35mm film photography comeback?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Cursitor Doom, Apr 5, 2014.

  1. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Noons <> wrote:

    > > > > there's nothing bullshit about it. it's easier to teach photography
    > > > > with digital and more practical too.
    > > > Your kind of "photography", perhaps.
    > > > For true photography, the media used is immaterial.

    > >
    > > it's material when quality is a factor.

    >
    > "quality" is NEVER a factor for the art of photography.


    of course it is. otherwise people would be using cheap crappy cameras
    rather than buying fancy nikon and canons.
     
    nospam, Apr 14, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Noons <> wrote:

    > > > It's a fixed feature of the sensor, at design/manufacturing time.
    > > > What changes is how the RAW data is treated and converted.
    > > > And THAT can be equated to the traditional ISO to make it easier to
    > > > understand for imbeciles like you.

    > >
    > > none of that matters to the user. the fact is that digital cameras have
    > > an iso setting which affects the image.

    >
    > So now it's "what matters to the user"? As opposed to "the photographer"?


    the photographer is the user.

    > Funny how the requirements keep changing depending on what bullshit needs to
    > be pushed...


    wrong.

    > > try using a digital camera sometime before you say more stupid shit.

    >
    > I have been using digital cameras for 15 years, moron! That is very likely
    > longer than you have.


    wrong again, but more importantly, you don't understand its strengths
    and weaknesses.

    > > > But it has NOTHING to do with a dynamic parameter of the exposure.
    > > > With a RAW file, you can "change the ISO" for ANY frame of a digital
    > > > camera, AFTER the exposure has been taken.

    > >
    > > not as effectively as getting it right the camera.

    >
    > which has NOTHING to do with the ISO and all to do with aperture and shutter
    > speed.


    it has everything to do with iso, since that's part of what defines
    what aperture and shutter speed to use. change one of the three and you
    need to adjust either or both of the other two.

    > > otherwise the camera makers would just leave off the iso setting
    > > entirely.

    >
    > No they wouldn't. For exactly the same reasons they never leave out the
    > number of megapixels, even though that is mostly irrelevant nowadays:
    > it is terribly important for morons like you who love the "bigger is better" nonsense.


    wrong on that too.
     
    nospam, Apr 14, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    On 14/04/2014 4:42 PM, nospam wrote:

    >> "quality" is NEVER a factor for the art of photography.

    >
    > of course it is. otherwise people would be using cheap crappy cameras
    > rather than buying fancy nikon and canons.


    That is PRECISELY what they are doing.
    Have you checked lately how many images are taken by smartphones?
    Hint: nearly 1000000 times more than by CaNikons.
    And guess what: precious few have any quality concerns. Yet, a great
    many of those photos are quite sensational and there are quite a few
    artists looking into those as a vehicle for their art.
    So much for "digital dslr quality": what really matters is a great many
    other things.
    :)
     
    Noons, Apr 14, 2014
  4. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    On 14/04/2014 4:42 PM, nospam wrote:

    >
    >>> try using a digital camera sometime before you say more stupid shit.

    >>
    >> I have been using digital cameras for 15 years, moron! That is very likely
    >> longer than you have.

    >
    > wrong again, but more importantly, you don't understand its strengths
    > and weaknesses.


    I'll bet anything I've used digital cameras for a LOT longer than you
    have. And for photography, where appropriate and pertinent. And I have
    the images to prove it.


    > it has everything to do with iso, since that's part of what defines
    > what aperture and shutter speed to use. change one of the three and you
    > need to adjust either or both of the other two.


    So, how do you change the aperture and shutter speed AFTER taking the
    raw image, mr expert? And yet, changing the ISO is dirt easy: any raw
    processing software lets you do just that.


    >> No they wouldn't. For exactly the same reasons they never leave out the
    >> number of megapixels, even though that is mostly irrelevant nowadays:
    >> it is terribly important for morons like you who love the "bigger is better" nonsense.

    >
    > wrong on that too.


