Difficult technical question on ISO & light

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news😛IVgd.443911$mD.160333@attbi_s02...
>
> "jjs" <jjs@x.x.com> wrote in message
>> Most of the processing we are concerned with is in the retina. The brain
>> couples to recognition of those signals, not interpretation of them.
>>
>>
> Yes, but they have discovered that a surprising amount of what we, "see"
> is actually interpretation by the brain of what is actually a rather poor
> optical image. The brain fills in an amazing percentage of the picture,
> based on its experience and memory. One might think of this, "filling in"
> as part of the software package we develop starting at birth.

You are speaking of cognition (the Where and What of seeing), not of the
subject of this thread which is color recognition. They are two entirely
different things.

There are many cases where the human brain (cognition) cannot, despite
training, distinguish certian colors within the 'visible' spectrum, nor
certain combinations of colors in context because the eye cannot
detect/discrimate among them.

Permit me to refer you to Rudolf Arnheim and Margaret Livingston for
starters into the literature of these matters.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Gregory W Blank wrote:
>
> In article <4183466e$0$10830$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
>
> > There was clearly (as we now know) a huge latent demand for the ability to,
> > say, snap a picture of baby's first steps in the living room, or mom blowing
> > out the candles on her birthday cake, then go into the bedroom or den and pump
> > out a fine quality print immediately. This demand was by far the driving force
> > in the market. Manufactures did extensive studies on that suspected demand,
> > and responded accordingly. What exists right now is equal and more to the
> > tasks that most consumers want to accomplish, and it's only getting better.
> >
> > Of course the lower denominator is going to win. Most people can't
> > differentiate between superb and very good images even if you give them a
> > loupe. Superb is overkill for the bulk of the population.

So, lets just do away with Ansel Adams....

Seeing his "superb" mural sized prints was what turned
me from an amateur into a professional photographer.
I could care less what a the snapshooting public shoots
with. But when they see a real photograph in all it's glory,
even a complete idiot knows the difference...

> It will remain
> > extremely expensive, and on the fringe. Always has lived right there.
>
> > SP
>
> Lets hope the "industry" serves the desire to have those images last longer than
> to the kids graduation.
> --
> LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
>
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
> or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
> is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
> to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Tom Phillips wrote:

> pk wrote:
> >
> > Whats wrong with you? You are making this too complicated. And did you
> > really need to cross post this to half a dozen newsgroups?
>
> I do agree this is should not have been crossposted.
>
> > Digital film (senor) sensitivity are equivalent to film.
>
> Incorrect. CCD or CMOS sensors are not equal to film; one is
> not equivalent to then other. There are differenent physics
> and imaging properties that apply to any giving situation.
>
> Film has the ability to _accumulate_ light and endure long
> exposures or multiple exposures that can capture detail
> in the dimmest of situations. Reciprocity failure is the
> only factor. Silicon simply can't do this and is limited by
> both exposure latitude and length of exposure.
>
> > The higher
> > the ISO the more sensitive the film is to light. So the higher the ISO
> > on a digital camera the more sentive to light the digital sensor is.
>
> Digital sensors have a _nominal_ "speed" at which they
> produce the best quality image. When you alter that speed
> the image quality goes down. Film can be rated at a different
> speeds and still produce quality results because as development
> of film is altered, effective speed also alters. Also, a "slow"
> film can be simply be exposed for a longer time than a faster
> film, and achieve the same results. No loss in image quality.
>
> Film can be exposed for hours. Try that with a digital sensor.
> It simply one of the differences between these two imaging
> mediums.

*Some* films can be exposed for hours - those specially formulated to do so, for
astronomical purposes. Ordinary films don't like it very much at all. Rather like
ordinary digital sensors which don't like long exposures either. But, as with film,
specially prepared sensors are made for the job. Cryogenically cooled CCD's have a
practically zero noise component and can be exposed for long periods, with, I might
add, *far* superior results to film. Practical telescopes these days almost
exclusively use CCD sensors in place of eyepieces, and astronomers sit in comfort at
computer screens, viewing images far superior to direct stargazing up the eyepiece.

