Re: Read this; digital versus analog sensor??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David J Taylor, Feb 26, 2012.

  1. "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    David J Taylor, Feb 26, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:

    >"Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> 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.

    ;-)
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J Taylor

    Robert Coe Guest

    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"
    : <> said:
    :
    : > "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    : > news:...
    : >> 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
    Robert Coe, Feb 26, 2012
    #3
  4. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    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. ;-)
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2012
    #4
  5. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-02-26 04:31:01 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> 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.
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2012
    #5
  6. David J Taylor

    RichA Guest

    Re: Read this; digital versus analog sensor??

    On Feb 26, 12:55 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >On 2012-02-26 04:31:01 -0800, Bruce <> said:

    >
    > >> "David J Taylor" <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    > >>>news:...
    > >>>> 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?
    RichA, Feb 26, 2012
    #6
  7. David J Taylor

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:42:53 +0100, Mxsmanic <> 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
    Robert Coe, Feb 26, 2012
    #7
  8. David J Taylor

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:38:24 +0100, Mxsmanic <> 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
    Robert Coe, Feb 26, 2012
    #8
  9. David J Taylor

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:34:48 +0100, Mxsmanic <> 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
    Robert Coe, Feb 26, 2012
    #9
  10. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    Re: Read this; digital versus analog sensor??

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Feb 26, 12:55 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> >On 2012-02-26 04:31:01 -0800, Bruce <> said:

    >>
    >> >> "David J Taylor" <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>> "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    >> >>>news:...
    >> >>>> 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.
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2012
    #10
  11. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:42:53 +0100, Mxsmanic <> 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.



    As Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) is a Pole living in France, I think we
    can forgive him some lack of fluency in English, his third language.

    I only speak two languages, and Atkielski's command of his third
    language is much better than mine of my second. ;-)
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2012
    #11
  12. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >Why is it it seems that, in some perverted MontyPythonesque way, you
    >are a seeker of the 5 minute argument.



    It is not the 5 minute argument. It is not even the full half hour.
    With Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) it can go on for weeks, months or
    even years.

    He flits between Usenet newsgroups and disrupts one, then when the
    mayhem is complete he moves on to another. It may take many months
    before the cycle is complete and he starts all over again back at the
    first one.

    You're wasting your time trying to reason with him. Eventually he
    will get bored and move on to the next group. In the fullness of
    time, he will be back again, as sure as Spring follows Winter, Winter
    follows Fall (Autumn), Fall follows Summer and Summer follows Spring.
    And look! There he is again, and his craziness is just the same. ;-)
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2012
    #12
  13. David J Taylor

    Irwell Guest

    On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:56:18 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

    > On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:38:24 +0100, Mxsmanic <> 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


    Transducers.
    Irwell, Feb 26, 2012
    #13
  14. David J Taylor

    RichA Guest

    Re: Read this; digital versus analog sensor??

    On Feb 26, 3:02 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:34:48 +0100, Mxsmanic <> 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


    So string vibrations are digital? I think I read something like
    that.
    RichA, Feb 26, 2012
    #14
  15. David J Taylor

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:33:03 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >David J Taylor writes:
    >
    >> What about micro-switches which detect when a door or window is open?

    >
    >Still analog. The digital realm is conceptual, not real. It's a way of looking
    >at the real world, but nothing is actually digital except in our minds.
    >
    >We interpret a flow of current above a certain threshold as "on," and below it
    >as "off," but in the real world, this is a continuum.


    No it's not. In the real world, it's discrete, not continuous. You
    only think it's continuous because the difference between discrete
    levels are so small. An elementary charge is 1.602e-19 coulombs. An
    electron volt is the amount of energy gained by that elementary charge
    moved across an electric potential difference of one volt.

    You can count electrons. You can't get a charge value that's between
    discrete counts of electrons, i.e., digital. Sensitive sensors can
    count photons. All photons of the same wavelength (i.e., color) will
    have the same quantum of energy, which is between about 1.6eV and
    3.2eV for visible light.

    Even time is discrete, non-continuous. You just don't notice it
    because a) the discrete jumps are tiny and b) you're living within the
    discrete jumps and not an "outside observer", so your perception is
    biased.

    The real world is digital. The analog realm is conceptual because the
    discrete levels between the digital values are smaller than we can
    comprehend using only our organic senses.

    Steve
    TheRealSteve, Feb 26, 2012
    #15
  16. David J Taylor

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:27:17 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:42:53 +0100, Mxsmanic <> 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.
    :
    :
    : As Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) is a Pole living in France, I think we
    : can forgive him some lack of fluency in English, his third language.

    Actually, I wouldn't have known that his first language wasn't English.

    : I only speak two languages, and Atkielski's command of his third
    : language is much better than mine of my second. ;-)

    Mine too. And I obviously wouldn't ask him to let me try to redefine the
    meanings of Polish words.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 26, 2012
    #16
  17. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >Bruce <> wrote:
    >: As Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) is a Pole living in France, I think we
    >: can forgive him some lack of fluency in English, his third language.
    >
    >Actually, I wouldn't have known that his first language wasn't English.



    You're right, his command of his third language is impressive. He
    earlier claimed to act as a guide for a few of the huge number of
    American tourists who visit Paris, so that might be one way he has
    improved his fluency. On the other hand, he spends a lot of his time
    on English language newsgroups and has done for years.
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2012
    #17
  18. David J Taylor

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-02-26 12:32:58 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Why is it it seems that, in some perverted MontyPythonesque way, you
    >>> are a seeker of the 5 minute argument.

    >>
    >>
    >> It is not the 5 minute argument. It is not even the full half hour.
    >> With Anthony Atkielski (Mxsmanic) it can go on for weeks, months or
    >> even years.

    >
    >Just to clarify, I made my remark in reference to Floyd, our denizen of
    >the frozen North, not Mxsmanic. There must be something in the air up
    >at Barrow.



    Oops, sorry. My comments still apply, just to a different person. ;-)


    >Our Francophile Polish friend, Mxsmanic has his own skill set and
    >technique of conversational combativeness.



    A beautifully crafted phrase. Thank you. ;-)
    Bruce, Feb 26, 2012
    #18
  19. On 2/26/12 PDT 12:02 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:34:48 +0100, Mxsmanic<> 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.


    AIDO.
    John McWilliams, Feb 26, 2012
    #19
  20. David J Taylor <> wrote:
    > "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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


    Or a Geiger counter. It's a common misconception of large animals like
    ourselves that we live in an analog world. It just seems that way of
    you're a large animal. Photons aren't analog.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Feb 27, 2012
    #20
    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. IMKen
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    869
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jun 22, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=

    Certification - MCP versus MCSA versus MCSE

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=, Aug 24, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    750
    =?Utf-8?B?TW9udHJlYWwgTUNTQQ==?=
    Aug 24, 2006
  3. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    731
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
  4. TheRealSteve

    Re: Read this; digital versus analog sensor??

    TheRealSteve, Feb 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    447
    TheRealSteve
    Feb 28, 2012
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Read this; digital versus analog sensor??

    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 27, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    376
    TheRealSteve
    Mar 1, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page