O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Dudley Hanks, Aug 6, 2013.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Eric Stevens Guest

    As indicated in the Wikipedia article there seems to have been some
    confusion amongst the crew over the setting and operation of the
    autothrottle. This is consistent with the events of the crash.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 14, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Nothing sarcastic at all. Read what he wrote.

    Savageduck really does think he knows more than the software in the
    camera.

    You will find your photography improving immensely if you buy a camera
    with "Best Shot" selection capabilities.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 14, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Savageduck Guest

    There appears to be a serious cockpit culture issue with both Asiana &
    Korean Airlines. The cockpit communications between flight crew and
    familiarity with visual approach procedures was decidedly lacking.
    Two US pilots who had flown for Asiana after they retired, one from
    United and one from Delta, both reported this problem of the Korean
    pilots dependance on automated systems. The ex-United pilot reported
    that one Korean Asiana couldn't execute a normal visual approach into
    LAX. He told the American pilot "I don't need to know that. We don't do
    that." They had to go around and the American captain had to make the
    visual approach and landing.
     
    Savageduck, Aug 14, 2013
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Actually the quoted figure of 72ppi is relevant to the older Apple
    displays. (It may still be relevant but I don't know that). The
    Microsoft standard was 1/3 greater - 96dpi - for the usual Microsoft
    reasons.

    Many older CRTs used to have a pitch of 72dpi but towards the end they
    began creeping up. My present LCD has 92dpi.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 14, 2013
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Savageduck Guest

    I'll let you know when I find that camera that can figure out my intentions.
     
    Savageduck, Aug 14, 2013
  6. Dudley Hanks

    Guest Guest

    you still can do that.
    not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the
    limits. they want well exposed and in focus images.
    then don't delete them.

    learn how to properly use such a tool and when to use it, rather than
    dismiss it outright without even considering how it could be useful.
    nothing is perfect.

    all autofocus needs to do is do a better job than humans do, which it
    definitely does in most situations.

    there are edge cases where it might not be appropriate, and then you
    just turn it off.
    yep.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2013
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Guest Guest

    it's was never relevant.
    that's very low.

    htc one is 468 ppi
    retina iphone is 326 ppi
    nikon d7000 rear lcd is 267 ppi
    15" retina macbook pro is 220 ppi.
    microsoft surface pro is 208 ppi
    11" non-retina macbook air is 135 ppi.
    27" lcd display is 111 ppi
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2013
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Eric Stevens Guest

    The thing which nobody has specifically stated is that the actual
    pixels/inch used by the monitor are fixed. They are built into the
    hardware. So if the native display pitch of your monitor is 96 ppi
    that's all it will ever display. It will ignore instructions to
    display at (say) 72dpi simply because it can't do that. That's why if
    the file doesn't change the image size displayed on the screen remains
    constant as it is dependent only on the number of pixels to be
    displayed.

    It is often possible to set up your monitor to display at a different
    resolution from the native pitch but it will be still using its native
    (say) 96 ppi. What it will be doing is resampling your image on the
    fly with a probably cheap and nasty (but fast) algorithm. This will
    result in the displayed image being inferior to the one you would see
    if it was displayed at the native resolution.
    It used to mean that but not for some time. Print colors used to be
    created by putting down dots of ink in 'cells'. See
    http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/Epson2200/DotMatrix.gif
    which displays cells 4x4 and 2x2 in size. The number of cells roughly
    corresponds to pixels in the original image. But then as in the
    example, printers arrived with the capability to vary the size of the
    dots. This enabled the printer to vary the size of the cells. Matters
    got even worse when printers became able to drop dots almost anywhere
    without adhering to any particular dot pitch. By this time cells lost
    any direct connection with pixels and could instead be regarded as
    vari-colored patches which could be laid down to form the image. Color
    boundaries were no longer tied to cell boundaries and could traverse
    cells.

    Dots per inch increasingly became a meaningless figure whose principal
    use was for competitive bragging between printer manufacturers.

    I have an Epson 3800 (which is now obsolescent). This has native cell
    sizes of 360/inch, 720/inch, 1440/inch and a claimed 2880/inch.
    According to the ppi selected when the print driver is set up one gets
    nothing but large droplets, a mixture of large and small droplets, or
    only small droplets. What's more, even for uniform colours, the
    droplets do not appear to be deposited in in a consistent pattern from
    one cell to the next.

