Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

Reply
Thread Tools

Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering?

 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2012

"nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:240120122025410689%(E-Mail Removed)...
> do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?


Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance on
convenience than quality.

> what matters are the final images,


Exactly!

> not specs of a particular camera or
> lens. this is something camera geeks completely forget. there are also
> a *lot* more people taking a *lot* more images with cellphone cameras
> than they ever did with the xa or any other compact film camera.


No argument there, because most aren't intersted in photography. Their
choice, and not MY problem.
Amazing though that lots of people who take pictures on the phone cams these
days, still want to buy mine as well when they see them!

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2012
In article <jfo7jp$o9j$(E-Mail Removed)>, Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?

>
> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance on
> convenience than quality.


there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
they can't.

> > what matters are the final images,

>
> Exactly!


then why do you care about which camera was used?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2012
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:17:20 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-01-24 21:24:17 -0800, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:36:25 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The iPhone 4 is slightly ahead of the four dslrs listed, but you are
>>>> ignoring the cumulative factor. The most popular device users don't
>>>> outnumber the cumulative number of people using other devices, so it
>>>> doesn't mean that "most people" are not using the device primarily for
>>>> social and family snapshots.
>>>
>>> look at the actual photos iphone and other cellphone users are
>>> uploading.

>>
>> I'm sure there are some good ones. There's also a lot more of horrid
>> ones, but that's been true of all types of photographic devices.
>>
>>> there is a very wide variety. it's not just closeups for
>>> tiny screens like you originally said (which has now morphed to family
>>> and social photos).

>>
>> In my original statement on this, I said most shots are family and
>> social photos. No morphing. About close-ups, I said that except for
>> close-ups, you can't really see what's being photographed on tiny
>> screens.

>
>As much as I shoot mainly with my D300s with the G11 as a compact
>supplement, while it is not my first or even second choice, I have
>found the iPhone able to produce useful images if that is the only
>camera I have with me.
>I would also add that not all iPhoto images are viewed on a tiny phone
>displays.


Certainly not. As I stated in the first post on this subject, the
photos can be viewed on tablets and uploaded for viewing on other
devices. The point is about what *most* are viewed on. Most, in my
opinion, are just sent from one phone to another. All phones have
"tiny" screens compared to the screens we use on our computers.
Some phones have larger tiny screens than others.

>Again the subject matter here is irrelevant with no editing or artistic
>cropping other than resizing for the web. Not that there are any
>artistic merits to the shot. It is just recording a moment with nary a
>family member in sight.


Sure. Whether or not you shoot family shots more than other scenes
depends on your personal circumstances. My son has two young sons,
and they are the subjects he most often photographs with his phone.
If you don't have small children or grandchildren about, then you'd
use the camera for something different. I don't see you as sending
shots of you sucking at a beer bong to your social circle.

>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/photo2w.jpg >


Had you sent that to me by phone, I'd view it on a tiny screen.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?
> >>
> >> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance
> >> on convenience than quality.

> >
> >there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >they can't.

>
> They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> used.


like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
chance).
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2012
On Jan 25, 9:31*am, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?

>
> > >> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance
> > >> on convenience than quality.

>
> > >there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> > >people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> > >they can't.

>
> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> > used.

>
> like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
> don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
> chance).


Please lets not drag audio into this, it is contentious enough and we
can SEE images for what they are, unlike making claims for the nuances
of one power amp versus another.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2012
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Jan 25, 9:31*am, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > >> > do you really think people are intentionally wanting lower quality?

>>
>> > >> Not at all, just like with MP3, they simply place far greater importance
>> > >> on convenience than quality.

>>
>> > >there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>> > >people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>> > >they can't.

>>
>> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
>> > used.

>>
>> like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
>> don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
>> chance).

>
>Please lets not drag audio into this, it is contentious enough and we
>can SEE images for what they are, unlike making claims for the nuances
>of one power amp versus another.



Some years ago, a double blind test was staged in a theatre to help
evaluate a new medium for recorded music. A string quartet recorded a
piece using the new medium. Then, in the theatre, the piece was
performed twice, one by the quartet and one by the new medium.
Finally, the audience were asked to rate which of the two performances
they preferred.

About half chose the live performance and about half the new medium.

The new medium? A 78 RPM record.

So much for double blind tests.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2012

"nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:240120122354186022%(E-Mail Removed)...
> there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> they can't.


I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2012

"Eric Stevens" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:54:18 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>>they can't.

>
> They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> used.


They can, HE can't obviously.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2012

"nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:250120120631223051%(E-Mail Removed)...
> like i said, they might think they can, but in double-blind tests, they
> don't do anywhere near as well as they thought (i.e., no better than
> chance).


You seem to believe a lot of nonsense that can demonstably be proven wrong,
IF you ever tried.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2012

"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Some years ago, a double blind test was staged in a theatre to help
> evaluate a new medium for recorded music. A string quartet recorded a
> piece using the new medium. Then, in the theatre, the piece was
> performed twice, one by the quartet and one by the new medium.
> Finally, the audience were asked to rate which of the two performances
> they preferred.
> About half chose the live performance and about half the new medium.
>
> The new medium? A 78 RPM record.
> So much for double blind tests.


Right, any DB test is only as good as the person conducting it, and the
people taking part. Both can easily be sub par.

Trevor.


 
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
Is Fuji S3000 3.2m/pixel output, or 6 m/pixel interpolated output? Peter H Digital Photography 43 12-04-2003 02:35 PM
Fuji S3000 - 3.2 m/pixel or 6 m/pixel? Peter H Digital Photography 3 11-18-2003 11:17 PM
Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel Robert E. Williams Digital Photography 2 09-16-2003 03:02 PM
Re: Pixel size of individual Pixel Tom Thackrey Digital Photography 2 09-14-2003 04:17 PM
Hot pixel vs. stuck pixel Abrasha Digital Photography 5 09-02-2003 04:49 PM



Advertisments