Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

 
 
Bob Dobbs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011
PeterN wrote:
>On 6/1/2011 5:49 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Bob Dobbs writes:
>>
>>> What are; bosons, fermions, leptons, quarks, baryons, hadrons, and mesons?

>>
>> They are subatomic particles, like the electron itself.
>>
>>> Aren't they components of electrons?

>>
>> The electron has no components.

>
>that we know of. At one time scientific thinking was that the atom was
>the smallest particle.


That's what I was alluding to.
--

http://bit.ly/g2PCII
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011
On 6/1/2011 11:33 AM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
> PeterN wrote:
>> On 6/1/2011 5:49 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Bob Dobbs writes:
>>>
>>>> What are; bosons, fermions, leptons, quarks, baryons, hadrons, and mesons?
>>>
>>> They are subatomic particles, like the electron itself.
>>>
>>>> Aren't they components of electrons?
>>>
>>> The electron has no components.

>>
>> that we know of. At one time scientific thinking was that the atom was
>> the smallest particle.

>
> That's what I was alluding to.


I know, but some people think they know everything. they have trouble
distinguishing fact from theory.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Walter Banks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

> Analog's inability to regenerate a perfect copy of an
> existing copy means that any, and every, analog data set will eventually be
> lost.


Duplication may be hard but the original is a different issue. I am
not sure that you intended to say what is in that sentence.

w..



 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011
In article <4de6685c$0$5207$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> On 6/1/2011 11:33 AM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
> > PeterN wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2011 5:49 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> >>> Bob Dobbs writes:
> >>>
> >>>> What are; bosons, fermions, leptons, quarks, baryons, hadrons, and mesons?
> >>>
> >>> They are subatomic particles, like the electron itself.
> >>>
> >>>> Aren't they components of electrons?
> >>>
> >>> The electron has no components.
> >>
> >> that we know of. At one time scientific thinking was that the atom was
> >> the smallest particle.

> >
> > That's what I was alluding to.

>
> I know, but some people think they know everything. they have trouble
> distinguishing fact from theory.


Fact is that nobody has ever found any evidence that the electron has
fine structure.

If you have a fact to present that suggests that it does, please present
it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011
On Jun 1, 4:31*pm, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson writes:
> > Really? *Check your math on that one.

>
> You've already provided the math. See below.
>
> > >> Capacity = *Bandwith * log2 ( 1 + SignalPower / NoisePower )

>
> > >What happens when you set noise to zero?

>
> > Not much if the bandwidth or the signal power is zero, eh?

>
> But if the bandwidth and power are non-zero, but finite, and noise is zero,
> the capacity is infinite. QED. Using your own math.


No, undefined; division by zero is undefined.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011
On 31/05/2011 19:09, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Mxsmanic<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

>
>>> digital projector.
>>> - no tangible endpoint (image)

>
>> The projector is an analog device, not a digital device.

>
> Each pixel is only on or off at any time.


Incorrect. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_valve

> Sounds not very analog. Feel free to explain how this is
> analog.


Each pixel is capable of taking on a range of shades depending on the
signal. The signal paths are digital but the light out is analogue.
>
>> It places constraints
>> on the quality of the image.

>
> Not more than the best possible analog system.
>
>>> - are photons 'physical'?

>
>> Yes.

>
> Waves are physical, then?


Yes.
>
>>> Worse even: projector that uses coloured light beams (lasers?) to
>>> paint the image column by column, row by row. There is no image
>>> at any point outside the eye of the observer.

>
>> Nevertheless, the projector is an analog device.

>
> How so?


The brightness of the light in the raster is being modulated as the
laser scans the picture. Persistence of vision does the rest.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Something which can't be achieved in analogue photography.

>
> True, but very often you don't need many generations. An image made of
> metallic silver on glass can remain unchanged for centuries.


until the glass shatters due to an accident.

> > Yes and these are analogue, where as a digital copy would remain as
> > perfect as the original which is the important point I think you're missing.

>
> Perfect digital copies are rare in video, because that requires uncompressed
> or losslessly compressed video, which takes up too much space to be practical
> in most cases. Therefore lossy compression is used, and something more is lost
> with each generation.


nope, you just duplicate the file. it's 100% identical.
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011
In article <010620111534419003%(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed)d says...
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > > Something which can't be achieved in analogue photography.

> >
> > True, but very often you don't need many generations. An image made of
> > metallic silver on glass can remain unchanged for centuries.

>
> until the glass shatters due to an accident.
>
> > > Yes and these are analogue, where as a digital copy would remain as
> > > perfect as the original which is the important point I think you're missing.

> >
> > Perfect digital copies are rare in video, because that requires uncompressed
> > or losslessly compressed video, which takes up too much space to be practical
> > in most cases. Therefore lossy compression is used, and something more is lost
> > with each generation.

>
> nope, you just duplicate the file. it's 100% identical.


Yep. It's _edits_ that incur the genloss, not file copying.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-02-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > until the glass shatters due to an accident.

>
> Or the head on the disk drive crashes.


doesn't matter, there's an identical copy on a backup drive.

> > nope, you just duplicate the file. it's 100% identical.

>
> What if you need to manipulate it?


then you manipulate it and back up the result. what kind of stupid
question is that?
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-02-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > doesn't matter, there's an identical copy on a backup drive.

>
> So the glass shattering doesn't matter, either, since you have a dupe.


nope, the dupe would be second generation, not identical.

no to mention that duplicating a glass plate takes time, whereas
backing up a hard drive can be done automatically without user
intervention.

> > then you manipulate it and back up the result.

>
> But the quality has diminished after you manipulate it and save it again.


actually, that depends on the manipulation, but so what? the original
topic was identical backups. don't move the goalposts. people expect
that modifying a file might affect the quality.
 
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