Colin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:09:14 -0600, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Unfortunately only one can effectively thrive in the current
> >> economic climate and it won't be film. Film will linger for quite some
> >> time but by "thrive" I mean where companies and average buyer is going
> >> with their moneys. It's all marketing of course. At one time Kodak
> >> certainly had some of the deepest pockets in the world but the
> >> combined economic interests of companies like HP, Canon, Epson,
> >> Lexmark, Apple, Dell and all the rest that have invested heavily in DI
> >> is simply too much for even Kodak. Profiteering steers marketing and
> >> marketing steers public opinion. Economics 101.
> >
> >Pessimist!
>
> Just being realistic. I hate it as much as you. More probably.
> There will never be a comparable replacement for Galerie, APX25,
> Ektalure or the many other great materials now and soon to be
> discontinued due to assaults from both the digital farce-ography and
> an EPA that is nitpicking companies like Kodak to death (while
> ignoring the growing number of computers and digital cameras in
> landfills). A demise that will come sooner rather than later just as
> it has to Ilford and Agfa. Kodak has the most to loose and therefore
> will take longer but it will happen.

Someone will make it. while gallerie is one of my favorite
papers historically, my current paper of choice is Seagull G.
And they went out of business once already. They wouldn't
have started up again if there wasn't a market for it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

BillyJoeJimBob wrote:
>
> Ken Tough wrote:
>
> > BillyJoeJimBob <bjjb@nowhere.antispam.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Tom Phillips wrote:
> >>
> >>>Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
> >>>assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
> >>>that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
> >>>contains 24 million pixels."
> >
> >
> >>Typical 135 format film measures 36x24 mm, for a total imaging area
> >>of 864 square mm, or 864,000,000 square microns. Dividing this by
> >>the quoted pixel size above yields 8,640,000 "pixels" on the 135
> >>format film. I have no idea how the authors of that quote came up
> >>with 24 million, which at first glance appears to be too large by
> >>nearly a factor of three. Perhaps the authors assume some degree of
> >>overlap between "pixels" on the emulsion layer?
> >
> >
> > Going the Foveon route, maybe they're looking in 3D? Seriously,
> > maybe they've multiplied by 3 (RGB)?

Foveon 3D requires a much larger pixel to do what it does. It's
an improvent in digital color over bayer pattern color filter
arrays, which reduce actual color pixels captured by 1/4 and
interpolate the rest (amazing how little some of you seem
to know about how digital works...), but not an improvement
in resolution. Unless Foveon somehow suspended the laws of
physics (e.g., Nyquist.)

> I actually considered that possibility; it does fit the data fairly
> well, after all. However, the first quoted line speaks of an "emulsion
> layer", implying a single layer of emulsion rather than multiple layers
> in color film. Under these conditions there's no "3" to multiply, and
> I tossed the Foveon possibility out.
>
> BJJB

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:00:30 -0600, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com>
wrote:

>Talking lighting and exposure here. And again you ignore
>nyquist. Also, on average a 400 speed 35mm film has the
>equivalent of 24 million pixels.

And imagine a 100 or slower speed film. Much higher.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> writes:
>
> >Let's keep things in pragmatic context here. MTF is the
> >ability of the _entire_ imaging system to resolve detail:
> >imager, optics, etc. Nyquist limits the entire digital
> >system. Nyquist does not affect film or film optics.
>
> >That's a scientific fact.
>
> It's an irrelevant fact.

You're an idiot. It's the _most_ relevant fact in
digital resolving abilities. If it weren't, there would
be no need to have as many pixles (photodetector sites)
as possible on a silicon sensor. Or in a scanner.

The ***MORE*** pixels, the greater the digital resolution.

The ***MORE*** pixels, the higher quality optics that
can be used and the greater signal frequency that can
be ustilized. The fact is, due to Nyquist limitations,
most digital lenses have to be dumbed down because they
simply cannot handle the high signal frequencies found
in detailed objects.

Gop ahead. try to put a Leica lens on your little digital
P&S. You'd just be wasting your money all all that good
quality opitical resolution.

