Equivalence Theory

[AiryDiscus]

I am not so sure About patent, intellectual property, copy Right.

since the Knowledge has become public Domain,

Something becomes public domain when an intellectual property protection reaches the end of its term. We're decades away from that happening here.

the only issue could be copy Right infringements if complete sentences or Sketches have been copied without clear citation without Prior consent.

You do not have to copy paste to infringe someone's copyright. The copyright protects your expression of an idea. This includes something to do with derivative works. I cannot express well what level of change constitutes a new expression in the eyes of the law, but part of publication is to transfer copyright from you to SPIE. If the author does not hold the copyright to begin with, this is a problem.

 

[mcabato]

so, who has the intellectual property Rights for shot noise?

and who for the law of Illumination of an square area?

and who for the law of Image angle?

and who for the law of Pixel Resolution?

and who of the law of dof and cof?

and is the combination of all These an new knwoledge valuable to protect as Unity?

and who were the ones that publicly used parts of that before DPR put it together as "equivalence Theory"?

what did Oscar barnack think, the 35mm Leica and its photoproperties distinguished it from medium or previous film Formats? how did Olympus describe the Image and handling properties of the PEN in the 60ties?

br gusti

 

[Detail Man]

so, who has the intellectual property Rights for shot noise?

and who for the law of Illumination of an square area?

and who for the law of Image angle?

and who for the law of Pixel Resolution?

and who of the law of dof and cof?

These various inquiries can be satisfied by the ancient wise maxim governing human nature:

Angle of the dangle is inversely proportional to the specific gravity times the heat of the meatball.

 

[AiryDiscus]

so, who has the intellectual property Rights for shot noise?

and who for the law of Illumination of an square area?

and who for the law of Image angle?

and who for the law of Pixel Resolution?

and who of the law of dof and cof?

and is the combination of all These an new knwoledge valuable to protect as Unity?

I'm not going to waste time on your questions that center on a willful misunderstanding of IP law.

and who were the ones that publicly used parts of that before DPR put it together as "equivalence Theory"?

My stance on this should be clear from my other replies in this thread.

 

[knickerhawk]

so, who has the intellectual property Rights for shot noise?

and who for the law of Illumination of an square area?

and who for the law of Image angle?

and who for the law of Pixel Resolution?

and who of the law of dof and cof?

and is the combination of all These an new knwoledge valuable to protect as Unity?

I'm not going to waste time on your questions that center on a willful misunderstanding of IP law.

Actually, mcabato's questions tend to show a better grasp of the key IP law issues of concern here than your speculations and assertions. Facts and most mathematical formulae are not copyrightable. Nothing in the article is patented or likely patentable, and even if there is patented material being discussed that is not, itself, a violation of IP law. I haven't seen any evidence of outright copyright infringement either and to the extent there are passages contained in the article that were directly lifted from elsewhere, it's certainly covered by the fair use exception. At most, there is a question of plagiarism here, which is an issue of professional or academic ethics, not IP law.

and who were the ones that publicly used parts of that before DPR put it together as "equivalence Theory"?

My stance on this should be clear from my other replies in this thread.

 

[AiryDiscus]

so, who has the intellectual property Rights for shot noise?

and who for the law of Illumination of an square area?

and who for the law of Image angle?

and who for the law of Pixel Resolution?

and who of the law of dof and cof?

and is the combination of all These an new knwoledge valuable to protect as Unity?

I'm not going to waste time on your questions that center on a willful misunderstanding of IP law.

Actually, mcabato's questions tend to show a better grasp of the key IP law issues of concern here than your speculations and assertions. Facts and most mathematical formulae are not copyrightable.

No disagreement from me. What is copyrightable is their collection into manuscript with a certain structure. That's why, for example, a textbook can be copyrighted. What is a textbook if not a collection of facts and mathematical formulae?

Nothing in the article is patented or likely patentable, and even if there is patented material being discussed that is not, itself, a violation of IP law.

I have never brought up patents.

I haven't seen any evidence of outright copyright infringement either and to the extent there are passages contained in the article that were directly lifted from elsewhere, it's certainly covered by the fair use exception.

The author has not lifted any passages from elsewhere, at least not that I saw reading the paper. That you phrase your comment the way you have seems to indicate to me that you have not read the paper and I find that troubling.

At most, there is a question of plagiarism here, which is an issue of professional or academic ethics, not IP law.

