Federally mandate limits on pixel counts :)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Oct 29, 2006.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
    more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
    with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
    4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
    effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
    be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
    camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
    Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
    advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!
     
    Rich, Oct 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    Scott W Guest

    Re: Federally mandate limits on pixel counts :)

    Rich wrote:
    > Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    > should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
    > more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
    > with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
    > 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
    > effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
    > be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
    > camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
    > Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
    > advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!


    God save us from the people who want to save us.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Oct 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Pete D Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    > should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
    > more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
    > with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
    > 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
    > effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
    > be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
    > camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
    > Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
    > advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!
    >


    Sounds like a good idea, exactly the same problem too if you ask me. Camera
    manufacturers should be ashamed of themselves.
     
    Pete D, Oct 29, 2006
    #3
  4. Rich

    Bucky Guest

    Re: Federally mandate limits on pixel counts :)

    Rich wrote:
    > Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    > should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
    > more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
    > with a minimum pixel size.


    I agree with you. But I think the proper solution is for camera
    manufacturers to start advertising, educating, and promoting sensor
    sizes.
     
    Bucky, Oct 29, 2006
    #4
  5. Rich

    Celcius Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    > should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
    > more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
    > with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
    > 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
    > effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
    > be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
    > camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
    > Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
    > advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!
    >

    Rich,
    Better let the consumers decide whether they buy or not.
    Big Brother has its hands into too many things as it is. Take care,
    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Oct 29, 2006
    #5
  6. Rich

    Doug Robbins Guest

    Re: Federally mandate limits on pixel counts :)

    Who's going to save us from people who think there's a God who saves us?

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Rich wrote:
    >> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    >> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
    >> more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
    >> with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
    >> 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
    >> effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
    >> be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
    >> camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
    >> Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
    >> advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!

    >
    > God save us from the people who want to save us.
    >
    > Scott
    >
     
    Doug Robbins, Oct 29, 2006
    #6
  7. Rich wrote:
    > Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    > should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to
    > have more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in
    > accordance with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed
    > to drop below 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other
    > issues that effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made
    > by Fuji) would be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this
    > will hurt the camera phone market, but who really cares about those
    > abominatons? Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to
    > prevent false advertising when it came to power and now it's the
    > camera market's turn!
    >

    Right! Yet another law to protect stupid people. Rich why not also have
    the Feds mandate that only metal shall be used in cameras, in your case
    even the clear bits are to be made of metal.

    Besides your Feds are Canadians, so what Feds should regulate this.
    Better idea let have the Government regulate photography with licences,
    if you don't pass the test you won't get your licence.

    ;)
     
    Not Disclosed, Oct 29, 2006
    #7
  8. Rich

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    Am I the only one who saw the smiley at the end of the title? Wasn't Rich
    kidding?

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    > should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
    > more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
    > with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
    > 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
    > effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
    > be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
    > camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
    > Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
    > advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!
    >
     
    Kinon O'cann, Oct 29, 2006
    #8
  9. Rich

    Mike Fields Guest

    "Not Disclosed" <> wrote in message
    news:45449bfe$0$27539$...
    > Rich wrote:
    >> Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    >> should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to
    >> have more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in
    >> accordance with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed
    >> to drop below 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other
    >> issues that effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made
    >> by Fuji) would be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this
    >> will hurt the camera phone market, but who really cares about those
    >> abominatons? Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to
    >> prevent false advertising when it came to power and now it's the
    >> camera market's turn!
    >>

    > Right! Yet another law to protect stupid people. Rich why not also
    > have the Feds mandate that only metal shall be used in cameras, in
    > your case even the clear bits are to be made of metal.
    >
    > Besides your Feds are Canadians, so what Feds should regulate this.
    > Better idea let have the Government regulate photography with
    > licences, if you don't pass the test you won't get your licence.
    >
    > ;)
    >


    Hey, stop that -- OUR FEDS (US) do NOT need any ideas!!
    They come up with enough on their own thank you very much.

    mikey
     
    Mike Fields, Oct 29, 2006
    #9
  10. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Re: Federally mandate limits on pixel counts :)

    Kinon O'cann wrote:
    > Am I the only one who saw the smiley at the end of the title? Wasn't Rich
    > kidding?
    >


    Kidding, yes. Kind of suggesting sensibility for camera makers.
    Imagine if instead of promoting "more" of something, they did their
    best to promote quality?
     