>
> If you want to be pragmatic, just look at the MTF curve *regardless of
> what it is caused by*. If you do that, it doesn't matter that the
> resolution limit may be due to Nyquist in a digital system and due to
> film and lens resolution in a film system. All that matters is the
> result.
>
> Now, there are some digital systems whose MTF *at every frequency* is
> better than some film systems. Are you arguing that digital will still
> be worse because it's "limited by Nyquist" in this case? If so, that's
> nonsense. What matters is the system MTF *however it was produced*.
>
> Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

jjs wrote:
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:bmOgd.52905$5t4.1147425@wagner.videotron.net...
> > John wrote:
> >
> >> Nope. The human eye is an analog mechanism. Photography is an
> >> effort to capture what the eyes can see in a relatively permanent
> >> medium. Digital is an effort to make money. Digital images are not
> >> analog nor are they permanent. It follows that digital is NOT
> >> photography.
> >
> > One of the stupidest statements lately seen.
>
> That is not an adequate rebuttal, but it does ring true.

jjs is a moron. Tell him something that's a scientific fact
(like comosmic radiation can fog film, especially fast film)
and he'll say he wants a second opinion.

The only thing that's silly in _any_ discussion I know
is John S.

Snip stupidity...

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:59:12 -0400, "Ken Alverson"
<USENET.Ken@Alverson.net> wrote:

>Photograph, from the greek "photo-" meaning light and "-graph" meaning
>recording. Whether the recording was made photochemically and stored on
>physical media or photoelectrically and stored on digital media is really
>inconsequential to its status as a photograph.

I disagree. The photographic image should be stored in a
photographic medium. Last I looked there was no digital medium capable
of working without batteries.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:12:48 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
wrote:

>As a matter of fact, on some small enough level,
>the whole universe is digital.

But is it binary ? LOL ! I think not !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:23:40 -0700, Justín Käse
<chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote:

>>Note that some of us still consider 4X5 small.
>
>That's why my school used it, cheap enough for students. Plus it's hard
>to lug a 16x20 vacuum back rig out to do class assignments. <g>

Just gives the wrestling coach another "training aid" for the
students that need a little TLC. And don't forget the tripod !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

BillyJoeJimBob wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > BillyJoeJimBob wrote:
> >
> >>Out of curiosity, do you have a website anywhere that I might
> >>view some high detail low-light pictures you have taken? I'm
> >>considering exploring this area of photography (even though
> >>I'm on the digital side of things) and would like to see what
> >>other folks have accomplished.
> >
> >
> > I don't maintain a web site for general public consumption.
> >
> > Got as real email?
>
> Um... yes, but it's surely not going to be posted...

Neither is my web site.

>...to this newsgroup.

You mean several nsgs (as this guy crossposted):
alt.comp.periphs.dcameras
rec.photo.digital
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
rec.photo.film+labs
rec.photo.darkroom

An off topic disscussion for r.p.d

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> BillyJoeJimBob wrote:
> >
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > BillyJoeJimBob wrote:
> > >
> > >>Out of curiosity, do you have a website anywhere that I might
> > >>view some high detail low-light pictures you have taken? I'm
> > >>considering exploring this area of photography (even though
> > >>I'm on the digital side of things) and would like to see what
> > >>other folks have accomplished.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't maintain a web site for general public consumption.
> > >
> > > Got as real email?
> >
> > Um... yes, but it's surely not going to be posted...
>
> Neither is my web site.
>
> >...to this newsgroup.

AND maybe we should chastise him for crossposting instead of arguing ;-)


> You mean several nsgs (as this guy crossposted):
> alt.comp.periphs.dcameras
> rec.photo.digital
> rec.photo.equipment.35mm
> rec.photo.film+labs
> rec.photo.darkroom
>
> An off topic disscussion for r.p.d

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:23:42 -0700, Justín Käse
<chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote:

>>Once you
>>negate the medium you have negated the craft.
>
>Curious;
>would you make a similar differentiation between primitive methods such
>as applying dyes to the immovable wall of a cave, and portable media
>such as papyrus

Nope. The dye is the media. The portability may certainly be a
factor but the craft of painting using the dye has not changed
significantly.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <0sb7o0d7dgtfv889s1ij9uurr05vbotk2o@4ax.com>,
John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote:

> In photography, the latent image is created _in_the_medium_.
> In DI it's stored in as a file.