[also commenting on immediate proceeding passage from your comment]

I see two possible interpretations.

1. Someone may own a copyright to this literary work. IFF this is true, then SPIE -- who is transferred copyright of the work by the author as part of publishing -- likely has an inferior claim to the copyright to that of DPR.

2. Due to the origins of this, there is either no identifiable original author or there are too many developments by too many authors and there cannot be a clear copyright holder, in which case SPIE has no claim to copyright in spite of the fact that they currently indicate they are the copyright holders of this work.

If we believe (1), then DPR may sue SPIE for damages and it is in SPIE's interest to either withdraw the paper, or hire consultation to determine if they have a strong claim to the copyright they currently indicate.

If we believe (2), I believe it is a matter of legal blunder but not one with any element of "danger" for SPIE, as there is no party that could successfully sue.

Regardless, nothing the author has done would be classified as fair use. Fair use requires a transformative use of the borrowed material. The author's work may be considered either complementary to or derivative to the source material, which is unambiguously not transformative.

There is a hot topic in the copyright laws of technical publications at the moment about proceeding papers and journal papers. For example, if you as an author publish paper A, and which to also present it at a conference and publish a proceedings paper B, B must be substantially different to A in such a way that you do not violate the publisher of A's copyright. This is especially hairy where e.g. figures are concerned, as it would be difficult to secure permission from the publisher A (not for lack of wishing to grant it, lack of clear communication channel). The figures are often reused without explicit permission, which is a copyright offense.

 

[J A C S]

I am not so sure About patent, intellectual property, copy Right.

since the Knowledge has become public Domain, the only issue could be copy Right infringements if complete sentences or Sketches have been copied without clear citation without Prior consent.

It does not work that way in science and engineering publications. Copyright, plagiarism and dishonesty (stealing ideas) are different things.

 

[Detail Man]

Public Notice: I coined the (more descriptive, and not already defined as implying something other than the described subject) term "Metametrics", and also originated the descriptors "ISO-variant" and "ISO-invariant", way back in 2013. You will all be hearing from my barristers !

Take care not to inadvertently wake the sleeping midgets of magisterial speech, as they rather obsessively guard their foral domains with unctuous proclamations and representations ...

 

[knickerhawk]

so, who has the intellectual property Rights for shot noise?

and who for the law of Illumination of an square area?

and who for the law of Image angle?

and who for the law of Pixel Resolution?

and who of the law of dof and cof?

and is the combination of all These an new knwoledge valuable to protect as Unity?

I'm not going to waste time on your questions that center on a willful misunderstanding of IP law.

Actually, mcabato's questions tend to show a better grasp of the key IP law issues of concern here than your speculations and assertions. Facts and most mathematical formulae are not copyrightable.

No disagreement from me. What is copyrightable is their collection into manuscript with a certain structure. That's why, for example, a textbook can be copyrighted. What is a textbook if not a collection of facts and mathematical formulae?

If all it takes is "certain structure" or "a collection of facts and mathematical formulae" then there could only be one textbook per subject. All others would be copyright infringement.

Nothing in the article is patented or likely patentable, and even if there is patented material being discussed that is not, itself, a violation of IP law.

I have never brought up patents.

You've referred to IP law and managed to mix in elements of both copyright and patent law into your confused arguments. Congratulations, you pretty successfully avoided accusing the article of violating trademark law.

I haven't seen any evidence of outright copyright infringement either and to the extent there are passages contained in the article that were directly lifted from elsewhere, it's certainly covered by the fair use exception.

The author has not lifted any passages from elsewhere, at least not that I saw reading the paper. That you phrase your comment the way you have seems to indicate to me that you have not read the paper and I find that troubling.

If the author "has not lifted any passages from elsewhere..." then you should know that it's extremely unlikely to constitute copyright infringement (or any other violation of IP law). Oh, and I skimmed the paper and have read most of the works you suggest might be implicated as the infringed IP.

At most, there is a question of plagiarism here, which is an issue of professional or academic ethics, not IP law.

[also commenting on immediate proceeding passage from your comment]

Proceeding?

I see two possible interpretations.

1. Someone may own a copyright to this literary work.

It's not a "literary work," but whatever...

IFF this is true, then SPIE -- who is transferred copyright of the work by the author as part of publishing -- likely has an inferior claim to the copyright to that of DPR.