    Really? Then why are you arguing, Bret?
     
    Noons, Apr 14, 2014
  5. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <ligff4$bdb$>, Noons <>
    wrote:

    > >>> try using a digital camera sometime before you say more stupid shit.
    > >>
    > >> I have been using digital cameras for 15 years, moron! That is very likely
    > >> longer than you have.

    > >
    > > wrong again, but more importantly, you don't understand its strengths
    > > and weaknesses.

    >
    > I'll bet anything I've used digital cameras for a LOT longer than you
    > have. And for photography, where appropriate and pertinent. And I have
    > the images to prove it.


    and you'd lose.

    > > it has everything to do with iso, since that's part of what defines
    > > what aperture and shutter speed to use. change one of the three and you
    > > need to adjust either or both of the other two.

    >
    > So, how do you change the aperture and shutter speed AFTER taking the
    > raw image, mr expert? And yet, changing the ISO is dirt easy: any raw
    > processing software lets you do just that.


    who said anything about changing them after? and you can't change iso
    afterwards anyway. amplification of what comes off the sensor is *not*
    the same as altering the raw data. anyone who has been using digital
    cameras half as long as you claim to have used them would know this.

    > >> No they wouldn't. For exactly the same reasons they never leave out the
    > >> number of megapixels, even though that is mostly irrelevant nowadays:
    > >> it is terribly important for morons like you who love the "bigger is
    > >> better" nonsense.

    > >
    > > wrong on that too.

    >
    > Really? Then why are you arguing, Bret?


    who is bret?

    every post you make you dig yourself a deeper hole.
     
    nospam, Apr 14, 2014
  6. On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 21:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Noons <>
    wrote:


    >I have been using digital cameras for 15 years, moron! That is very likely longer than you have.


    15 years is probably longer than he's been *alive*. Doesn't stop him
    having an Opinion on everything going back before Fox-Talbot, though.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 14, 2014
  7. Cursitor Doom

    John Turco Guest

    On 4/11/2014 3:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2014-04-11 19:37:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <> said:
    >
    >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:35:03 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> He has several of them, for which he uses Polaroid film. But he enjoys
    >>> using that oldie. I once asked him what he would do when he runs out of
    >>> film. He said he had only two freezers full of Polaroid film.

    >>
    >> Amazing! Just wondering why the large format, though? I mean, these
    >> people were only shooting for newspapers in the main, so I don't see
    >> the need for such huge negs. :-/

    >
    > Rugged construction if the camera, and image quality was a fringe
    > benefit of the large format.
    > Not only were they used for newspapers, they also found their way into
    > combat zones along with Leicas, C2's, & C3's, even into the mid-1950's.
    > Here is a Speed Graphic shot from the South West Pacific in 1944.
    > < https://db.tt/FnlPOj1D >



    Great shot, except that the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" has its wings
    partially "cut off."

    John
     
    John Turco, Apr 14, 2014
  8. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.14, 16:59 , John Turco wrote:
    > On 4/11/2014 3:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:


    >> Here is a Speed Graphic shot from the South West Pacific in 1944.
    >> < https://db.tt/FnlPOj1D >

    >
    >
    > Great shot, except that the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" has its wings
    > partially "cut off."


    Nothing says a shot has to include the entire airplane.

    What is criminal is the lack of balance. 6 men outboard of the right
    engine and 5 outboard of the left. Not to mention the barrel behind the
    left external fuel tank. What were they thinking!

    I'm also dismayed to see that the engines have the downgoing blade
    outboard where conventionally you want the downgoing blade inboard to
    reduce yaw when you lose an engine on takeoff or in climb.

