The following article has many errors in my opinion.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 23, 2004.

  1. The following article has many errors in my opinion.

    http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-751.html#lnk4

    For example, it says:
    "Since no photograph of any size can contain more than 3 to 4
    million elements of information...."

    It goes on and on. Note, it is also pro foveon, comparing an
    SD10 to 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and even 4x5 film quality.

    How many errors and/or misleading statements can you find?

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. >The following article has many errors in my opinion.

    >For example, it says:
    >"Since no photograph of any size can contain more than 3 to 4
    >million elements of information...."


    Sometimes information on the web is worth even less than what you paid
    for it.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Matt Ion Guest

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

    > The following article has many errors in my opinion.
    >
    > http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-751.html#lnk4
    >
    > For example, it says:
    > "Since no photograph of any size can contain more than 3 to 4
    > million elements of information...."
    >
    > It goes on and on. Note, it is also pro foveon, comparing an
    > SD10 to 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and even 4x5 film quality.
    >
    > How many errors and/or misleading statements can you find?


    One gigantic one right there: if "no photograph of any size can contain
    more than 3 to 4 million elements of information", it stands to reason
    that a four megapixels is the biggest digital camera you would ever need
    to match any quality of film, even 4x5.
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 23, 2004
    #3
  4. I often harp on this topic with friends and family and mostly see the look
    in their eyes telling me to back off and be less pedantic. The Internet is
    rife with mis-information. There is absolutely no quality control. I wish
    teachers and professors would warn students about this, but many of them
    don't. Instead, they assign Internet research projects with no caveats.
    Dumb as heck in my opinion. We are preparing a whole new generation of
    non-critical thinkers hooked on a medium that contains more bias and
    misinformation than it contains facts and real information. The dumbing
    down of the world is embraced and fueled by the Internet.

    This political season is a great example. I have been bombarded with urban
    legends and out of context blurbs and distortions and out and out lies. I
    am sick of it!
     
    Charles Schuler, Oct 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    JohnR Guest

    "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I often harp on this topic with friends and family and mostly see the look
    > in their eyes telling me to back off and be less pedantic. The Internet

    is
    > rife with mis-information. There is absolutely no quality control. I

    wish
    > teachers and professors would warn students about this, but many of them
    > don't. Instead, they assign Internet research projects with no caveats.
    > Dumb as heck in my opinion. We are preparing a whole new generation of
    > non-critical thinkers hooked on a medium that contains more bias and
    > misinformation than it contains facts and real information. The dumbing
    > down of the world is embraced and fueled by the Internet.
    >
    > This political season is a great example. I have been bombarded with

    urban
    > legends and out of context blurbs and distortions and out and out lies. I
    > am sick of it!
    >

    So true.
    Great post!
    John
     
    JohnR, Oct 24, 2004
    #5
  6. JohnR wrote:
    > "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>I often harp on this topic with friends and family and mostly see the look
    >>in their eyes telling me to back off and be less pedantic. The Internet

    >
    > is
    >
    >>rife with mis-information. There is absolutely no quality control. I

    >
    > wish
    >
    >>teachers and professors would warn students about this, but many of them
    >>don't. Instead, they assign Internet research projects with no caveats.
    >>Dumb as heck in my opinion. We are preparing a whole new generation of
    >>non-critical thinkers hooked on a medium that contains more bias and
    >>misinformation than it contains facts and real information. The dumbing
    >>down of the world is embraced and fueled by the Internet.
    >>
    >>This political season is a great example. I have been bombarded with

    >
    > urban
    >
    >>legends and out of context blurbs and distortions and out and out lies. I
    >>am sick of it!
    >>

    >
    > So true.
    > Great post!
    > John
    >
    >

    I used to say "By definition 50% of the population is of
    less than average intelligence." Now I add:
    "There must be something wrong with the definition."
    - Roger N. Clark, 2004
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Crownfield Guest

    Matt Ion wrote:
    >
    > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    >
    > > The following article has many errors in my opinion.
    > >
    > > http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-751.html#lnk4
    > >
    > > For example, it says:
    > > "Since no photograph of any size can contain more than 3 to 4
    > > million elements of information...."
    > >
    > > It goes on and on. Note, it is also pro foveon, comparing an
    > > SD10 to 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and even 4x5 film quality.
    > >
    > > How many errors and/or misleading statements can you find?

    >
    > One gigantic one right there: if "no photograph of any size can contain
    > more than 3 to 4 million elements of information", it stands to reason
    > that a four megapixels is the biggest digital camera you would ever need
    > to match any quality of film, even 4x5.


    right.
    like 40 x 40 pixels per inch matches 4x5!
     
    Crownfield, Oct 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    David Gay Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> writes:
    > I used to say "By definition 50% of the population is of
    > less than average intelligence." Now I add:
    > "There must be something wrong with the definition."
    > - Roger N. Clark, 2004


    There is ;-) Half the population is of more than median intelligence, but
    who knows about the average? And, more to the point, I seriously doubt
    that you can measure intelligence with a single number...

    --
    Pedantically yours,
    David Gay
     
    David Gay, Oct 25, 2004
    #8
    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. Jeanne Medley
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,125
    RHODRI REES
    Feb 11, 2004
  2. MB_
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    418
  3. Larry Lomenzo

    A Consensus Of Opinion On The Following Cameras, Please

    Larry Lomenzo, Nov 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    331
  4. EvilclivE

    Look who has a low opinion of reporters:

    EvilclivE, Nov 27, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    326
    steve
    Nov 30, 2006
  5. RichA

    Reason for so many focus errors we see today?

    RichA, Jun 23, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    127
    Views:
    2,328
    John Turco
    Jul 13, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page