interested in your "proof" that a photon is a particle and not a wave.
You just solved one of the biggest conundrums of modern science!
In particular, I'm quite sure they'll be interested in your discovery that
quanta are indeed digital...


 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Reilly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
On Mon, 30 May 2011 21:07:47 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

> Not so. The creation of the image begins with the gathering of the
> electrical charges created by the arrival of photons. These are
> quantized i.e. digital and in no way can beclassified as analogue.


When reading the data out of the CCD or CMOS sensor, after the photons
have been caught and converted to electrical charge, are they counted, or
is the charge gated onto an analogue sense amplifier that is then the
input to an analog to digital converter? Is the quantization in the A/D
converter comparable to the charge quantisation that results from the
arrival of photons? (I ask not knowing the answers: I don't design these
types of circuits.) My suspicion is that the detector signals behave as
analog right up to the point of the camera's D/A channels and consequent
transmission to the buffer memory. Quantisation is one of the
characteristics of a digital signal, but I don't think that it is a
sufficient one.

Cheers,

--
Andrew
 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter Banks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011


Noons wrote:

> Floyd L. Davidson wrote,on my timestamp of 30/05/2011 7:41 PM:
>
> >> It has NOTHING to do with capturing analog data and digitizing it.
> >> Although it has everything to do with what happens after that capture.
> >> That is the simple transformation you are unable to realize.

> >
> > Nothing at all to do with digitizing it...

>
> That is not what I said, moron. Read again. You are NOT authorized to change
> what I said to match your beliefs. Capice?
>
> > What do you think "information theory" is?
> >

>
> The theory that deals with the transmission of information using a binary
> encoding. Whatever format that encoding might take, even if carrier pigeons are
> used.
> Including dealing with small little details that you are apparently totally
> ignorant about. Such as information encoding into binary - how many bits do you
> really need to transmit any given amount of information. Hint: a byte is a
> convention. Not a necessity. So is ASCII. And all such.
> And error avoidance and correction. Not analog error. Digital one. As in: what
> happens when you lose three units of information in a transmission? Do you
> start again or do you reconstruct it from error correction redundancy?
>
> THAT is what information theory deals with, boofhead. The encoding and decoding
> to/from analog media is a totally different discipline to do mostly with
> electronics and engineering. Get informed and stop sprouting "wikipedia" bull
> as if you knew what's going on.


Essentially what you are saying is correct about information theory.

What is different with camera's in the last few years is the sensors in
the better digital camera's have reached the point where their dynamic range
is better than the analog dynamic range of film with a lower signal to noise.

Digital post processing technology has developed significantly as well
capable of producing outstanding results.

Film in some forms is likely to remain for years increasingly becoming an
art form.




 
Reply With Quote
 
ASCII
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2011
Eric Stevens wrote:
>In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any
> physical entity involved in an interaction.


Should read as the smallest amount
that can be resolved by the means available.
Think of reading braille with your elbow <g>
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASCII
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2011
Eric Stevens wrote:
>On Mon, 30 May 2011 21:55:47 -0700, ASCII <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any
>>> physical entity involved in an interaction.

>>
>>Should read as the smallest amount
>>that can be resolved by the means available.
>>Think of reading braille with your elbow <g>

>
>Think 'charge on the electron'.
>
>Regards,
>
>Eric Stevens


That charge (in EV) has to be measured somehow,
most likely by comparing it to some known reference value,
like the value of measurable change (photon).
However fine or precise that reference is
determines the baseline resolution accuracy.
 
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
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! Whisky-dave Digital Photography 6 06-05-2011 02:50 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 3 05-26-2011 01:49 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 2 05-25-2011 07:20 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! MC Digital Photography 7 05-24-2011 12:37 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 2 05-18-2011 02:13 PM



Advertisments