    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 14, 2014
  9. Cursitor Doom

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2014-04-14 20:59:27 +0000, John Turco <> said:

    > On 4/11/2014 3:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2014-04-11 19:37:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:35:03 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> He has several of them, for which he uses Polaroid film. But he enjoys
    >>>> using that oldie. I once asked him what he would do when he runs out of
    >>>> film. He said he had only two freezers full of Polaroid film.
    >>>
    >>> Amazing! Just wondering why the large format, though? I mean, these
    >>> people were only shooting for newspapers in the main, so I don't see
    >>> the need for such huge negs. :-/

    >>
    >> Rugged construction if the camera, and image quality was a fringe
    >> benefit of the large format.
    >> Not only were they used for newspapers, they also found their way into
    >> combat zones along with Leicas, C2's, & C3's, even into the mid-1950's.
    >> Here is a Speed Graphic shot from the South West Pacific in 1944.
    >> < https://db.tt/FnlPOj1D >

    >
    >
    > Great shot, except that the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" has its wings
    > partially "cut off."


    The idea was to capture the flyers of the squadron not the P-38. That
    is the 9th Fighter Squadron of the 49th Fighter Group, 5th AF.
    So here are the same guys standing, same day, & same clipped P-38 wings.
    < https://db.tt/9J5czSaG >

    Then there is this one of my Dad and two of his pals (all three are in
    the large group shots) taken with a C3 at Gusap, New Guinea.
    < https://db.tt/qjNXQEir >

    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Apr 15, 2014
  10. Cursitor Doom

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2014-04-14 22:34:54 +0000, Alan Browne
    <> said:

    > On 2014.04.14, 16:59 , John Turco wrote:
    >> On 4/11/2014 3:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    >>> Here is a Speed Graphic shot from the South West Pacific in 1944.
    >>> < https://db.tt/FnlPOj1D >

    >>
    >>
    >> Great shot, except that the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" has its wings
    >> partially "cut off."

    >
    > Nothing says a shot has to include the entire airplane.
    >
    > What is criminal is the lack of balance. 6 men outboard of the right
    > engine and 5 outboard of the left.


    I guess they should have shot one of them to get the balance right.

    > Not to mention the barrel behind the left external fuel tank. What
    > were they thinking!


    OK! let's not mention it.

    > I'm also dismayed to see that the engines have the downgoing blade
    > outboard where conventionally you want the downgoing blade inboard to
    > reduce yaw when you lose an engine on takeoff or in climb.


    P-38L had counter rotating props, and it was fired up left engine
    first. As my father said, they could take off straight with feet off
    the rudder pedals as there was no perceptible torque. That was not the
    case with the P-40, P-39, & P-47.


    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Apr 15, 2014
  11. Cursitor Doom

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2014.04.14, 19:49 , Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2014-04-14 22:34:54 +0000, Alan Browne
    > <> said:
    >
    >> On 2014.04.14, 16:59 , John Turco wrote:
    >>> On 4/11/2014 3:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Here is a Speed Graphic shot from the South West Pacific in 1944.
    >>>> < https://db.tt/FnlPOj1D >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Great shot, except that the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" has its wings
    >>> partially "cut off."

    >>
    >> Nothing says a shot has to include the entire airplane.
    >>
    >> What is criminal is the lack of balance. 6 men outboard of the right
    >> engine and 5 outboard of the left.

    >
    > I guess they should have shot one of them to get the balance right.
    >
    >> Not to mention the barrel behind the left external fuel tank. What
    >> were they thinking!

    >
    > OK! let's not mention it.
    >
    >> I'm also dismayed to see that the engines have the downgoing blade
    >> outboard where conventionally you want the downgoing blade inboard to
    >> reduce yaw when you lose an engine on takeoff or in climb.

    >
    > P-38L had counter rotating props, and it was fired up left engine first.
    > As my father said, they could take off straight with feet off the rudder
    > pedals as there was no perceptible torque.


    The issue is engine failure[1].

    On twins with the props spinning in the same direction, the engine that
    turns inboard blade down is the "critical" engine, because if you lose
    that then the down going blade is outboard on the other engine
    presenting more yaw force (it's not an engine torque issue at this
    point, it's a yaw torque issue):

    In a climb, the downgoing blade provides more thrust (traction) than the
    upgoing blade (need a drawing at this point- in short the aircraft is
    usually pointed at an angle higher than its actual travel - thusly the
    downgoing blade "bites" more air than the upgoing blade).

