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
 
      06-11-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


>> non sequitur --- a panorama practically always comes from the
>> same original scene, it's just recorded by slightly moving the
>> camera and lens.


> I'm afraid I don't see your point.


I'm afraid you are steeped too much in your prejudices to see.
Try using the terms you use as they are commonly understood.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Savageduck writes:


>> I think that most of us here understand the concept of a loss of
>> information to an adjusted file, particularly an adjusted JPEG.


> I'm not so sure. Lots of photographers talk as though they have no clue.


Or maybe your theory of how things are is wrong, since you do seem
to have not grasped the concept and are misapplying clues all day.
To a certain kind of naive healer with no knowledge of modern
medicine the removal of a cancer would seem completely clueless,
as that doesn't drive away the evil spirit that *absolutely*
is the reason for feeling bad in first place.

> They
> do not realize that an unsharp mask substantially distorts the image in an
> irreversible way, for example. Some of them even seem to think that it adds
> detail or sharpness.


It does add acutance --- apparent sharpness. And makes detail
stand out more. Not knowing that, you judge the photographers as
seeming to believe wrong things. It's just you missing critical
pieces.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2011
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Gentlemen - we have a problem.


> The only world-view which Mxsmanic seems capable of holding is that we
> (of the non-destructive party) don't understand him. On the otherhand,
> we of the non-destructive party hold the view that he does not
> understand us.


I understand Mxsmanic in *this* case. He's trying to apply an
extremely narrow definition of 'transformation', probably one
in a purely mathematical and theoretical sense, to photograpy.
Then he uses this definition to come to some conclusions which
are completely wrong, since
a) the definition is misapplied
b) the preconditions for the logic steps leading to the conclusions
are not fulfilled
c) real life experience tells a different story (which he
willfully ignores)
d) the conclusions sometimes are of theoretical interest only

Being stubborn as a granite rock, he interprets everything in the
light as "Mxmanic and how he sees the world" instead of showing
human intelligence and learning that his particular view is
quite wrong.

> I would like to suggest that Mxsmanic finds someone with Lightroom of
> NX2 and asks them to demonstrate non-destructive and reversable
> editing.


But that would be admitting he was wrong.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


>> And again and again you are wrong: the analog system is
>> limited by the analog endpoints *just as much* as the digital
>> system. Or do you disagree?


> I've never said otherwise.


Finally. Thus you agree that the analog system cannot be better
than the digital system.

>> Sorry, pal, it's you who doesn't seem to grasp the concepts
>> and who seems to 'teach' by rote, since you cannot explain.


> I haven't taught anything by rote.


Because we're to clever for you and your unthinking repetitions.

> I'm explaining theory here, and it's clear
> that it's not working.


Your theory is wrong.

> Which in turn makes it easy to see why so much teaching
> is by rote.


By 'teachers' who did learn by rote.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


>> That is not true. In other words, you didn't listen in
>> school. Take


>> x² - 1
>> ------
>> x - 1


>> and solve for x = 1. [1] That's a division by zero, but the
>> result is not infinity!


> The limit is not necessarily the same as the actual value of the function at x
> = 1. And in this case, at x = 1, the function yields infinity, irrespective of
> the limit.


OK. Now bring mathematical proof. I want to see that ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Whisky-dave writes:


>> So he really didn't say anything meaningful then.


> If it were not meaningful, it would not take a paragraph to summarize.


Random noise is harder to summarize (compress accurately) than
meaningful words.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Andrew Reilly writes:


>> I suspect that the main point that Mxsmanic is making (well, the point
>> that I got from it) is that a digital system for audio or images is
>> necessarily the combination of an analog input, a converter, (some other
>> digital stuff like communications or storage), a converter and an analog
>> output. If you rip all of the digital stuff from converter to converter
>> out of your circuit, then what you have left is an analog input and an
>> analog output that, joined together directly, *can be no worse* than the
>> total system, by dint of otherwise being part of it. Ipso-facto, an
>> analog system that is no worse, and certainly not higher noise than the
>> digital system. Also not as useful, probably, because it lacks the
>> communications or storage piece in the middle, and replacing either of
>> those with "equivalent" analog systems is typically difficult or
>> expensive.


