If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
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 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
nospam was thinking very hard :
what if you stopped posting rubbish? Why not stop feeding the troll? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"film vs CMOS" -- "Mental State"?
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 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"film vs CMOS" -- "Mental State"?
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 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"film vs CMOS" -- "Mental State"?
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 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
how original is an original image?
"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'. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
"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). |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Windows 7 upgrade to Windows 10 vs. new laptop with Windows 10. | Larry[_12_] | Dell Computers | 10 | September 6th 16 05:58 PM |
Windows 10 i5 machine, dirty upgrade from Windows 8, all legalcopies, takes forever to startup | RayLopez99 | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | March 1st 16 03:45 AM |
Inspiron 1525 laptop, lost Windows Vista DVD, Necessary for Windows 7 Reinstall? | [email protected] | Dell Computers | 2 | June 8th 13 12:45 PM |
WTB: URGENT NEED - MICROSOFT OFFICE SOFTWARE ALL VERSIONS/TYPES -MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP PRO, WINDOWS 2000 PRO, WINDOWS HOME ALL VERSIONS/TYPES- NEED AS MANY AS YOU CAN SELL US | none | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | April 16th 09 02:18 PM |
PSU problem causing windows\system32\config\system is missing or corrupt in windows XP | dk | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | March 1st 05 11:14 PM |