This is a totally muddled understanding of the applicable laws. The relevant law is contract because you are talking about licensing (even if what's involved is the transfer of ownership of the copyright, which isn't the case). As for content created by DPR posters and authors, the copyright to their content is retained by the authors, but they have granted a limited perpetual license to DPR to publish the content.

2. Due to the origins of this, there is either no identifiable original author or there are too many developments by too many authors and there cannot be a clear copyright holder, in which case SPIE has no claim to copyright in spite of the fact that they currently indicate they are the copyright holders of this work.

Again, completely muddled understanding of how copyright law works.

If we believe (1), then DPR may sue SPIE for damages and it is in SPIE's interest to either withdraw the paper, or hire consultation to determine if they have a strong claim to the copyright they currently indicate.

Now you're just layering nonsense on top of a fallacy.

If we believe (2), I believe it is a matter of legal blunder but not one with any element of "danger" for SPIE, as there is no party that could successfully sue.

Whew, that's a relief. For moment there, I was worried that we were in for quite the radical transformation of IP law.

Regardless, nothing the author has done would be classified as fair use. Fair use requires a transformative use of the borrowed material.

No it doesn't. Transformative use is a relatively recent judicial addition to interpretation of fair use. It is not the exclusive way of determining what constitutes fair use. Regardless, academic review, criticism, recapitulation, etc. is the classic and strongest class of fair use.

The author's work may be considered either complementary to or derivative to the source material, which is unambiguously not transformative.

There is a hot topic in the copyright laws of technical publications at the moment about proceeding papers and journal papers. For example, if you as an author publish paper A, and which to also present it at a conference and publish a proceedings paper B, B must be substantially different to A in such a way that you do not violate the publisher of A's copyright. This is especially hairy where e.g. figures are concerned, as it would be difficult to secure permission from the publisher A (not for lack of wishing to grant it, lack of clear communication channel).

Those are different facts and circumstances from this one and easily distinguishable. You need to ask yourself how it is that any recitation of previously published and widely accepted scientific principles is NOT copyright infringement? Obviously, they can't be "transformed" in any meaningful way without invalidating, misapplying or misstating them.

The figures are often reused without explicit permission, which is a copyright offense.

Rarely so.

 

[AiryDiscus]

so, who has the intellectual property Rights for shot noise?

and who for the law of Illumination of an square area?

and who for the law of Image angle?

and who for the law of Pixel Resolution?

and who of the law of dof and cof?

and is the combination of all These an new knwoledge valuable to protect as Unity?

I'm not going to waste time on your questions that center on a willful misunderstanding of IP law.

Actually, mcabato's questions tend to show a better grasp of the key IP law issues of concern here than your speculations and assertions. Facts and most mathematical formulae are not copyrightable.

No disagreement from me. What is copyrightable is their collection into manuscript with a certain structure. That's why, for example, a textbook can be copyrighted. What is a textbook if not a collection of facts and mathematical formulae?

If all it takes is "certain structure" or "a collection of facts and mathematical formulae" then there could only be one textbook per subject. All others would be copyright infringement.

If they all have different structures it is fine

Nothing in the article is patented or likely patentable, and even if there is patented material being discussed that is not, itself, a violation of IP law.

I have never brought up patents.

You've referred to IP law and managed to mix in elements of both copyright and patent law into your confused arguments. Congratulations, you pretty successfully avoided accusing the article of violating trademark law.

Without specific examples I assume you are trolling.

I haven't seen any evidence of outright copyright infringement either and to the extent there are passages contained in the article that were directly lifted from elsewhere, it's certainly covered by the fair use exception.

The author has not lifted any passages from elsewhere, at least not that I saw reading the paper. That you phrase your comment the way you have seems to indicate to me that you have not read the paper and I find that troubling.

If the author "has not lifted any passages from elsewhere..." then you should know that it's extremely unlikely to constitute copyright infringement (or any other violation of IP law).

Not that unlikely.

Oh, and I skimmed the paper and have read most of the works you suggest might be implicated as the infringed IP.

At most, there is a question of plagiarism here, which is an issue of professional or academic ethics, not IP law.

[also commenting on immediate proceeding passage from your comment]

Proceeding?

I see two possible interpretations.

1. Someone may own a copyright to this literary work.

It's not a "literary work," but whatever...

