We're talking "Your favorite flash in the pan language of the day is SLOW, like a snail surfing a molasses wave in January." not "Omigahd! Ruby on Rails! Itz teh best! Like, everyone uses Ruby on Rails now and PHP is so last week, get with the program, we all laugh at PHP programmers now, they're like, lame. Super lame o rama lame. You don't want to be lame, do you? Come on,m use Ruby on Rails, validate my choice, all the cool kids are doing it."
I was responding to a post that questioned using nuns, assuming the poster was objecting to the 'abnormality' of religious belief.
You respond by saying, that's not it at all, nuns make better test subjects. But he wasn't implying they were better, he was implying they were worse. I assumed he was referring to nuns religious beliefs as the reason not to use them. I guess I just don't understand your reply. You do not address my question: why did the original poster claim nuns would make bad test subjects? Your answer explains why they are good test subjects.
Yes I get that and I guess I was presenting the argument in the wrong way, I'm saying (and I could be wrong) that I think that by essentially combining pixels and thereby giving a larger light gathering area per pixel, one could capture more photons per pixel. If the camera could treat the sensor that way (and maybe it can't?) wouldn't capturing more photons per pixel allow you to capture a larger range of brightness levels?
Given that one pixel in a dark but not black area might register a one, and the one next to it a zero, averaging them gives you a.5, not zero. You aren't inserting a false point between two pixels, you are using what is effectively a larger pixel that can capture more photons.
But averaging pixels would increase th4e actual dynamic range in the dark end. Consider two black and white sensors with a 0 to 255 range side by side. You have a cutoff which says, "x number of photons have to hit the sensor to register a 1" and you control the absolute amount of light in with the aperture. By averaging together adjacent pixels, you will pick up more photons for that one, larger pixel than you would have for the two smaller ones. Remember, this is happening in the camera, before any other processing. I think you could get a larger range, just as you could if you used a larger sensor. But I could be wrong, I'm not an expert in the field.
And I said that they were morally in the wrong, and should have been prosecuted, and should lose the civil case. Yes, I am just a master of spin, pushing my nefarious agenda. Remind me what it was again?
How is the dynamic range missing in the first place? Simple case, we have two black and white sensors next to each other. One is receives the minimum number of photons in a given period to register a "1," or the next darkest shade to absolute black. The one next to it registers a zero. Adding them together, we get.5, which is a shade that is in between 0 and 1.
So, you are saying that we can have a blacker black than black, and a whiter white than white? Because as I see it, averaging pixels in hardware gives you the ability to react to far fewer photons than it would take to activate one small pixel. Giving you greater range between the darkest pixel distinguishable from black to the lightest pixel distinguishable from white.
Yes. That's the point. With that many pixels, you could trade off resolution for dynamic range with the flip of a switch, and still have more resolution than you need for full HD or large format printing.
The logic holds no matter the number of bits, unless you are saying that this sensor, which is a more advanced version of the one in their high end professional camera, wouldn't have 14-16 bit RAW images.
Hey, pony-tailed thirty something hippy dude, are you feeling a little inferior "under the hood?" Is your tiny "carbon footprint" failing to impress the ladies? Well equipped men drive well equipped cars, cars that grunt and roar, cars that sound like they can deliver THRUST! If you want to make the ladies squeal, buy yourself a Toyota Priapus and make some noise yourself!
You are saying that the FBI will protect some random low level local government employee, because if they did not, they might have their spying powers limited? That is going far further than saying the FBI is not honest.
Thanks for clarifying your position. There are so many people here, it is nice to have the idiots self identify so I can spend more time conversing with people of intelligence.
Lets say that on one gray scale sensor there are 254 integers between black (0) and white (255). On another one, there are (considering rounding errors) 1024 meaningful reals between black and white. The range is still 0 to 255, but we have more shades of gray between black and white, and if there is some other meaning to "greater dynamic range" than "more shades of gray" I certainly don't know what it is.
I think it is accurate to say that the LMSD case has as much bearing on the FBI wanting more wiretap powers as Santa Claus' desire for milk and cookies does.
Losing sharpness, otherwise known as trading resolution for dynamic range, is exactly what I was talking about so your argument that we would lose sharpness makes no sense.
In a church with no lighting, one pixel sensor may not pick up enough photons to activate at the lowest level, but several pixels combined, being a larger area, might pick up enough photons. I'm really unclear as to why this idea seems so controversial to some, but completely obvious to others.
Dynamic resolution and dynamic range are the same thing. If you take the value of one pixel, it will be three integers. If you average the value of several adjacent pixels, you will have three reals. There are more real numbers between 0 and 255 than there are integers between 0 and 255, therefore, the range of values has increased. (0,0,0) is still pure black, and (255,255,255) is still white, you can't get any blacker than black or whiter than white, you know. But using reals, you have more values between black and white than you did, and therefore, more dynamic range.
Looked at another way, lets say a pixel is almost zero, or black. Using one pixel integers, it would round down to black, but averaging more than one pixel, one might find it wasn't quite black anymore. We have something between zero and one, i.e. greater dynamic range.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking "Your favorite flash in the pan language of the day is SLOW, like a snail surfing a molasses wave in January." not "Omigahd! Ruby on Rails! Itz teh best! Like, everyone uses Ruby on Rails now and PHP is so last week, get with the program, we all laugh at PHP programmers now, they're like, lame. Super lame o rama lame. You don't want to be lame, do you? Come on,m use Ruby on Rails, validate my choice, all the cool kids are doing it."
I was responding to a post that questioned using nuns, assuming the poster was objecting to the 'abnormality' of religious belief.