    So - in the P-38 with the downgoing blade being outboard - in an engine
    failure, the yaw presented would be quite a lot higher than had they
    made the downgoing blades inboard.

    In more modern twins that have the engines spinning in opposite sense,
    the downgoing blade is usually (almost always) the inboard side for that
    reason - otherwise the blue line would be higher or the aft CG limit
    would need to be further ahead in order to have rudder effectiveness (or
    both).

    There may be other reasons they preferred this arrangement however with
    the P-38.

    [1] in single engine aircraft there are three major forces affecting
    roll and yaw during and after takeoff. Engine torque, airflow
    impingement and the yaw force of the downgoing blade being greater than
    that of the upgoing blade (during climb). During rotation, there are
    also gyro forces acting at 90° lag that tend to yaw right.

    Often the left wing has a slightly higher angle of attack than the right
    to counter torque and impingement forces in single engine aircraft (most
    Cessna's for example).

    --
    "Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
    but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
    -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 15, 2014
  12. Cursitor Doom

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2014-04-15 00:17:35 +0000, Alan Browne
    <> said:

    > On 2014.04.14, 19:49 , Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2014-04-14 22:34:54 +0000, Alan Browne
    >> <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 2014.04.14, 16:59 , John Turco wrote:
    >>>> On 4/11/2014 3:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Here is a Speed Graphic shot from the South West Pacific in 1944.
    >>>>> < https://db.tt/FnlPOj1D >
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Great shot, except that the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" has its wings
    >>>> partially "cut off."
    >>>
    >>> Nothing says a shot has to include the entire airplane.
    >>>
    >>> What is criminal is the lack of balance. 6 men outboard of the right
    >>> engine and 5 outboard of the left.

    >>
    >> I guess they should have shot one of them to get the balance right.
    >>
    >>> Not to mention the barrel behind the left external fuel tank. What
    >>> were they thinking!

    >>
    >> OK! let's not mention it.
    >>
    >>> I'm also dismayed to see that the engines have the downgoing blade
    >>> outboard where conventionally you want the downgoing blade inboard to
    >>> reduce yaw when you lose an engine on takeoff or in climb.

    >>
    >> P-38L had counter rotating props, and it was fired up left engine first

    > .
    >> As my father said, they could take off straight with feet off the rudde

    > r
    >> pedals as there was no perceptible torque.

    >
    > The issue is engine failure[1].


    I understood what you were getting at.

    > On twins with the props spinning in the same direction, the engine that
    > turns inboard blade down is the "critical" engine, because if you lose
    > that then the down going blade is outboard on the other engine
    > presenting more yaw force (it's not an engine torque issue at this
    > point, it's a yaw torque issue):


    Did you miss where I said the P-38L had counter rotating props? The
    P-38 props spin in opposite directions.

    > In a climb, the downgoing blade provides more thrust (traction) than the
    > upgoing blade (need a drawing at this point- in short the aircraft is
    > usually pointed at an angle higher than its actual travel - thusly the
    > downgoing blade "bites" more air than the upgoing blade).
    >
    > So - in the P-38 with the downgoing blade being outboard - in an engine
    > failure, the yaw presented would be quite a lot higher than had they
    > made the downgoing blades inboard.


    With the P-38L both props rotated inwards, and the pilots were trained
    on single engine failure on take off. Simply put this meant feathering
    the failed prop and then adjusting trim.

    My father had an engine failure while on a mission in New Guinea. On
    return to their base after an escort mission they engaged in a target
    of opportunity action, strafing a Japanese depot at Fac Fac on the New
    Guinea East coast. My father made his pass so low that when a dock side
    ware house blew up in his face, an ammunition case blown into the air
    lodged in the right engine radiator & intercooler intakes and he had to
    fly the 290+ miles back to his base of the single engine. He got one of
    his Air Medals for that little exercise. That was a time he was
    thankful he was no longer flying a P-47.