Literary Works: Registration | U.S. Copyright Office

A literary work is a work that explains, describes, or narrates a particular subject, theme, or idea through the use of narrative, descriptive, or explanatory text, rather than dialog or dramatic action.

www.copyright.gov

If this isn't an "Article" or "Research Paper" or "Reference Work" or even simply "Text w/ Artwork included" it is nothing at all.

IFF this is true, then SPIE -- who is transferred copyright of the work by the author as part of publishing -- likely has an inferior claim to the copyright to that of DPR.

This is a totally muddled understanding of the applicable laws. The relevant law is contract because you are talking about licensing (even if what's involved is the transfer of ownership of the copyright, which isn't the case).

It is simple truth that to publish a paper through SPIE, you must sign and submit this form:

SPIE Copyright Transfer Form PDF

transferring to them sole copyright of your work. It is not a license, and your statement,

(even if what's involved is the transfer of ownership of the copyright, which isn't the case).

is unequivocally false.

As for content created by DPR posters and authors, the copyright to their content is retained by the authors, but they have granted a limited perpetual license to DPR to publish the content.

Conjecture without the relevant part of the EULA.

The figures are often reused without explicit permission, which is a copyright offense.

Rarely so.

I assume you have never in your life written a scientific paper or attended a technical conference as a presenter.

 

[knickerhawk]

so, who has the intellectual property Rights for shot noise?

and who for the law of Illumination of an square area?

and who for the law of Image angle?

and who for the law of Pixel Resolution?

and who of the law of dof and cof?

and is the combination of all These an new knwoledge valuable to protect as Unity?

I'm not going to waste time on your questions that center on a willful misunderstanding of IP law.

Actually, mcabato's questions tend to show a better grasp of the key IP law issues of concern here than your speculations and assertions. Facts and most mathematical formulae are not copyrightable.

No disagreement from me. What is copyrightable is their collection into manuscript with a certain structure. That's why, for example, a textbook can be copyrighted. What is a textbook if not a collection of facts and mathematical formulae?

If all it takes is "certain structure" or "a collection of facts and mathematical formulae" then there could only be one textbook per subject. All others would be copyright infringement.

If they all have different structures it is fine

Ah! It follows, then, that the paper in question must have the same "structure" as one of the copyrighted source works. After all, you say it's infringing copyright. Please direct us to the identical "structure" that establishes the infringement.

Nothing in the article is patented or likely patentable, and even if there is patented material being discussed that is not, itself, a violation of IP law.

I have never brought up patents.

You've referred to IP law and managed to mix in elements of both copyright and patent law into your confused arguments. Congratulations, you pretty successfully avoided accusing the article of violating trademark law.

Without specific examples I assume you are trolling.

You are welcome to assume whatever you want to assume.

I haven't seen any evidence of outright copyright infringement either and to the extent there are passages contained in the article that were directly lifted from elsewhere, it's certainly covered by the fair use exception.

The author has not lifted any passages from elsewhere, at least not that I saw reading the paper. That you phrase your comment the way you have seems to indicate to me that you have not read the paper and I find that troubling.

If the author "has not lifted any passages from elsewhere..." then you should know that it's extremely unlikely to constitute copyright infringement (or any other violation of IP law).

Not that unlikely.

If it's not that unlikely, then you should have no trouble providing a case citation...or are you just trolling?

Oh, and I skimmed the paper and have read most of the works you suggest might be implicated as the infringed IP.

At most, there is a question of plagiarism here, which is an issue of professional or academic ethics, not IP law.

[also commenting on immediate proceeding passage from your comment]

Proceeding?

I see two possible interpretations.

1. Someone may own a copyright to this literary work.

It's not a "literary work," but whatever...

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/literary-works/

If this isn't an "Article" or "Research Paper" or "Reference Work" or even simply "Text w/ Artwork included" it is nothing at all.

It is website content first (and subject to the copyright rules pertaining to website content) that, if registered, is classified as a literary work. As I said, "whatever". It's a technicality.

IFF this is true, then SPIE -- who is transferred copyright of the work by the author as part of publishing -- likely has an inferior claim to the copyright to that of DPR.

This is a totally muddled understanding of the applicable laws. The relevant law is contract because you are talking about licensing (even if what's involved is the transfer of ownership of the copyright, which isn't the case).