    I get the impression that the selected print ppi is a conversion
    factor which will enable you to calculate the size of the print image
    from the number of pixels and a guide as to the detail quality one may
    expect. But it's not in any way an indication of the DPI of what is
    laid down by the printer or the number of dots one may expect to be
    deposited.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 14, 2013
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Guest Guest

    i said it yesterday or the day before.
    which is why some computers are no longer using pixels for imaging.
    they're using points, which may be more than one pixel. this is because
    individual pixels can no longer be seen.
    not necessarily.

    try a retina display sometime.
    that's what it's for.
    it's not supposed to be. dpi is a function of the printer.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2013
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Sandman Guest

    I'll let you know when I find that camera that can figure out my intentions.[/QUOTE]

    Your D300S auto-focuses, does it not? Is that not your intention, to
    shoot in-focus pictures? And if you don't want it to autofocus, don't
    you turn it off? Can you turn it off? Isn't it actually on most of the
    time?

    You also use Auto-ISO when shooting some motor sport shots, that way
    software adapts the ISO to match your intentions, does it not?

    All of these are software features YOU decide when to use, and you have
    them on when and if they match your intentions. So if there is a
    function that can automatically detect blinking people when you're
    taking a quick family portrait and thus save you time to review the
    images and call back all the people because two people were blinking,
    then that's your intention, and the software can help you because you
    can't detect that.

    I pretty much always shoot in manual mode, and I want complete control
    of my camera, but that doesn't mean I can see a use for automatic
    functionality.

    I rarely manually focus, though. :)
     
    Sandman, Aug 14, 2013
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Eric Stevens Guest

    That's fine, as long as you don't claim that those who can make images
    out of photographs that are less than properly focussed or exposed are
    at fault for not wanting to use software that rejects photographs that
    are less than well exposed or focussed.
    By all accounts the tool deletes what it regards as less than perfect
    photographs before the photographer has a chance form an opinion of
    their own.
    But some are desirable.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 14, 2013
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Not good.

    It sounds a bit like some of the philosophies recently advocated in
    this news group for the taking of photographs.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 14, 2013
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Sorry: I missed it.
    Then why have smaller pixels?
    I bet it's possible to resample an image in a fashion which would make
    it appear to its disadvantage on a Retina display. Nevertheless I
    accept that in most cases most people would be hard put to notice the
    difference.
    That's what I have said. It's also a function of how the printer
    driver is set up. I've just said that too. :)
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 14, 2013
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Just coincidence - huh?
    So mine is not doing too badly for a four year old 24" display.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 14, 2013
  15. Dudley Hanks

    Sandman Guest

    it's was never relevant.[/QUOTE]

    It is true that the original Macintosh had a 72 ppi screen, but it isn't
    true that the "Microsoft standard" was 96 ppi, because Microsoft sold no
    displays (as far as I know.

    A 17" screen with the resolution of 1280x1024 has a ppi of 96, but back
    when the 72/96 ppi myth started, there were no such high resolution
    screen, and when they were common, the original Macinosh was just a
    memory and the screens were as common for Macs as for PCs.

    You need to go down to a 13" screen at 1024x768 to get 96ppi again, but
    13" desktop screens weren't very common (15" was the common step). 13"
    was more for laptops, and again, when people had laptops to start such a
    myth, the original Mac was again a memory.
    Indeed, 92ppi is quite low. That's a 20" at 1600x900 or 24" at
    1920x1080. I can't think of any other resolution that would match and be
    current.

    I once wrote a PPI calculator that I just remember:

    http://sandman.net/misc/ppi

    That's to calculate the PPI of your screen, or any screen.
     
    Sandman, Aug 14, 2013
  16. Dudley Hanks

    Whisky-dave Guest

    found 'em

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=i...jmD8i40QXnnoDYAg&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=877&bih=630
     
    Whisky-dave, Aug 14, 2013
  17. Dudley Hanks

    Whisky-dave Guest


    Exactly

    "sarcasm in lieu of a coherent argument "
     
    Whisky-dave, Aug 14, 2013
  18. Dudley Hanks

    Sandman Guest

    Exactly

    "sarcasm in lieu of a coherent argument "[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't sarcastic. Nor was I part in the argument you had with nospam.
    I just jumped in with a pejorative against your abysmal spelling, which
    means that reading your posts is more like decoding hieroglyphs than
    reading a coherent line of thinking.

    I can only assume that before posting to usenet you down a bottle of
    Whiskey and then type with your face. :)
     
    Sandman, Aug 14, 2013
  19. Dudley Hanks

    Guest Guest

    i said all along you can not use it.
    it doesn't have to delete them. it can flag them for further review.

    do you not realize that these types of tools can have user selectable
    options??
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2013
  20. Dudley Hanks

    Guest Guest

    because then pixels are no longer a limitation.

    you can see pixelization on non-retina displays. you *can't* on a
    retina display. the difference is very noticeable, which is why
    companies are now making them.
    sure, if you want to game the system and intentionally display crap, go
    for it.
    noticing the difference between retina & non-retina displays is not
    that hard, although many people don't notice it right away. they get a
    retina display and don't see much of a difference, then they go back to
    their older display and realize how crappy it really was.
     
    Guest, Aug 14, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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.