I'm betting you're biting your lip on LTZ's other claim that lies below his signature.Great Bustard wrote:
:-DWolf Hass wrote:
Let me guess: you hate the sin but love the sinner.
You're making me feel 'itchy'
The internet sure helps to close the gap, though.
I only speak Japanese -- I'm not really Japanese.
The problem, of course, is that I'm afraid of all the stiff competition I'd have in a Mammarial Erection.
Normally, I would have considered it worse if someone were actively trolling. But in this particular case, the alternative possibilities are equally impalatable, if not more.
Where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise.
Actually, I didn't notice that for some time. It was long after I equated his ignorance of diffraction to that of Creationists that I noticed it.Wolf Hass wrote:
I'm betting you're biting your lip on LTZ's other claim that lies below his signature.Great Bustard wrote:
:-DWolf Hass wrote:
Let me guess: you hate the sin but love the sinner.
You're making me feel 'itchy'
It's not so much what you believe as it is why you believe it, and how you deal with evidence that contradicts your beliefs.Is that one not more fractious than his view on diffraction?
I get the diffraction limit -- but apparently there is no discursive limit to DPR debates! ;-)Detail Man wrote:
Thus, a small "cottage industry" of techno-nannies emerged and thrived in the foral domains, pedantic inquisitors whose very souls have dedicated their efforts to mitigating the wanton self-misuse of "false senses of concreteness". An often thankless, but nevertheless sanctious, societal role that will surely (soon come Thunderdome) be of paramount importance, as future luminaries diligently search the ancient disk-drive scrolls, duly discounting any and all "bum steers" ...Wolf Hass wrote:
Let me guess: you hate the sin but love the sinner.
You're making me feel 'itchy'
OK. So which of the two do you prefer based on that premise?
Well, it is most certainly true that many are more successful than I:Detail Man wrote:
Where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise.
- Thomas Gray
From ignorance our comfort flows, the only wretched are the wise.
- Matthew Prior
Wisdom is prevented by ignorance, and delusion is the result.
- The Bhagavadgita
He that knows least commonly presumes most.
- Thomas Fuller
Better to be ignorant of a matter than half know it.
- Publilius Syrus
Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
- Thomas Jefferson
To be proud of knowledge is to be blind with light.
- Benjamin Franklin
We call first truths those we discover after all the others.
- Albert Camus
The contradiction in our relation to nature is that the more vigorously we attempt to force its agreement with our own designs the more subject we are to its indifference, the more vulnerable to its unseeing forces. The more power we exercise over natural process the more powerless we become before it. (-James Carse)
Existence is the great humbler of all conscious beings. Nature remains silent in it's indifference.
DM ...
Verbosity? So you don't even get the (il)logics we are laughing at?
This only gets better and better.
"Diffusion limited" is good DM. Very useful concept, far more so than "diffraction limited". For example, one can claim without hesitation that most DPR threads get "diffusion limited" long before they are stopped down to 150. ;-)Detail Man wrote:
Whereas the phrase "Diffusion Limited" might be more applicable to debates, the phrase, "Phased Array Linear Dispersion Orthagonal Retro Rockets", always has had a rather sexy ring to me.
...........................
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2980778Detail Man wrote:
On numerous occasions I have revealed that out of every 100 shots that I take with my cameras, my average rate of what I judge to be "keepers" is 2 (2% of total shots), and my average rate of what I judge to be "gems" is 1 (1% of total shots). Independent of camera used, and experience.
Will you join me in the spirit of full disclosure and reveal your own true photographic success-rate ?
Bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge their own "IQ":
One of the main effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ .
Also bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge other people's "IQ":
His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others' IQ was proportional to one's own IQ. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others' IQ. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as having a higher IQ than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others' IQ overall, are still likely to rate people of similar IQ as themselves as having higher IQs .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#IQ
Thus, it appears that the lower that you report your own-success rate to be, the better a photographer you are ! So, let's see who dares to claim the lowest success-rate! ...