    Rich, Oct 29, 2006
    #10
  11. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    >should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have



    _____________________
    /| /| | |
    ||__|| | Do not feed the |
    / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
    / \ | --Mgt. |
    / \ \|_____________________|
    / _ \ \ ||
    / |\____\ \ ||
    / | | | |\____/ ||
    / \|_|_|/ | _||
    / / \ |____| ||
    / | | | --|
    | | | |____ --|
    * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
    *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
    / _ \\ | / `
    * / \_ /- | | |
    * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Rich

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    > should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
    > more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
    > with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
    > 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
    > effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
    > be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
    > camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
    > Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
    > advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!
    >

    I wouldn't want the government to waste tax money on this. After all, they
    do waste money on too much now.

    I do agree that the megapixel race is getting a little rediculous now. I'm
    waiting to see what Fuji has up their sleeve with this new 1/1.6" 7mp sensor
    in a $200 camera. 10mp sensors for compacts should be quarter APS in size at
    least (12x8mm).
    John
     
    JohnR66, Oct 29, 2006
    #12
  13. Rich

    Bill K Guest

    Re: Federally mandate limits on pixel counts :)

    Scott W wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    > > Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    > > should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have
    > > more than 5 megapixels and other sensors should be capped in accordance
    > > with a minimum pixel size. Pixels should not be allowed to drop below
    > > 4 microns because of the noise, dymanic range and other issues that
    > > effect smaller pixels. Special sensors (like those made by Fuji) would
    > > be regulated on a case by case basis. Of course, this will hurt the
    > > camera phone market, but who really cares about those abominatons?
    > > Years ago, the Feds regulated the audio market to prevent false
    > > advertising when it came to power and now it's the camera market's turn!

    >
    > God save us from the people who want to save us.
    >
    > Scott


    Thanks you, Scott. Just what we need: more government regulation.
    --
    Gator Bait
     
    Bill K, Oct 29, 2006
    #13
  14. Rich

    DHB Guest

    On 29 Oct 2006 18:25:50 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

    >Rich <> wrote:
    >>Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    >>should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have

    >
    >
    > _____________________
    > /| /| | |
    > ||__|| | Do not feed the |
    > / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
    > / \ | --Mgt. |
    > / \ \|_____________________|
    > / _ \ \ ||
    > / |\____\ \ ||
    > / | | | |\____/ ||
    > / \|_|_|/ | _||
    > / / \ |____| ||
    > / | | | --|
    > | | | |____ --|
    > * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
    >*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
    > / _ \\ | / `
    >* / \_ /- | | |
    > * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


    Great idea, NOT! More stupid Government (US) regulations on consumer
    products to protect people form their own ignorance. That's how we
    got Anti Lock Breaking Systems (ABS) because most people panic & lock
    the breaks *&* turn the wheel when they should do 1 *or* the other.

    So now we have a complex system that has 4 electronic wheel
    sensors, a micro-controller, hydraulic braking system over-ride
    actuators & etc...to allow us to drive mindlessly. I feel so much
    safer now, NOT!

    What happened to "buyer beware"? When digital camera noise
    gets high enough & I think it already is with tiny 10MP P&S sensors,
    the manufactures will likely market it as a *feature*, not a
    *problem*. Think of it as Coke Classic, they could call it 110 film
    grain emulation or Film Classic. Isn't that why many cameras have a
    "sepia" photo effect mode to emulate the old faded picture look?

    What we need is the majority of the consumers to vote with the
    1 vote that will always be counted, vote with their *money*. Would
    have been nice to upgrade to a Canon A630/640 for the larger 2.5"
    swivel display but I won't because even with the ISO manually set to
    it's lowest setting "I" think there is too much image noise. Yes I
    could probably clean it up well in a quality noise reduction program
    but why should I bother?

    If they can sell us gas guzzling SUVs as off-road vehicles
    that supposedly make us feel safer in them & we feel like we can climb
    to the top of some secluded mountain (TV Commercial), remove the seat
    & use it to sit on & meditate in nature, then they can sell us
    anything!

    The number of SUVs that in the US go off-road (intentionally)
    is almost 0 but most people think that *they can*, so they like to
    believe that they are keeping your options open to do so & that's good
    enough for them.

    Sorry, I don't usually feed the trolls but I had a moment of
    weakness, which hopefully won't happen again!

    Respectfully, DHB



    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
     
    DHB, Oct 30, 2006
    #14
  15. On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:09:18 GMT, DHB <> wrote:


    > What happened to "buyer beware"? When digital camera noise
    >gets high enough & I think it already is with tiny 10MP P&S sensors,
    >the manufactures will likely market it as a *feature*, not a
    >*problem*. Think of it as Coke Classic, they could call it 110 film
    >grain emulation or Film Classic. Isn't that why many cameras have a
    >"sepia" photo effect mode to emulate the old faded picture look?
    >
    > What we need is the majority of the consumers to vote with the
    >1 vote that will always be counted, vote with their *money*. Would
    >have been nice to upgrade to a Canon A630/640 for the larger 2.5"
    >swivel display but I won't because even with the ISO manually set to
    >it's lowest setting "I" think there is too much image noise. Yes I
    >could probably clean it up well in a quality noise reduction program
    >but why should I bother?