    From the 9th Fighter Squadron history:
    "Until the 8th (July 1944), the missions flown by the squadron were
    very prosaic patrols, but on this date our planes escorted B-25's to
    Fac Fac. Upon completion of the bombing all the flights strafed the
    target with fine results. Lt. H. Xxxx strafed a warehouse which turned
    out to be an ammunition depot. The resultant explosion threw debris to
    a very respectable height. Passing thru all the flying boxes and
    miscellaneous matter fouled up the coolant system of his plane, and Lt.
    Xxxx came home on one engine with his right prop feathered, a distance
    of 290 miles, landing safely. Pieces of ammunition boxes lodged in his
    intercoolers bore mute testimony to the fate of the warehouse. This was
    an example of good minimum altitude strafing."

    > In more modern twins that have the engines spinning in opposite sense,
    > the downgoing blade is usually (almost always) the inboard side for that
    > reason - otherwise the blue line would be higher or the aft CG limit
    > would need to be further ahead in order to have rudder effectiveness (or
    > both).
    >
    > There may be other reasons they preferred this arrangement however with
    > the P-38.
    >
    > [1] in single engine aircraft there are three major forces affecting
    > roll and yaw during and after takeoff. Engine torque, airflow
    > impingement and the yaw force of the downgoing blade being greater than
    > that of the upgoing blade (during climb). During rotation, there are
    > also gyro forces acting at 90° lag that tend to yaw right.
    >
    > Often the left wing has a slightly higher angle of attack than the right
    > to counter torque and impingement forces in single engine aircraft (most
    > Cessna's for example).



    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Apr 15, 2014
  13. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/14/2014 2:42 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Noons <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> there's nothing bullshit about it. it's easier to teach photography
    >>>>> with digital and more practical too.
    >>>> Your kind of "photography", perhaps.
    >>>> For true photography, the media used is immaterial.
    >>>
    >>> it's material when quality is a factor.

    >>
    >> "quality" is NEVER a factor for the art of photography.

    >
    > of course it is. otherwise people would be using cheap crappy cameras
    > rather than buying fancy nikon and canons.
    >


    The vast majority of people have those "cheap crappy cameras."
    My daughter used a D70, until I gave my my old D200. She has gotten as
    much as $700 or $750 for her prints. (her share.)
    It ain't the camera, buddy. Oh! I forgot to mention, photography is not
    her profession.
    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 15, 2014
  14. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/14/2014 2:42 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Noons <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> It's a fixed feature of the sensor, at design/manufacturing time.
    >>>> What changes is how the RAW data is treated and converted.
    >>>> And THAT can be equated to the traditional ISO to make it easier to
    >>>> understand for imbeciles like you.
    >>>
    >>> none of that matters to the user. the fact is that digital cameras have
    >>> an iso setting which affects the image.

    >>
    >> So now it's "what matters to the user"? As opposed to "the photographer"?

    >
    > the photographer is the user.
    >
    >> Funny how the requirements keep changing depending on what bullshit needs to
    >> be pushed...

    >
    > wrong.
    >

    He would be wrong if he wasn't referring to you.



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 15, 2014
  15. Cursitor Doom

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/14/2014 6:59 AM, Noons wrote:
    > On 14/04/2014 4:42 PM, nospam wrote:
    >
    >>> "quality" is NEVER a factor for the art of photography.

    >>
    >> of course it is. otherwise people would be using cheap crappy cameras
    >> rather than buying fancy nikon and canons.

