Whither high resolution Digital Images?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: gorilla
Next: I was recently at an all-around outdoors store, and the proprietortold me that some people use spotting scopes...
From: Ofnuts on 4 Aug 2010 07:45 On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> > wrote: > >> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote: >>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile >>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a >>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and >>>>> appreciated. >>>> >>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as >>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it. >>>> >>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)! >>> >>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare >>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been >>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest >>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both >>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after >>> one month. >> >> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a >> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a >> grand total of 3 readers. >> >> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel >> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise, >> blow it back to original size, and compare. > > I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with. Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture. -- Bertrand
From: Jeff Jones on 4 Aug 2010 08:23 On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> wrote: >On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote: >>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile >>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a >>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and >>>>>> appreciated. >>>>> >>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as >>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it. >>>>> >>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)! >>>> >>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare >>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been >>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest >>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both >>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after >>>> one month. >>> >>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a >>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a >>> grand total of 3 readers. >>> >>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel >>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise, >>> blow it back to original size, and compare. >> >> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with. > >Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that >you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture. And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER* post any marketable shots to the net" means. I learned my lesson long ago when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed publications. You stupid fuckwad. [Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died. This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A good lesson for all.] Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or medium-frame camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't even own one camera. YOU FUCKINGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE, OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.
From: Jeff Jones on 4 Aug 2010 08:27 On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> wrote: >On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote: >>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile >>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a >>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and >>>>>> appreciated. >>>>> >>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as >>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it. >>>>> >>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)! >>>> >>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare >>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been >>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest >>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both >>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after >>>> one month. >>> >>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a >>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a >>> grand total of 3 readers. >>> >>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel >>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise, >>> blow it back to original size, and compare. >> >> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with. > >Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that >you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture. And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER* post any marketable shots to the net" means. I learned my lesson long ago when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed publications. You stupid fuckwad. [Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died. This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A good lesson for all.] Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't even own one camera. YOU FUCKINGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE, OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.
From: Ofnuts on 4 Aug 2010 11:45 On 04/08/2010 14:27, Jeff Jones wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> > wrote: > >> On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote: >>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile >>>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a >>>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and >>>>>>> appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as >>>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)! >>>>> >>>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare >>>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been >>>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest >>>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both >>>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after >>>>> one month. >>>> >>>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a >>>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a >>>> grand total of 3 readers. >>>> >>>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel >>>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise, >>>> blow it back to original size, and compare. >>> >>> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with. >> >> Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that >> you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture. > > And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER* > post any marketable shots to the net" means. Yes, that means "My shots are a lot lousier than what I pretend them to be". Why should we believe anything else? Has anyone seen your shots in all their glory? If they are so good & desirable, why haven't you made a fortune by publishing