It is simple truth that to publish a paper through SPIE, you must sign and submit this form:

SPIE Copyright Transfer Form PDF

transferring to them sole copyright of your work. It is not a license, and your statement,

OK. That's a contract and subject to applicable contract law as I explained.

(even if what's involved is the transfer of ownership of the copyright, which isn't the case).

is unequivocally false.

You are correct that it provides for transfer of ownership of the copyright, with certain rights retained by the author.

As for content created by DPR posters and authors, the copyright to their content is retained by the authors, but they have granted a limited perpetual license to DPR to publish the content.

Conjecture without the relevant part of the EULA.

Not conjecture. The EULA is available by clicking "Legal" in the footer of any page of DPReview. The applicable language is very standard stuff:

We acknowledge that, as between you and us, copyright and ownership of any uploaded image, forum posting, or other copyrightable content in connection with the Web Site remains yours. With respect to comments or other text-based content you submit or make available for inclusion, you grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable right to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform, translate, create derivative works from and publicly display such content throughout the world in any medium.

The figures are often reused without explicit permission, which is a copyright offense.

Rarely so.

I assume you have never in your life written a scientific paper or attended a technical conference as a presenter.

And I assume you have never in your life attended and graduated from law school and practiced law.

 

[mcabato]

I am not so sure About patent, intellectual property, copy Right.

since the Knowledge has become public Domain, the only issue could be copy Right infringements if complete sentences or Sketches have been copied without clear citation without Prior consent.

It does not work that way in science and engineering publications. Copyright, plagiarism and dishonesty (stealing ideas) are different things.

Yes, they are and one should distinguish them.

What do you want to tell us?

br gusti

 

[Eric Fossum]

This should not have been published by SPIE. I have written the journal editor to pull it; I encourage others with grievances to do so as well.

What is the core issue, in your opinion? Attributions (or lack thereof)? Or do you take issue with content?

Succinctly, my grievances are thus:

1. The majority of the author’s references are unsuitable for a technical paper. While having a few references to product pages, etc, is ok in context of a larger body of peer-reviewed references, the majority of the author’s references are to articles in laymedia, or even forum posts. This is below the standard of SPIE.
2. The author has taken the majority of their ideas from refs [1, 2, 4] without properly attributing this in the text. The originality of this work, or more specifically its proper attribution to the author is tenuous at best.
3. The author makes a number of unsubstantiated claims, such as those pointed out by JACS.
4. The paper uses a large number of brief examples working short equations with a few values. This is outside the norm of peer-reviewed journal publications.
5. The paper is mostly based in casual topics, such as “sharpness” which are never defined by the author and have no agreed-upon technical definition.

To belabor the references thing -- the citations a paper uses tells you much.

If an author cites books without specific chapters, sections, or page numbers, they are padding their reference list in almost all cases.

If an author has a low number of citations per page (here, < 1; I would consider 3 the norm and 5 a good place to start as a writer) they have either failed to properly contextualize their work (which would require the use of many citations), failed to find key papers in the literature, or are intentionally not doing their diligence to cite things. It is exceedingly unlikely that your ideas are that original.

If the author's citations are in any significant volume not to "the literature" (books, peer reviewed articles or proceedings papers), their work['s context] is either unsuitable for publication in technical media, so no one has done so, they have not looked for it in the technical media, or their ideas are probably not their own.

If an author's citations are largely to themselves, they are churning out papers to raise their h-index.

If we discard [1, 2,12, 13, 15, 16, 20] for being unsuitable for key citations in a technical paper, we are down from 22 to 15 citations. Then throw away [5] as h-index churning. Throw away [3] as a bad book, [6, 7, 19] as standards and related media (these are fine, but "shouldn't count" for citation counts) now we have ten. Six more are books, now we have four. Those four are incidental and allow the author to lift data for a graph, or make an offhand comment.

In other words, zero peer reviewed citations for context in the scientific community. Zero for 27 pages is a really bad ratio.

I am sorry but I cannot agree completely here. This is an author who wrote a book (good or bad, no idea) on basic physics in photography, who has an interest in photography, but who has also published in Phys Rev B and other higher end publications.

"About the author

Andy Rowlands obtained a first class degree in Mathematics and Physics from the University of Warwick in 2000 followed by a PhD in Physics in 2004. He was subsequently awarded an EPSRC Fellowship in Theoretical Physics in the field of condensed matter theory at the University of Bristol and later he worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the USA. In 2009 he took a sabbatical from physics and moved to China to pursue his interest in photography, during this time he became interested in the application of physics to photography. Returning to physics he took up a postdoctoral position at Tongji University in Shanghai. An extensive knowledge of the theoretical concepts involved and practical experience as a free-lance photographer puts the author a unique position to develop this text."