    >
    > That is PRECISELY what they are doing.
    > Have you checked lately how many images are taken by smartphones?
    > Hint: nearly 1000000 times more than by CaNikons.
    > And guess what: precious few have any quality concerns. Yet, a great
    > many of those photos are quite sensational and there are quite a few
    > artists looking into those as a vehicle for their art.
    > So much for "digital dslr quality": what really matters is a great many
    > other things.
    > :)
    >

    A well respected photo lecturer and runner of workshops.
    His work is far from routine.
    <http://tonysweet.com/category/iphone/>

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 15, 2014
  16. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    On 15/04/2014 11:36 AM, PeterN wrote:

    >>

    > A well respected photo lecturer and runner of workshops.
    > His work is far from routine.
    > <http://tonysweet.com/category/iphone/>
    >


    Exactly. The time when dslrs were essential for "quality" photography
    is long gone. Any late model smartphone camera can do superb images,
    depending on who is handling it. And don't get me started on mirrorless...
     
    Noons, Apr 15, 2014
  17. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    On 14/04/2014 10:55 PM, nospam wrote:

    >> I'll bet anything I've used digital cameras for a LOT longer than you
    >> have. And for photography, where appropriate and pertinent. And I have
    >> the images to prove it.

    >
    > and you'd lose.


    prove it. Hot air comes easy from trolls.


    >> So, how do you change the aperture and shutter speed AFTER taking the
    >> raw image, mr expert? And yet, changing the ISO is dirt easy: any raw
    >> processing software lets you do just that.

    >
    > who said anything about changing them after?


    It's what you've been discussing for over a week.
    Make an effort to stay on subject, troll!


    > and you can't change iso
    > afterwards anyway.


    Oh yes you can, as easy as pie! What you most definitely cannot change
    is the aperture or shutter speed!

    > amplification of what comes off the sensor is *not*
    > the same as altering the raw data.


    ISO is NOT amplification of what comes off the sensor, you bloody idiot!
    It never was, it never will be!


    > anyone who has been using digital
    > cameras half as long as you claim to have used them would know this.


    That's why I talk about it and prove my points. While you waste space
    with every single breath of yours.


    > who is bret?


    your alter ego. Look at a mirror.

    > every post you make you dig yourself a deeper hole.


    That should bring me to the top of the world very soon!
    Careful, I might be behind you!
     
    Noons, Apr 15, 2014
  18. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <liip0s$8k5$>, Noons <>
    wrote:

    > >> I'll bet anything I've used digital cameras for a LOT longer than you
    > >> have. And for photography, where appropriate and pertinent. And I have
    > >> the images to prove it.

    > >
    > > and you'd lose.

    >
    > prove it. Hot air comes easy from trolls.


    i was using an apple quicktake in the mid-90s, about 20 years ago,
    which predates your claim of 15 years.

    i also used a canon xapshot some years before that, although that
    wasn't technically a 'digital' camera. it was basically a video camera
    that took stills.

    > > amplification of what comes off the sensor is *not*
    > > the same as altering the raw data.

    >
    > ISO is NOT amplification of what comes off the sensor, you bloody idiot!
    > It never was, it never will be!


    yes it most certainly is and will always be for the foreseeable future.

    there's an amp before the a/d converter, in what is often called an
    analog front end.

    only the very highest isos (commonly called 'extended') are digitally
    multiplied. the rest of the iso settings are amplified *before* being
    converted to digital, in the analog domain.
     
    nospam, Apr 15, 2014
  19. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    On 16/04/2014 12:50 AM, nospam wrote:



    > i was using an apple quicktake in the mid-90s, about 20 years ago,
    > which predates your claim of 15 years.


    Funny. Was that a dslr? Oh, OK: it is a "digital camera"... Sort of.
    At least mine was a proper digital, one of the first Coolpix.


    >> ISO is NOT amplification of what comes off the sensor, you bloody idiot!
    >> It never was, it never will be!

    >
    > yes it most certainly is and will always be for the foreseeable future.


    Get some basic education on digital imaging and low-signal analog
    amplification, moron.

    > there's an amp before the a/d converter, in what is often called an
    > analog front end.


