Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Read this; digital versus analog sensor??

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Read this; digital versus analog sensor??

 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
"Mxsmanic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> There is no such thing as a digital sensor. All sensors are analog
> electronic
> devices. More generally, any device that interfaces with the physical
> world
> will always be an analog device.


What about micro-switches which detect when a door or window is open?

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Mxsmanic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> There is no such thing as a digital sensor. All sensors are analog
>> electronic
>> devices. More generally, any device that interfaces with the physical
>> world
>> will always be an analog device.

>
>What about micro-switches which detect when a door or window is open?



David,

Please don't do this. Anthony Atkielski is confused enough already.
He lives his days and nights in a darkened room in Paris and rarely
ventures out. His contact with reality is tenuous at best.

Please don't make things any worse by bombarding him with logic.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:09:26 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2012-02-26 03:39:45 -0800, "David J Taylor"
: <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
:
: > "Mxsmanic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: >> There is no such thing as a digital sensor. All sensors are analog
: >> electronic devices. More generally, any device that interfaces with
: >> the physical world will always be an analog device.
: >
: > What about micro-switches which detect when a door or window is open?
: >
: > David
:
: Actually, even the micro-switch is a physical analog I/O device, and
: when used to detect a physical event such as an door or window being
: open or closed even more so.
: That micro-switch is nothing more than a simple, single purpose "Morse
: key". The "Morse key" is of course, an analog interrupter device used
: to encode a variable digital signal, which has to be transposed back to
: a physical output with another analog device at the receiving end to be
: interpreted.

All reality is fundamentally digital, but the underlying digital aspects of
most phenomena are of a size and complexity that places them out of physical
or intellectual reach. "Analog" is a generic term for the shortcuts that
scientists and engineers use to describe such phenomena by their aggregate
effects, in order to compensate for the inaccessibility of their digital
nature. Note that the word itself shares the same root as "analogy".

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, even the micro-switch is a physical analog I/O device, and
>when used to detect a physical event such as an door or window being
>open or closed even more so.



It is an analog to digital converter ...


.... in that it converts I/O to 1/0.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-02-26 04:31:01 -0800, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> There is no such thing as a digital sensor. All sensors are analog
>>>> electronic
>>>> devices. More generally, any device that interfaces with the physical
>>>> world
>>>> will always be an analog device.
>>>
>>> What about micro-switches which detect when a door or window is open?

>>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Please don't do this. Anthony Atkielski is confused enough already.
>> He lives his days and nights in a darkened room in Paris and rarely
>> ventures out. His contact with reality is tenuous at best.
>>
>> Please don't make things any worse by bombarding him with logic.
>>
>>

>
>Strangely enough, this is one of those times when "Mxsmanic" has things
>correct from a purely academic position. Think about it.



If the analog to digital conversion is made on the sensor, rather than
in the camera body's CPU, I think it is quite logical to call the
sensor digital, because the sensor's output is pure digital data;
there is no way of getting an analog output.

Other sensors in digicams deliver analog output which is converted to
digital data by the camera body's CPU. Those sensors are analog.

I thought the interview was fascinating. It will be required reading
for all our sales staff from tomorrow morning. On Friday there will
be a written test to see how much (or how little) they have managed to
retain.

To add a little more flesh to the bones of the article, the market
share for mirrorless cameras - as a proportion of the market for all
cameras with interchangeable lenses, including DSLRs - varies greatly
across the world.

In Japan, mirrorless has 42% of the market. In Europe, it is only 17%
although the UK is much higher than the European average at 28%. In
the USA, mirrorless has an even lower market share of 13%.

These are 2011 figures from respected and reliable Japanese sources
taking data from all the major manufacturers.

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
On Feb 26, 12:55*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >On 2012-02-26 04:31:01 -0800, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>> "Mxsmanic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> >>>> There is no such thing as a digital sensor. All sensors are analog
> >>>> electronic
> >>>> devices. More generally, any device that interfaces with the physical
> >>>> world
> >>>> will always be an analog device.

>
> >>> What about micro-switches which detect when a door or window is open?

>
> >> David,

>
> >> Please don't do this. *Anthony Atkielski is confused enough already.
> >> He lives his days and nights in a darkened room in Paris and rarely
> >> ventures out. *His contact with reality is tenuous at best.

>
> >> Please don't make things any worse by bombarding him with logic.

>
> >>

>
> >Strangely enough, this is one of those times when "Mxsmanic" has things
> >correct from a purely academic position. Think about it.

>
> If the analog to digital conversion is made on the sensor, rather than
> in the camera body's CPU, I think it is quite logical to call the
> sensor digital, because the sensor's output is pure digital data;
> there is no way of getting an analog output.
>
> Other sensors in digicams deliver analog output which is converted to
> digital data by the camera body's CPU. *Those sensors are analog.
>
> I thought the interview was fascinating. *It will be required reading
> for all our sales staff from tomorrow morning. *On Friday there will
> be a written test to see how much (or how little) they have managed to
> retain. *
>
> To add a little more flesh to the bones of the article, the market
> share for mirrorless cameras - as a proportion of the market for all
> cameras with interchangeable lenses, including DSLRs - varies greatly
> across the world.
>
> In Japan, mirrorless has 42% of the market. *In Europe, it is only 17%
> although the UK is much higher than the European average at 28%. *In
> the USA, mirrorless has an even lower market share of 13%.
>
> These are 2011 figures from respected and reliable Japanese sources
> taking data from all the major manufacturers.