As far as I can tell, he has referenced DPR and other sources as well as one can in this internet age. He does not take any real credit for introducing the idea but he does seem to refine it a bit (I could be wrong). There seems to be no copyright issue I saw unless a figure was lifted without permission. It is a sort of tutorial article in a way. I am not sure I would have recommended publication but apparently a sufficient number of reviewers did.

The system is not perfect, for sure, and SPIE is a great organization, but not on the highest rung of academic societies by far. I have published often in SPIE conference proceedings and in the journal so I am not going to throw any rocks. At least you have a chance to get things published. My first paper on CMOS image sensors vs. CCDS (the famous "dinosaur" paper) was published in SPIE and has been cited many hundreds of times. It is important sometimes to get even weaker ideas (upon initial review) into the archival literature. Let time be the judge of their importance.

Squashing papers from publication because they don't meet traditional metrics of for citations harkens back to the days when scientists that go against tradition were outcast and ridiculed. This is not in that category, but be careful of that slippery slope.

It is good to have high standards. But you also have to live and let live sometimes.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Equivalence theory is like teaching Latin to high school students, it’s interesting and a good workout for the brain but it’s relevance is quickly diminishing.

And ancient Greek.

The foundational documents of Western civilization were largely written in those languages, and the loss of that learning has caused our culture to suffer, due to ignorance. It's not just narrow specialists who need to know this, which is the case nowadays, but instead most of our culture's leadership.

Some argue that one ought to teach modern languages instead, but that pretty much isn't done in American schools, either. Frequently, language study is put off for the college level, when it is usually too late to learn a language fluently without accent.

As the author of that paper points out, the theory can’t stand up to computational photography,

So what does digital art have to do with photography? Don't confuse the two. They are related, but not identical.

I recall one project "camera" that included a GPS and compass. It determined where you were when you pressed the shutter and what direction you were looking, and it did a web search for a high-quality photograph—taken by someone else—and recorded that image to your memory card. That isn't photography. Computational photography isn't photography, especially with the kinds of things that kids do with it these days.

and all digital cameras are computational.

Yeah? Are those computations supporting reality, in harmony with it, or are they opposed to it?

It’s only going to get worse as camera makers put more horsepower into cameras

We'll have to see. Maybe, maybe not. And once you create a camera with workstation-class computational ability, then the hipsters are going to start praising the old-school cameras of circa 2010, which did 'authentic' digital photography.

and start to innovate with lenses.

If anything, high-quality lenses strive towards greater realism, and not less. The gold standard for an expensive, well-corrected lens is the paraxial approximation, which is pretty much the simplest possible lens model with the least amount of distortion.

I enjoy harmless crackpottery as much as the next person but this intellectual catastrophe has negative consequences such as convincing the gullible to believe nonsense

Equivalence theory is nothing more than basic geometry of the kind taught for the last 2400 years. Is geometry irrelevant? Is it nonsense? Do only the gullible learn it, or is a working knowledge of geometry achieved by the intelligent and learned?

like there is no correct exposure.

Do you want lots of highlight headroom or do you want lots of clean shadow detail? You can't have both. Therefore, there is no one 'correct' exposure.

This ought to be pretty obvious if you use high ISO to shoot under low lighting conditions, or if you ever adjust image brightness in software.

But that is the way of the West now, we are mesmerized by the promise of transgressions and paradigm-shattering and blind to reality, which is why the Chinese were able to send cameras to the dark side of the moon while we were busy keeping up with the Kardashians.

The Soviets photographed the far side of the moon in 1959, nearly sixty years ago. The USA had a series of manned and unmanned probes to the moon from the late 1950s until the 1970s.

Moon Missions - NASA Science

Here are the major missions launched to the Moon, from the dawn of the space age through the present day.

moon.nasa.gov

The moon is a cold, gray, lifeless rock, and so it was judged to be boring. Of course a real live human being is going to be more interesting than the moon, to most everyone except for specialists. The early space race was fueled by adventure and romance, but it faltered when it became routine, businesslike, and boring.