    What happened to "buyer beware" Indeed!!!!!

    You bought a small P&S that merely squeezed more pixels
    out of the same tiny 1/1.8" sensor.

    Had you been paying attention you would have known that
    this makes for noisy images.

    The "fix" for you would have been to buy the Canon A620,
    which squeezes fewer (a mere 7.2 Million) pixels out of the
    same sensor -- and with lower noise than its
    "cousins" with higher pixel counts.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 30, 2006
    #15
  16. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    Re: Federally mandate limits on pixel counts :)

    On 29 Oct 2006 09:14:06 -0800, "Rich" <> wrote:

    >
    >Kinon O'cann wrote:
    >> Am I the only one who saw the smiley at the end of the title? Wasn't Rich
    >> kidding?
    >>

    >
    >Kidding, yes. Kind of suggesting sensibility for camera makers.
    >Imagine if instead of promoting "more" of something, they did their
    >best to promote quality?


    Advertising is not like advising.
    Everyone should understand that advertising is not advice, it's
    promotion.
    Asking for (or expecting) advertising to be objectively promoting
    something other than the product being advertising is naive.
    Instead of advocating for unbiased advertising, you'd be much better
    off advocating for more discerning consumers.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 30, 2006
    #16
  17. Rich

    John Turco Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    >
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >Sensor size and design should dictate this. Noise levels at 400 ISO
    > >should be capped. A crummy 1/1.8 sensor should NOT be allowed to have

    >
    > _____________________
    > /| /| | |
    > ||__|| | Do not feed the |
    > / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
    > / \ | --Mgt. |
    > / \ \|_____________________|
    > / _ \ \ ||
    > / |\____\ \ ||
    > / | | | |\____/ ||
    > / \|_|_|/ | _||
    > / / \ |____| ||
    > / | | | --|
    > | | | |____ --|
    > * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
    > *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
    > / _ \\ | / `
    > * / \_ /- | | |
    > * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer
    >



    Hello, Ray:

    Nice ASCII art...where'd you steal it? <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Oct 31, 2006
    #17
  18. Rich

    Stewy Guest

    In article <>,
    Raphael Bustin <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:09:18 GMT, DHB <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > What happened to "buyer beware"? When digital camera noise
    > >gets high enough & I think it already is with tiny 10MP P&S sensors,
    > >the manufactures will likely market it as a *feature*, not a
    > >*problem*. Think of it as Coke Classic, they could call it 110 film
    > >grain emulation or Film Classic. Isn't that why many cameras have a
    > >"sepia" photo effect mode to emulate the old faded picture look?
    > >
    > > What we need is the majority of the consumers to vote with the
    > >1 vote that will always be counted, vote with their *money*. Would
    > >have been nice to upgrade to a Canon A630/640 for the larger 2.5"
    > >swivel display but I won't because even with the ISO manually set to
    > >it's lowest setting "I" think there is too much image noise. Yes I
    > >could probably clean it up well in a quality noise reduction program
    > >but why should I bother?

    >
    >
    > What happened to "buyer beware" Indeed!!!!!
    >
    > You bought a small P&S that merely squeezed more pixels
    > out of the same tiny 1/1.8" sensor.
    >
    > Had you been paying attention you would have known that
    > this makes for noisy images.
    >
    > The "fix" for you would have been to buy the Canon A620,
    > which squeezes fewer (a mere 7.2 Million) pixels out of the
    > same sensor -- and with lower noise than its
    > "cousins" with higher pixel counts.


    What about mandating cameras with braille so blind people can use them?
     
    Stewy, Nov 2, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rich
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    259
    Scott W
    Aug 9, 2008
  2. Robert Spanjaard

    Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate!

    Robert Spanjaard, Apr 16, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    330
    tony cooper
    Apr 26, 2010
  3. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] Mandate reminder/update & new mandate!

    Robert Coe, Apr 17, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    514
    Paul Furman
    Apr 24, 2010
  4. Annika1980

    Re: Mandate reminder/update & new mandate!

    Annika1980, Apr 17, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    343
    Eric Stevens
    Apr 17, 2010
  5. RichA

    Your puny pixel counts are no good!!!

    RichA, Apr 21, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    258
Loading...

Share This Page