Actually an instruction to make a file ;-)
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <QdVgd.443860$mD.338477@attbi_s02>,
"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The only difference between digital planes and film is that the "pixels" on
> film are randomly placed in the sensing plane, and not placed in regular
> defined positions as they are in a CCD plane. Otherwise, the film is just as
> digital as the CCD plane. As a matter of fact, on some small enough level,
> the whole universe is digital.

Yeah and it was created by the digital God. You know the one man created.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:56:14 GMT, Gregory W Blank
<gblank@despamit.net> wrote:

>Yeah and it was created by the digital God. You know the one man created.

Bill ?

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <418c225a.5966012@chupacabra>,
Just?n K?se <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote:

> >Once you
> >negate the medium you have negated the craft.
>
> Curious;
> would you make a similar differentiation between primitive methods such
> as applying dyes to the immovable wall of a cave, and portable media
> such as papyrus?

John might not; but surely the cave artists would need some proding to
grasp the idea of a transportable media, but then again perhaps they would see
the benefit of having a burnable sacrifice that they can appease their gods
with to guarantee the hunt.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Kibo informs me that John <use_net@puresilver.org> stated that:

>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:56:47 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
>wrote:
>
>>The human eye is not an analogue device. The resolution is estimated at
>>around 1000 x 1000 pixels of resolution but the rapid eye movements allow
>>the brain to construct images of much higher resolution by interpolating
>>over time with repeated scans.
>
> So you're saying that the human eye is a binary imaging device
>? Just want to get that straight.

Believe it or not, the way in which the human eye functions is much more
similar in nature to a digital camera than to a film camera. In fact,
it's even more like a digital camera that's cabled to a computer running
the kind of sophisticated pattern detection / feature extraction
software that the military types use to process satellite images.

Conversely, the similarity between a film camera & an eye stops when you
reach the retina - the method used to detect light & colour in the
retina is not even remotely like that of a piece of film. The retina
even has 'pixels' - discrete light detectors that each have their own
signal amplifiers & processing circuits, just as a digital image sensor
does. And like a CMOS image sensor, the eye does lots of the image
processing, such as feature-extraction & motion-detection, right there
in the retina.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

<usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
news:7im7o0lhg67gtronlo602ara68dvist8rb@4ax.com...

> Believe it or not, the way in which the human eye functions is much more
> similar in nature to a digital camera than to a film camera. In fact,
> it's even more like a digital camera that's cabled to a computer running
> the kind of sophisticated pattern detection / feature extraction
> software that the military types use to process satellite images.

Lest the rest go astray on your statement: just because one can digitally
simulate an analog device's _outcomes_ it does not mean the thing simulated
is digital. Yes, you clearly understand that; I was stating it for some
others.

There is a binary kind of signaling in the eye's sensors (rods and cones),
but I don't think you can say that the eye's processing in in the retinal
layers itself is digital. The sensors respond to gradations of light's
intensity as well as light frequency to give a 'on or off' signal but the
processing of the the signals on and inside the retina is another story.
Combinations of different sensors' different output is commingled among many
to produce a perceived color. Now if we could come up with a word-length and
clock-speed neccessary to perfectly simulate the retina's intelligence in
the same physical space, we just might find that it is beyond the capability
of our organics to be digital. Unitl we know that, I submit the eye's
intelligence is analog. Are we okay with that?

> Conversely, the similarity between a film camera & an eye stops when you
> reach the retina - [... snip good stuff...] And like a CMOS image sensor,
> the eye does lots of the image
> processing, such as feature-extraction & motion-detection, right there
> in the retina.