You respond by saying, that's not it at all, nuns make better test subjects. But he wasn't implying they were better, he was implying they were worse. I assumed he was referring to nuns religious beliefs as the reason not to use them. I guess I just don't understand your reply. You do not address my question: why did the original poster claim nuns would make bad test subjects? Your answer explains why they are good test subjects.
Does it really matter what it is? You have money, this costs money, therefore, you should spend your money on this. QED.
Why not? Like it or not, it is fairly normal to believe in religion.
Then what was he claiming the FBI was doing? Either they were protecting the guy or they weren't. If they weren't, what is he even talking about?
Oh, duh. Bad eyeballs, bad. Yeah, I guess it is like that.
Where is it trendy to be logical about government and police practices and what do I have to do to live there?
Well, hey, the Tesla looks so freaking cool it would still be sexy if it's engine quacked like a duck.
It would be cool if this package was programmable, and you could make it sound like anything, like a pod racer, or the car from the Jetson's...
Hey, wait a minute... [shakes fist] LUUUUUCAAAAAS!
Yes I get that and I guess I was presenting the argument in the wrong way, I'm saying (and I could be wrong) that I think that by essentially combining pixels and thereby giving a larger light gathering area per pixel, one could capture more photons per pixel. If the camera could treat the sensor that way (and maybe it can't?) wouldn't capturing more photons per pixel allow you to capture a larger range of brightness levels?
Is it? If you zoom in digitally, aren't you essentially cropping then enlarging the cropped area, throwing away pixels?
Oh, well, yeah. Of course.
Given that one pixel in a dark but not black area might register a one, and the one next to it a zero, averaging them gives you a .5, not zero. You aren't inserting a false point between two pixels, you are using what is effectively a larger pixel that can capture more photons.
But averaging pixels would increase th4e actual dynamic range in the dark end. Consider two black and white sensors with a 0 to 255 range side by side. You have a cutoff which says, "x number of photons have to hit the sensor to register a 1" and you control the absolute amount of light in with the aperture. By averaging together adjacent pixels, you will pick up more photons for that one, larger pixel than you would have for the two smaller ones. Remember, this is happening in the camera, before any other processing. I think you could get a larger range, just as you could if you used a larger sensor. But I could be wrong, I'm not an expert in the field.
And I said that they were morally in the wrong, and should have been prosecuted, and should lose the civil case. Yes, I am just a master of spin, pushing my nefarious agenda. Remind me what it was again?
How is the dynamic range missing in the first place? Simple case, we have two black and white sensors next to each other. One is receives the minimum number of photons in a given period to register a "1," or the next darkest shade to absolute black. The one next to it registers a zero. Adding them together, we get .5, which is a shade that is in between 0 and 1.
So, you are saying that we can have a blacker black than black, and a whiter white than white? Because as I see it, averaging pixels in hardware gives you the ability to react to far fewer photons than it would take to activate one small pixel. Giving you greater range between the darkest pixel distinguishable from black to the lightest pixel distinguishable from white.
Yes. That's the point. With that many pixels, you could trade off resolution for dynamic range with the flip of a switch, and still have more resolution than you need for full HD or large format printing.
The logic holds no matter the number of bits, unless you are saying that this sensor, which is a more advanced version of the one in their high end professional camera, wouldn't have 14-16 bit RAW images.
Hey, pony-tailed thirty something hippy dude, are you feeling a little inferior "under the hood?" Is your tiny "carbon footprint" failing to impress the ladies? Well equipped men drive well equipped cars, cars that grunt and roar, cars that sound like they can deliver THRUST! If you want to make the ladies squeal, buy yourself a Toyota Priapus and make some noise yourself!
You are saying that the FBI will protect some random low level local government employee, because if they did not, they might have their spying powers limited? That is going far further than saying the FBI is not honest.
Thanks for clarifying your position. There are so many people here, it is nice to have the idiots self identify so I can spend more time conversing with people of intelligence.
Lets say that on one gray scale sensor there are 254 integers between black (0) and white (255). On another one, there are (considering rounding errors) 1024 meaningful reals between black and white. The range is still 0 to 255, but we have more shades of gray between black and white, and if there is some other meaning to "greater dynamic range" than "more shades of gray" I certainly don't know what it is.
I think it is accurate to say that the LMSD case has as much bearing on the FBI wanting more wiretap powers as Santa Claus' desire for milk and cookies does.
Losing sharpness, otherwise known as trading resolution for dynamic range, is exactly what I was talking about so your argument that we would lose sharpness makes no sense.
In a church with no lighting, one pixel sensor may not pick up enough photons to activate at the lowest level, but several pixels combined, being a larger area, might pick up enough photons. I'm really unclear as to why this idea seems so controversial to some, but completely obvious to others.
Lots of people saying I'm right, too.
Dynamic resolution and dynamic range are the same thing. If you take the value of one pixel, it will be three integers. If you average the value of several adjacent pixels, you will have three reals. There are more real numbers between 0 and 255 than there are integers between 0 and 255, therefore, the range of values has increased. (0,0,0) is still pure black, and (255,255,255) is still white, you can't get any blacker than black or whiter than white, you know. But using reals, you have more values between black and white than you did, and therefore, more dynamic range.
Looked at another way, lets say a pixel is almost zero, or black. Using one pixel integers, it would round down to black, but averaging more than one pixel, one might find it wasn't quite black anymore. We have something between zero and one, i.e. greater dynamic range.
I'm saying, you could have your choice, more megapixels or more dynamic range, with the flip of a switch.