I said the diffraction limit wouldn't be reached if the spot is smaller than a pixel. I did NOT say or imply that it would if the spot size is equal to the pixel size. Indeed the pixel size should be at least half the diffraction spot (two times oversampling, Nyquist theorem)), higher degree of oversampling is even better. Such oversampling would take care of "improper" centering of pixels and light spots.
I wouldn't call it "limiting". It always contributes to smearing, yes. The minimum achievable spot size would be a convolution of several factors: pixel size, aberrations and diffraction. However, in presence of stronger smearing factors (e.g. aberrations or pixel size) the effect of weaker ones is negligible. The true limiting factors of modern FF and even m43 cameras is still the pixel size. As I showed before, at f/4 diffraction spot is just ~2.5 microns. At f/2 it would be ~1.25 microns.
Megapixels matter as stated above: in absence of aberrations, you can only get close to the diffraction limit if your megapixel count is sufficiently high.
Yes, indeed that is the case. From the perspective of an optical engineer, designing a diffraction-limited lens of f/16 speed is orders of magnitude easier than an f/4 lens, let alone f/1.4-f/2 ones.
No it doesn't. Whatever the diameter and quality of the lend is, if you do not have enough pixels to properly sample diffration limit is of secondary importance. And with modern sensors and moderately fast lenses you still don't.
Well, you're twice as good, and then some, than I am.
Less than 1%.
It depends on how you define "success rate", of course. The way I used it above is what percent of the photos I take make it to my online galleries. And only 1% of that 1% gets printed. And only 1% of that gets framed and hung. Hmm -- why did I spend so much on a camera and lenses? ;-)Bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge their own "IQ":
One of the main effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ .
Also bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge other people's "IQ":
His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others' IQ was proportional to one's own IQ. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others' IQ. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as having a higher IQ than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others' IQ overall, are still likely to rate people of similar IQ as themselves as having higher IQs .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#IQ
Thus, it appears that the lower that you report your own-success rate to be, the better a photographer you are ! So, let's see who dares to claim the lowest success-rate! ...
Took a look at FZ200 in IR's 'comparometer' to see what kind of resolution we're talking about here. The resolution test chart is shot at f/4 (DoF/diffraction equivalent to f/22 on FF and f/11 on mFT), and I'd say that the resolution is about 2200 lw/pH. Not that bad for a sensor with 3000 vertical pixels.
Don't worry Joe. 2, 4, and 5 ring my bells. Not so sure about 1 and 3. Something missing there. Too little diffraction perhaps? ;-)Great Bustard wrote:
Well, you're twice as good, and then some, than I am.
Less than 1%.
It depends on how you define "success rate", of course. The way I used it above is what percent of the photos I take make it to my online galleries. And only 1% of that 1% gets printed. And only 1% of that gets framed and hung. Hmm -- why did I spend so much on a camera and lenses? ;-)Bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge their own "IQ":
One of the main effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ .
Also bear in mind this sobering clue surrounding how people judge other people's "IQ":
His studies also evidenced that the ability to accurately estimate others' IQ was proportional to one's own IQ. This means that the lower the IQ of an individual, the less capable they are of appreciating and accurately appraising others' IQ. Therefore individuals with a lower IQ are more likely to rate themselves as having a higher IQ than those around them. Conversely, people with a higher IQ, while better at appraising others' IQ overall, are still likely to rate people of similar IQ as themselves as having higher IQs .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#IQ
Thus, it appears that the lower that you report your own-success rate to be, the better a photographer you are ! So, let's see who dares to claim the lowest success-rate! ...
Of course, that doesn't mean that only 1% of my photos turn out, or that I do photography via "spray and pray", it's just that only 1% are "interesting" enough, and different enough from other photos I've taken, to bother processing.
Then again, when I count photos such as these among my favorites:
one could be excused for questioning my artistic sensibility and/or IQ. ;-)
The question is how that resolution would fare against a camera with a FF system at f/22 sharpened to the same degree.
I've never made a photograph with which I'm fully satisfied. I must be a freakin' genius!Thus, it appears that the lower that you report your own-success rate to be, the better a photographer you are ! So, let's see who dares to claim the lowest success-rate! ...