Some would argue that science progresses via the shattering of paradigms, although I rather think that knowledge accumulates, and instead we are "standing on the shoulders of giants". I would also argue that anyone who wants to succeed in science will need to have knowledge of geometry, and if one does have knowledge of geometry, then they will see that camera equivalence theory is simply an identity, incontrovertible as geometry's Law of Similar Triangles.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Anything of quality will be copied around the internet enough that it will live on in perpetuity, IMO.

Future monks will have a lot of work to do, saving the scraps of our civilization. I imagine monasteries having warehouses full of old computer equipment, with printers working 24 hours a day, operating off of pedal-powered generators, saving whatever they can of importance. Download the important parts of the Internet while you can :-D

I read that the great Library of Alexandria wasn't necessarily the direct victim of barbaric hordes, but rather neglect. Something like 5000 manuscripts per year would need to be manually copied in order to preserve the library completely, which was expensive, as it required a lot of skilled labor. It's pretty obvious that our civilization requires far more effort and expense to preserve its intellectual patrimony.

 

[pidera]

Thanks for mentioning this J A C S. Makes me all the more proud I talked of MTF in my first post on (what later became known as) Equivalence

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/16738985

 

[Great Bustard]

This should not have been published by SPIE. I have written the journal editor to pull it; I encourage others with grievances to do so as well.

Why? Do you like making enemies? I don't see any gain in this. You're not going to increase your own stature.

Editors and reviewers saw and approved it. There's no point in telling the editors that it doesn't have the right kind of references, etc. It's their journal and they published it.

It might be different if you found substantive errors. Do what you want, but I don't see any point in this.

...but AD is correct in what he says. Published scientific papers need to be held to a very high standard. Answering to that standard will only enhance the paper, not detract from it.

 

[mcabato]

...but AD is correct in what he says. Published scientific papers need to be held to a very high standard. Answering to that standard will only enhance the paper, not detract from it.

do you think it is or was intended als being a scientific paper?

e.g. the detection of photone noise and ist implications to string Theory and analougous resonance of bosons?

it is called in the Journal as being a " tutorial". no Claim was made to be an Invention or of specific prosaic and artful langueage or fine arts drawing. it is made and written for pupils, young learners of geometry and some Physics.

so, as being a tutorial, the citations could have even been omitted, if having received some consent of r.butler, Joe James and Einstein.

btw. I am Angry that the paper does not cite my findings published in various fora About equicalncy of focallenght, equivalency of antiblur exposure time and the equivalency of Color abaerrations published by me. it is unfair, not scientific and i could have got famous if cited by spie. should i file a Claim? i do have some practical Trial experience in Courts of Ohio and Kentucky, swiss material law and chinese copy Right law

although, what i did learn, when i did an application for european patent and also for patent in the 10 most technological countries worldwide, I forgot in the meantime

yes, ad and jacs are fully Right, that also my words, written before I even heard About great bustard and r. butler, should have been cited.

by the way, I do appreciate very much the Knowledge that meets all here, keeping me Young. so many highly educated specialists - among them also great bustard. I do like him, although I sometimes do not agree to everyhting.

br gusti

 

[AiryDiscus]

...but AD is correct in what he says. Published scientific papers need to be held to a very high standard. Answering to that standard will only enhance the paper, not detract from it.

do you think it is or was intended als being a scientific paper?

Yes, as does its publisher.

e.g. the detection of photone noise and ist implications to string Theory and analougous resonance of bosons?

it is called in the Journal as being a " tutorial". no Claim was made to be an Invention or of specific prosaic and artful langueage or fine arts drawing. it is made and written for pupils, young learners of geometry and some Physics.

The meaning of "tutorial" in most technical journals (explicitly for OSA and SPIE) is most often "this is an [unsolicited review] paper which would incur many thousands of dollars of overlength fees, so we will call it a tutorial." Tutorials in these settings are typically not for young pupils.

The other tutorial in this issue is substantially more technical and requires much domain-specific knowledge to grok,

https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Optical-Engineering/volume-57/issue-11/110802/Review-and-analysis-of-elastic-optical-network-and-sliceable-bandwidth/10.1117/1.OE.57.11.110802.full

and is fairly typical for optics technical media.

Incidentally, half as many pages and 49 references.

 

[pidera]

The definition should have used magnification, not focal length. This would have avoided a lot of unnecessary chitchat in the article.