Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

On 8/12/2018 11:22 AM, nospam wrote:

In reality, we just need to do the job right and fair, not about
comparison or superiority!

you're the one making comparisons.

What if... a big what if.... all CMOS on Earth were fried by solar
storm? Maybe that explained why a man is up there in ISS.

what if you stopped posting rubbish?


Well, calm down... professor!? Let's continue later.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
ä¸�借貸! ä¸�è©�騙! ä¸�è³*錢! ä¸�æ�´äº¤! ä¸�打交! ä¸�打劫! ä¸�自殺! ä¸�求神! 請考慮綜æ�´
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

nospam was thinking very hard :

what if you stopped posting rubbish?

Why not stop feeding the troll?

On 8/12/2018 5:14 PM, Steve Hough wrote:
nospam was thinking very hard :

what if you stopped posting rubbish?

Why not stop feeding the troll?

Switching topic to mental state...

If you don't wanna continue to answer, just say so. You can also throw
me to Google Search.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
ä¸�借貸! ä¸�è©�騙! ä¸�è³*錢! ä¸�æ�´äº¤! ä¸�打交! ä¸�打劫! ä¸�自殺! ä¸�求神! 請考慮綜æ�´
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 8/12/2018 5:18 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 8/12/2018 5:14 PM, Steve Hough wrote:
nospam was thinking very hard :

what if you stopped posting rubbish?

Why not stop feeding the troll?

Switching topic to mental state...

If you don't wanna continue to answer, just say so. You can also throw
me to Google Search.


I wanna remind you that this is not your company, definitely not a court
room. This is just a causal chat. Your honor and income will not be
affected.

Do you always do that when you were still in schools? Oh well... amazed
me. Maybe I am too lucky not studying in your schools.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
ä¸�借貸! ä¸�è©�騙! ä¸�è³*錢! ä¸�æ�´äº¤! ä¸�打交! ä¸�打劫! ä¸�自殺! ä¸�求神! 請考慮綜æ�´
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 8/12/2018 5:18 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 8/12/2018 5:14 PM, Steve Hough wrote:
nospam was thinking very hard :

what if you stopped posting rubbish?

Why not stop feeding the troll?

Switching topic to mental state...

If you don't wanna continue to answer, just say so. You can also throw
me to Google Search.


I wanna remind you that this is not your company, definitely not a court
room. This is just a causal chat. Your honor and income will not be
affected.

Do you always do that when you were still in schools? Oh well... amazed
me. Maybe I am too lucky not studying in your schools.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
ä¸�借貸! ä¸�è©�騙! ä¸�è³*錢! ä¸�æ�´äº¤! ä¸�打交! ä¸�打劫! ä¸�自殺! ä¸�求神! 請考慮綜æ�´
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote in newskn96p$qar$1
@toylet.eternal-september.org:

On 8/12/2018 2:08 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


But how do you determine how close a digital image get to the
original
without a reference? You have to have a control as in experiment!

the reference is the original


In a court trial, how do you do that? You cannot take the physical
reality into a court... there is also the time factor. Whatever
happened
in reality might not repeat itself before the court.

Example scenerio:

I'm out with my trusty movie/video camera, and happen to capture a driver
running a red light/stop sign and striking your car. I only discover this
when I receive the file back from developing/watch the video. Being the
good citizen that I am, I contact the police and tell them about the
evidence I have. `They come and take said evidence/or make a copy of said
evidence. I sign a sworn statement concerning how I optained the
original. The evidence is placed into a sealed bag/container, and I sign
as the originator/owner, and the person receiving the evidence signs as
the one receiving it from me. They then sign it into the evidence storage
at their office. Anyone making a copy or otherwise having that evidence
in their possession outside of the evidence storage area has to sign for
the original and why they had access/possession of it. This process
continues until the evidence is used in court, if it is. Along with the
evidence comes the 'chain of evidence possession' documenting its origin
and any and all accesses to it up to the time it is presented as evidence
in court. This is the accepted means of documenting how the evidence was
created and accessed the veracity and and protection of the evidence all
along the process. If there is a question of the accuracy of any copies
made the 'chain of possession' documentation and expert testimony is used
to resolve it.

Any analog process of duplication incurrs some loss.
A digital proccess of dublication of a digital original can occur without
loss, depending on the specifics of the process used to create the
'duplicate'.

On 8/11/2018 11:17 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 8/12/2018 1:19 AM, nospam wrote:

Should we always compare 135
film against CMOS sensors of different size?

always the same size format. otherwise it's not a valid comparison.


In reality, we just need to do the job right and fair, not about
comparison or superiority!

What if... a big what if.... all CMOS on Earth were fried by solar
storm? Maybe that explained why a man is up there in ISS.