> Yes!


Unfortunately, counter examples can be made.

Analog input: a negative.
Analog output: a print.

First, you cannot join them together in a meaningful way ---
to get from input to output, you need at least an enlarger
and some chemical processing.

Second, printing via scanning and digitally exposing the photo
paper has proven to result in better prints than using an enlarger,
if using good enough scanning and printing machines.
Mxsmanic will now argue that the enlarger isn't perfect and so on,
but we want a photo, not a theoretical enlarger.

Third, Mxsmanic claimed the analog circuit was necessarily better.
Given a good enough digital system, it isn't.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


>> You get more more channels with identical quality or more
>> channels with better quality, though.


> The product of channels times quality must be equal to or less than it was
> with analog broadcasting.


Let me rephrase that: You get more more TV stations with identical
quality or more TV stations with better quality.

I don't know about you, if I watch TV, I look at the output,
not at transport channels. The output is better.

>> Even if that was true: it's not relevant, as real world
>> channels have lots of redundant, compressible information.
>> Which digital exploits.


> There are analog systems that do the same thing, such as RIAA equalization and
> Dolby noise reduction.


They damage the signal, though, by adding noise, so they don't do the same
thing. And they are by far not as effective.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2011
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>>A lamp that is on when current flows (usually backed by a
>>>>>>transistor to give it enough current) is rather digital.


>>>>> It's analog. It's not simply the number of electrons
>>>>> that creates light, but the *flow*.


>>>>Look above ... when current flows ...


>>> Look *and* understand the significance of that!


>>The question is not "does half-current flow" or "does quarter
>>current flow". The current *might* be analog, the fact of it
>>flowing or not is digital.


> That is not true, and anyway it is totally meaningless
> in the context of this discussion.


So you are saying "the current flows" is a statement that can be
true between 0 and 100%, like 0.376291% and 23.4%.

>>>>> The effects of
>>>>> individual electrons depend on how fast they are moving,
>>>>> and in what direction compared to other electrons. The
>>>>> speed and direction are purely analog.


>>>>The fact that the lamp is lit or dark is digital. I could as


>>> So by your trivially silly logic, if one electron
>>> cruises through the circuit, the light is lit.


>>If I use a method that detects if at least one electron cruises


> There is no such method.


There is no method to make just a single electron cruise the
circuit, but there are methods now that can count single electrons.

>>through the circuit --- just as silly as your "one electron
>>cruises", and easier to arrange --- then YES, THE LAMP WILL BE
>>LIT BY THE DETECTION AND AMPLIFICATION OF THE DETECTION OF THAT
>>SINGLE ELECTRON.


> No, it would *not* be lit by a single electron. And lamps do not
> amplify, or detect, electrons.


Please read my statement again with your brain switched on instead of
knee-jerkingly putting things in my mouth. Thank you very much.

>>>>well use a bomb: if it's exploded, the circuit was closed at at
>>>>least one time.


>>> You are again being simply silly. The lamp has an infinite
>>> variation in the amount of illumnination it can provide from
>>> your "lit to dark" range.


>>The lamp driver always drives it at either full power or no power.


> Well, what are you talking about? Lamps or something else?


Lamps, powered by power sources, driven by drivers, electron
movement detection apparati and amplifiers. Too complicated
for you?

>>Imagine a relay being triggered to switch the lamp on, if it
>>makes you happy.


> Moved the goal post just a little, didn't you.


Nope. Look at the first lines you quoted.

>>> It's analog.


>>The state lit or dark is digital, very much so.


> The lamp is analog. Get used to it because that isn't
> going to change.


The state lit or dark is digital. Get used to it, because that
isn't going to change.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-11-2011
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 20:34:11 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote:

[...]

> I expect you would argue that Morse Code is analog.


But --- but --- but --- Morse Code is analog. The frequency of the tone,
the frequency of the carrier, the amplitude of the sender, the amplitude
received, the half- or quarter-closing of the button, the length of the
dots, dashes and pauses, the flutter, the wow, the shifts, etc etc etc.

Morse Code is Analog, and you are all stupid not to recognize this.
*stomps foot*

-Wolf'SCNR'gang
 
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