I wonder why the U.S. share is so low?
-Bigger hands?
-They actually know DSLRs are still for the most part superior?
-They equate size with value?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:42:53 +0100, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe writes:
:
: > All reality is fundamentally digital, but the underlying digital
: > aspects of most phenomena are of a size and complexity that places
: > them out of physical or intellectual reach.
:
: Physical reality is quantized, but that doesn't make it digital.
: Digital is all in the mind.

I haven't seen your new dictionary yet. Be sure to let us know when it's
available from Amazon.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:38:24 +0100, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Floyd L. Davidson writes:
:
: > What happens to the signal when it is received and
: > interpreted has no significance at all. For example we
: > list to music from a CD, and what we here is an analog
: > sound, but the data on the CD is still digital.
:
: Only our interpretation can be digital. The actual physical device is
: always analog. If physical devices could be truly digital, their design
: would be simplified by many orders of magnitude.

How do light-emitting diodes fit into that world view? For that matter, what
about fluorescent bulbs?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:34:48 +0100, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Bruce writes:
:
: > If the analog to digital conversion is made on the sensor, rather than
: > in the camera body's CPU, I think it is quite logical to call the
: > sensor digital ...
:
: If an analog-to-digital conversion is required, even on-chip, then it's
: not digital, is it?
:
: It's important to understand that all physical devices are analog at their
: most fundamental level. The "digital" part is the way we use them, not an
: intrinsic characteristic of the devices.

It's important to understand that all physical devices are digital at their
most fundamental level. The "analog" part is the way we perceive them, not an
intrinsic characteristic of the devices.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-26-2012
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 12:55*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> >On 2012-02-26 04:31:01 -0800, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>>
>> >> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>
>> >>> "Mxsmanic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>> >>>> There is no such thing as a digital sensor. All sensors are analog
>> >>>> electronic
>> >>>> devices. More generally, any device that interfaces with the physical
>> >>>> world
>> >>>> will always be an analog device.

>>
>> >>> What about micro-switches which detect when a door or window is open?

>>
>> >> David,

>>
>> >> Please don't do this. *Anthony Atkielski is confused enough already.
>> >> He lives his days and nights in a darkened room in Paris and rarely
>> >> ventures out. *His contact with reality is tenuous at best.

>>
>> >> Please don't make things any worse by bombarding him with logic.

>>
>> >>

>>
>> >Strangely enough, this is one of those times when "Mxsmanic" has things
>> >correct from a purely academic position. Think about it.

>>
>> If the analog to digital conversion is made on the sensor, rather than
>> in the camera body's CPU, I think it is quite logical to call the
>> sensor digital, because the sensor's output is pure digital data;
>> there is no way of getting an analog output.
>>
>> Other sensors in digicams deliver analog output which is converted to
>> digital data by the camera body's CPU. *Those sensors are analog.
>>
>> I thought the interview was fascinating. *It will be required reading
>> for all our sales staff from tomorrow morning. *On Friday there will
>> be a written test to see how much (or how little) they have managed to
>> retain. *
>>
>> To add a little more flesh to the bones of the article, the market
>> share for mirrorless cameras - as a proportion of the market for all
>> cameras with interchangeable lenses, including DSLRs - varies greatly
>> across the world.
>>
>> In Japan, mirrorless has 42% of the market. *In Europe, it is only 17%
>> although the UK is much higher than the European average at 28%. *In
>> the USA, mirrorless has an even lower market share of 13%.
>>
>> These are 2011 figures from respected and reliable Japanese sources
>> taking data from all the major manufacturers.

>
>I wonder why the U.S. share is so low?
>-Bigger hands?
>-They actually know DSLRs are still for the most part superior?
>-They equate size with value?



I made similar comments before when I had those figures, but wasn't
able to repeat the numbers on here. I suspect you need look no
further than the comparative size of cars purchased in America
compared to those purchased in Europe and Japan.

I recall several decades ago being surprised that the market
penetration of the Olympus OM system was significantly higher in Japan
than in Europe, but Olympus Europe still had a much higher market
share than Olympus in the USA.

Perhaps Americans as a whole, overall, just lack the fascination for
small and beautiful things that is strong among Europeans and
especially the Japanese? Obviously some do have that fascination,
just not as many as in Europe and especially Japan.


 
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: Read this; digital versus analog sensor?? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 4 03-01-2012 12:23 AM
Re: Read this; digital versus analog sensor?? TheRealSteve Digital Photography 4 02-28-2012 05:16 AM
Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo Firefox 0 05-08-2008 12:56 PM
equal? versus eql? versus == versus === verus <=> Paul Butcher Ruby 12 11-28-2007 06:06 AM
digital analog conversion Veronica Matthews VHDL 6 11-27-2004 10:38 PM



Advertisments