them in a book? And if you made a fortune, what is the ISBN? > I learned my lesson long ago > when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed > publications. You stupid fuckwad. > > [Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I > found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the > original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't > been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum > were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was > slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many > more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died. Yet more fiction. The rarest insect on earth comes dying on your porch, brought by a spider. You're really entertaining... maybe you don't make money with your pictures, but you can make a fortune writing novels. Title for your first: "Otiocerus and the magic spiders in Mount Rainer waterfalls". > This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna > structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure > only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally > expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for > concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not > learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for > publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the > rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A > good lesson for all.] And you are going to keep it for yourself, of publish a paper? Waiting for the paper with baited breath, as well as the full name of the species, since you seem to have identified it... > Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or > medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all > wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just > upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't > even own one camera. > > YOU FUCKINGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE, > OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL. Yes! More! -- Bertrand
From: Dave Cohen on 4 Aug 2010 12:20
Jeff Jones wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:18:11 -0700, bobwilliams <mytbob(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> bobwilliams wrote: >>> About two years ago, I took a straw poll of members in this NG. >>> I asked something like, >>> "What do you do (%-wise) with your digital images"? >>> E-Mail to friends and family. >>> Post to Photo Websites for friends and family to share at their >>> convenience. >>> Archive to look at later on your computer. >>> Make 4x6 prints to send to friends and family without computers. >>> Make 8x10 or larger prints for physical archiving. >>> Much to my surprise, of those who responded, only a small percentage >>> made any prints at all. And only about 10% or responders commonly made >>> 8x10 or larger Prints >>> By far, the most common END use was to view the images on a monitor. >>> This blew my mind!!! And raised serious questions? >>> >>> 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed >>> on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size? >>> I know that 10+ MP allows for more severe cropping .....but.....a major >>> reason for owning a DSLR is so one can compose accurately. >>> >>> 2) Monitors are low resolution devices compared to prints. >>> Most people have their monitor resolution set to less than 2.0 MP. >>> 4x6 prints made at 288 ppi require only 2 MP. >>> If these are the most commonly used options, for displaying digital >>> images, even among pretty sophisticated photographers, (such as those in >>> this NG), Why on earth don't camera makers cater to this crowd with a >>> high quality little 1/1.8" 2MP sensor P/S camera, instead of offering >>> 10, 12, and 14MP cameras with 1/2.3" or i/2.5" sensors? >>> Yes! I understand that the great unwashed masses use MP as the main >>> criterion of quality when purchasing a camera.....but.... OMG! When will >>> it stop? >>> A 2MP, 1/1.8" sensor would have a pixel spacing of about 4.3 microns. >>> By comparison, the Panasonic L10 DSLR with 4/3 sensor has a pixel >>> spacing of 5.0 microns. >>> With such a large pixel spacing (For a P/S), the camera would offer much >>> better color fidelity and low-light performance than any other P/S on >>> the market and could produce excellent quality 4x6 prints. >>> Emails could be sent without resizing. >>> >>> Comments.......Bob Williams >> I ABSOLUTELY agree that IF you plan to print at 8X10 or larger, more >> pixels are better. And good glass is of paramount importance. >> After all, it is the lens that creates the image. >> Bells and whistles in the camera are nice but a mediocre lens will yield >> mediocre images. >> >> But notice that I emphasized (CAPS) in my first question..... >> " 1) Why does one need a 10-14 MP DSLR IF the images will ONLY be viewed >> on a monitor or printed at 4x6 size?" >> It is for those people, which I suspect is the largest segment of the >> digicam public, that my mythical 2 MP would be aimed at. >> >> I personally print about 2-3% of my images at 8x10 for archiving in >> large loose leaf binders with plastic sheet protectors. >> I'd say that I probably have about 300 8x10s in 3 binders for quick and >> easy display. These are my best-of-best pics >> >> My primary, serious camera is a Panny FZ 50 which is 10MP. >> It has a Leica lens that IMHO produces outstanding images even on a >> 1/1.8" sensor. >> >> I understand that the high megapixel count is a very effective marketing >> tool and probably is the main reason why a 2MP camera despite >> significant advantages in image quality and low light performance would >> not find a spot in the heart of the general public. They seem to be >> thrilled with results from their little cellphone cameras.........Sigh >> Bob >> >> >> > > And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile > content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a > wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and > appreciated. > > What is it with you tech-head pixel-pervs? I guess since none of you ever > know how to take any images of worthwhile content, the only thing that any > of you have left to admire and be concerned about are the dots. It doesn't > matter how many of those you have, or how high of a resolution they can be > combined into, none of them matter if you don't have something worthy of > being depicted by those dots. > > Here's some dots .................................. > > I have 21 million of them! All of them just as sharp and clear as those > above, each of them available in 16.7 million shades and hues too! Ain't > they wonderful!?! I bet you'd pay $10,000 to be able to have a device to > create such perfect dots, and so many of them, all just as perfect! > > A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as > any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it. > > You fuckingly useless idiots. > > > > > Your perceptive response is so relevant you needed to post it twice. It didn't read much better the second time. We may be useless idiots, but at least we are polite useless idiots. |