Well, FAPP CMOS is more discrete in its sensing than the eye. Oddly, the
human eye is blind to parts of the contiguous range of colors depicted as
"visual light". It does some amazing things to conjur up, for example, a red
object in a dominantly green scene, and is blind to parts of the spectrum we
conceive as violet(s), and cannot - regardless of training - differentiate
certain tones when certain combinations of colors are shown. It is so
complex that it never ceases to amaze that the human eye evolved.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

usenet@imagenoir.com wrote:
> Kibo informs me that John <use_net@puresilver.org> stated that:
>
>
>>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:56:47 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The human eye is not an analogue device. The resolution is estimated at
>>>around 1000 x 1000 pixels of resolution but the rapid eye movements allow
>>>the brain to construct images of much higher resolution by interpolating
>>>over time with repeated scans.
>>
>> So you're saying that the human eye is a binary imaging device
>>? Just want to get that straight.
>
>
> Believe it or not, the way in which the human eye functions is much more
> similar in nature to a digital camera than to a film camera. In fact,
> it's even more like a digital camera that's cabled to a computer running
> the kind of sophisticated pattern detection / feature extraction
> software that the military types use to process satellite images.
>
> Conversely, the similarity between a film camera & an eye stops when you
> reach the retina - the method used to detect light & colour in the
> retina is not even remotely like that of a piece of film. The retina
> even has 'pixels' - discrete light detectors that each have their own
> signal amplifiers & processing circuits, just as a digital image sensor
> does. And like a CMOS image sensor, the eye does lots of the image
> processing, such as feature-extraction & motion-detection, right there
> in the retina.
>

Actually probably the closest to the eye, is a digital video camera, the
eye is a image capturing device, that passes it's signal to the brain,
which is a very sophisticated computer, that then re-orients and
compares the images from two eyes to give you a single 3d image.

W

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Justín Käse" <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:418a2ef8.9196988@chupacabra...
> In Message-ID:<PIVgd.443911$mD.160333@attbi_s02> posted on Sat, 30 Oct
> 2004 23:45:51 GMT, William Graham wrote:
>
>>Yes, but they have discovered that a surprising amount of what we, "see"
>>is
>>actually interpretation by the brain of what is actually a rather poor
>>optical image. The brain fills in an amazing percentage of the picture,
>>based on its experience and memory. One might think of this, "filling in"
>>as
>>part of the software package we develop starting at birth.
>
> Yep, that's the basis of prestidigitation. <g>
> --

It also explains why drivers drive their cars off of cliffs
occasionally.......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in message
news:ivYgd.3568$RA4.2642@trnddc06...
> In article <QdVgd.443860$mD.338477@attbi_s02>,
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> The only difference between digital planes and film is that the "pixels"
>> on
>> film are randomly placed in the sensing plane, and not placed in regular
>> defined positions as they are in a CCD plane. Otherwise, the film is just
>> as
>> digital as the CCD plane. As a matter of fact, on some small enough
>> level,
>> the whole universe is digital.
>
> Yeah and it was created by the digital God. You know the one man created.

I presume you're speaking of Bill Gates.....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:90t8o0dkb169cj7rpo4dimu5g6qd7814d5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:59:12 -0400, "Ken Alverson"
> <USENET.Ken@Alverson.net> wrote:
>
>>Photograph, from the greek "photo-" meaning light and "-graph" meaning
>>recording. Whether the recording was made photochemically and stored on
>>physical media or photoelectrically and stored on digital media is really
>>inconsequential to its status as a photograph.
>
> I disagree. The photographic image should be stored in a
> photographic medium. Last I looked there was no digital medium capable
> of working without batteries.

There have been many....the old IBM punched card, for example.....It was
used even before any electricity at all....When you had to run the machines
by turning a crank. A typewriter is (was) a digital machine, and the early
ones were completely mechanical....No electricity at all there either.......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:vjv8o05e5fms46k8sb6ec7n0va3q421rq2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:12:48 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>As a matter of fact, on some small enough level,
>>the whole universe is digital.
>
> But is it binary ? LOL ! I think not !
>
Actually, we don't know.....It could be binary at a level somewhere below
where our knowledge exists right now.....