    "an amp" is NOT a variable gain amplifier, you blithering idiot!
    You cannot have your "variable ISO" without variable gain amplifiers.
    LEARN what analog amplification involves and how difficult it is to make
    a low noise variable gain low current amplifier before you just blurt
    terms you clearly do NOT understand!


    > only the very highest isos (commonly called 'extended') are digitally
    > multiplied. the rest of the iso settings are amplified *before* being
    > converted to digital, in the analog domain.


    Yes. And they are NOT VARIABLE-gain amplified, you ignorant!
     
    Noons, Apr 16, 2014
  20. Cursitor Doom

    nospam Guest

    In article <liln57$kb2$>, Noons <>
    wrote:

    > > i was using an apple quicktake in the mid-90s, about 20 years ago,
    > > which predates your claim of 15 years.

    >
    > Funny. Was that a dslr? Oh, OK: it is a "digital camera"... Sort of.
    > At least mine was a proper digital, one of the first Coolpix.


    no sort of about it. the quicktake was a 'proper digital' camera. i
    also had a coolpix too.

    > >> ISO is NOT amplification of what comes off the sensor, you bloody idiot!
    > >> It never was, it never will be!

    > >
    > > yes it most certainly is and will always be for the foreseeable future.

    >
    > Get some basic education on digital imaging and low-signal analog
    > amplification, moron.


    i've already forgotten more than you'll ever know.

    > > there's an amp before the a/d converter, in what is often called an
    > > analog front end.

    >
    > "an amp" is NOT a variable gain amplifier, you blithering idiot!
    > You cannot have your "variable ISO" without variable gain amplifiers.
    > LEARN what analog amplification involves and how difficult it is to make
    > a low noise variable gain low current amplifier before you just blurt
    > terms you clearly do NOT understand!


    maybe it's difficult for idiots like yourself. fortunately. it's not
    that hard for others:

    <http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/34-06/imaging/>
    A programmable- (or variable-) gain amplifier (PGA or VGA) follows
    the CDS to amplify the signal and better utilize the full dynamic
    range of the A/D converter (ADC). If black-level offset correction is
    not performed ahead of the PGA, the dynamic range of the imaging
    system will suffer. A high-speed ADC converts the conditioned analog
    image signal to the digital domain, allowing for additional
    processing by a digital ASIC.

    <http://chsvimg.nikon.com/history/basics/13/index.htm>
    Digital cameras convert the light that falls on the image sensor into
    electrical signals for processing. ISO sensitivity is raised by
    amplifying the signal. Doubling ISO sensitivity doubles the
    electrical signal, halving the amount of light that needs to fall on
    the image sensor to achieve optimal exposure.

    > > only the very highest isos (commonly called 'extended') are digitally
    > > multiplied. the rest of the iso settings are amplified *before* being
    > > converted to digital, in the analog domain.

    >
    > Yes. And they are NOT VARIABLE-gain amplified, you ignorant!


    they are.
     
    nospam, Apr 16, 2014
    1. Advertisements

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Joe Shapiro
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    778
    Nick Zentena
    Nov 5, 2003
  2. Chris
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    583
    Gordon Moat
    Oct 3, 2004
  3. Ryadia@home

    35mm SLR image compared to a sub 35mm DSLR image

    Ryadia@home, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    821
    Ryadia@home
    Jun 21, 2005
  4. The point of 35mm photography

    , Jul 5, 2005, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    794
    Gordon Moat
    Jul 13, 2005
  5. Stephen M. Gluck

    Studio lighting for 35mm and 4 X5 photography

    Stephen M. Gluck, Jan 10, 2006, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    486
    Alan Browne
    Jan 14, 2006
  6. Sting
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    816
    Henrik
    Aug 8, 2003
  7. Replies:
    48
    Views:
    1,297
    DBLEXPOSURE
    Dec 16, 2005
  8. Doug Payne

    Kodak stages a comeback

    Doug Payne, Jan 26, 2007, in forum: Kodak
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    835
    AustinMN
    Jan 27, 2007
Loading...