This is sort of an answer to the original question.

quote: "The resolution of film images depends upon the area of film used
to record the image (35 mm, medium format or large format) and the film
speed. Estimates of a photograph's resolution taken with a 35 mm film
camera vary. More information may be recorded if a fine-grain film is
used, while the use of poor-quality optics or coarse-grained film may
yield lower image resolution. A 36 mm × 24 mm frame of ISO 100-speed
film was initially estimated to contain the equivalent of 20 million
pixels,[6] or approximately 23,000 pixels per square mm. "


In my experience, my 12 mega pixel Olympus camera gives me pictures as
good as my Old Miranda Camera with a good slide film.


With a chemical camera the resolution is limited to the grain size in a
film. However with a print the quality of the paper the images is
printed on will also affect the resolution in the print

With a digital in my opinion has a large range of light conditions under
which you can get good images.

With all of the above, in both types of camera it is the lens system.
Poor quality lens gives poor quality images regardless of the film or
CMOS. As an example I have a cheap phone with a 1.3 megapixel camera.
It gives me consistently better pictures than my tablet which has a 2
megapixel CMOS. This is evident in that with the phone I can easily get
readable images of printed pages, but impossible with the tablet.

In other words with lens systems you can not make a silk purse out of of
a sow's ear, no matter how you process.

"knuttle" wrote in message
news
With a chemical camera the resolution is limited to the grain size in a
film. However with a print the quality of the paper the images is printed
on will also affect the resolution in the print

With a digital in my opinion has a large range of light conditions under
which you can get good images.

With all of the above, in both types of camera it is the lens system. Poor
quality lens gives poor quality images regardless of the film or CMOS. As
an example I have a cheap phone with a 1.3 megapixel camera. It gives me
consistently better pictures than my tablet which has a 2 megapixel CMOS.
This is evident in that with the phone I can easily get readable images of
printed pages, but impossible with the tablet.

The other thing with digital is that the quality of the image is affected by
the post-processing and the amount of noise that the sensor generates. Noise
increases with increased amplification (higher ISO setting) and with reduced
pixel size: a phone with a small sensor (so each pixel is smaller) will
produce more noise than an SLR with a larger sensor with the same
resolution.

Often this is masked by post-processing which manifests itself as localised
blurring of detail.

My SLR at 3200 ASA produces a less noisy picture than my phone camera at a
much lower ISO setting. The SLR's lens is also better, but that's a separate
issue. One other factor is that phone cameras are often a fixed focal
length, so if you zoom in you are using a progressively smaller area of the
sensor which increases noise and (even more so) decreases resolution - just
like making a print from a progressively smaller part of the negative.

Digital also has the advantage that it is much easier to correct for
different colours of light (sunlight / cloud / daylight fluorescent / warm
white fluorescent / LED / tungsten), either manually with presets or
automatically. And the sensitivity of the sensor doesn't change at very
short or very long exposures: with film you had to make corrections both for
exposure and colour cast due to "reciprocity failure" whereby the normal
rule of "reduce shutter speed by one stop requires opening up aperture by
one stop" no longer applies. With negative film it wasn't too much of an
issue because neg film can produce a usable print from a negative with more
under or over exposure, and colour cast can be corrected at printing,
whereas slide film has much less exposure latitude and has no opportunity
for correcting colour cast, apart from by copying onto a new slide with a
filter in place, or by scanning to digital.

I was surprised at how much correction scanning does allow. I took some
night-time photos of an illuminated building and grossly overexposed (I was
guessing). The slides are very pale. When I scanned them (about 30 years
later!), I could correct for this increasing the contrast so the darkest
pale tones became nearly black and the lightest, almost clear film, became
white. Given that exposure at night is very subjective anyway (there is no
one "correct" exposure) this was good enough to produce better copies than
the original. If I'd been shooting on digital, I'd have seen the results of
my guesses immediately and corrected accordingly, either by looking at the
result or looking at the histogram (proportion of pixels with each
brightness - should look *very roughly* like a symmetrical bell-shaped
curve, assuming a typical scene, which night pictures often aren't because
of bright lights or shadows which are outside the range of what you want to
reproduce well (ie it's much more acceptable have some parts which are
totally black or bleached maxed-out white).

In article , NY
wrote:

The other thing with digital is that the quality of the image is affected by
the post-processing and the amount of noise that the sensor generates.

film is also affected by the processing and also the type of film.

Noise
increases with increased amplification (higher ISO setting) and with reduced
pixel size: a phone with a small sensor (so each pixel is smaller) will
produce more noise than an SLR with a larger sensor with the same
resolution.

film is similar. high iso films have more grain, while smaller formats
need to be enlarged more for the same size print.

On 08/11/2018 01:15 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 8/12/2018 1:10 AM, nospam wrote:

I don't know much about photography films.

clearly.

And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!

yep.

But isn't film molecular level?

everything is.

Is your claim based on traditional size of film, which is 135?

But why can't we use a bigger film then? Should we always compare 135
film against CMOS sensors of different size?


A bit of possibly useful discussion:

https://electrooptical.net/News/photographic-film/

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
https://hobbs-eo.com