Ditch the LCD for EVIL cameras
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: It's official! Sony couldn't fix the NEX lens problem.
Next: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes
From: J. Clarke on 8 Jun 2010 10:22 On 6/8/2010 9:44 AM, Peter wrote: > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2010060806022643658-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2010-06-08 05:11:55 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> >> said: >> >>> "C. Werner" <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote in message >>> news:cm2q06hc0jf6gmup0ajva386eq3src71fd(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two >>>> paragraphs. >>>> >>> >>> Another new word hits the group. <G> >>> >>> About three years ago as part of a course in protocols, I was asked >>> to comment on a presented suggestion that quantum computing would >>> make the SIP protocol obsolete. My opening comment was, >>> substantively, that the subject of quantum computing was so complex >>> that the presenter selected it to avoid probing questions. BTW My >>> conclusion was that SIP is actually fundamental to proper operation >>> of a quantum environment. But that topic too is way beyond anything >>> of interest to the vast majority here. >> >> Oh! How I miss Feynman. >> > > > Just imagine how long ago was it that he first predicted that digital > computing would become obsolete? I predict that barring the discovery of a method of inducing immortality, nobody participating in this newsgroup will live long enough to see it happen.
From: ray on 8 Jun 2010 11:06 On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:36:47 -0700, RichA wrote: > Put all the money and effort into good EVFs. No one needs an LCD > anyway. Bit of an overly sweeping generalization. No one 'needs' a digital camera in the first place. Let folks fiddle with the back panel lcd if they like it - as long as I'm not forced to. I have no 'use' for them.
From: Peter on 8 Jun 2010 12:06 "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message news:201006081442567571-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > On 2010-06-08 13:11:55 +0100, Peter said: > >> "C. Werner" <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote in message >> news:cm2q06hc0jf6gmup0ajva386eq3src71fd(a)4ax.com... >> >>> It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two >>> paragraphs. >>> >> >> Another new word hits the group. <G> > > I've heard the word before so I totally missed its significance here. > > I'm still highly amused by imagining the Redtons and Blueyons not sticking > to the Greenons hence colour fringing, furthermore, the possibility of > explaining it to someone then hearing them say "That makes sense. I'd > always wondered what caused it." > >> About three years ago as part of a course in protocols, I was asked to >> comment on a presented suggestion that quantum computing would make the >> SIP protocol obsolete. My opening comment was, substantively, that the >> subject of quantum computing was so complex that the presenter selected >> it to avoid probing questions. BTW My conclusion was that SIP is actually >> fundamental to proper operation of a quantum environment. But that topic >> too is way beyond anything of interest to the vast majority here. > > I'm interested in your conclusion. Not because I know much about it, > rather, I would like to understand a little about it. I watch a > documentary on quantum cryptography and have been interested to learn > about quantum computing ever since. I will try to over simplify for reasons of brevity, at the risk of the trolls thinking food. My reasons are more business than technical. With quantum we are manipulating particles smaller than bits. At the current state of technology much work needs to be done. The actual machines are presently nothing more than sophisticated toys. There is nothing in the current SIP algorithms that would prevent their application in quantum. While in the future more efficient algorithms will be developed, it is a complete waste of time and money to work on initiation protocols, when the current one will work. The time and money is better spent on developing machines and networks. I also think that the concentration on cryptology is a waste of effort that could be more socially beneficial. -- Peter
From: SMS on 8 Jun 2010 13:22 On 08/06/10 8:06 AM, ray wrote: > On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:36:47 -0700, RichA wrote: > >> Put all the money and effort into good EVFs. No one needs an LCD >> anyway. > > Bit of an overly sweeping generalization. No one 'needs' a digital camera > in the first place. Let folks fiddle with the back panel lcd if they like > it - as long as I'm not forced to. I have no 'use' for them. Originally the LCDs were to review photos so you could delete whatever you didn't want to keep, and even the least expensive digital P&S cameras had optical viewfinders (other than a few lower end models with a swivel lenses). You tried to minimize the use of the LCD to increase the number of photos. Then the camera makers realized that live view could save them the expense of an optical viewfinder with all those moving parts. Now the camera display is often the only place the photos are ever viewed, sometimes a digital picture frame, sometimes attached to e-mails, but rarely printed. That's why the megapixel wars can be so amusing, especially on P&S cameras where more megapixels on such a tiny sensor mean far more noise and much poorer low-light/high ISO performance. Panasonic's built a whole business around noise.
From: Pete on 8 Jun 2010 15:13
On 2010-06-08 17:06:53 +0100, Peter said: > "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message > news:201006081442567571-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... >> On 2010-06-08 13:11:55 +0100, Peter said: >> >>> "C. Werner" <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote in message >>> news:cm2q06hc0jf6gmup0ajva386eq3src71fd(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two >>>> paragraphs. >>>> >>> >>> Another new word hits the group. <G> >> >> I've heard the word before so I totally missed its significance here. >> >> I'm still highly amused by imagining the Redtons and Blueyons not sticking >> to the Greenons hence colour fringing, furthermore, the possibility of >> explaining it to someone then hearing them say "That makes sense. I'd >> always wondered what caused it." >> >>> About three years ago as part of a course in protocols, I was asked to >>> comment on a presented suggestion that quantum computing would make the >>> SIP protocol obsolete. My opening comment was, substantively, that the >>> subject of quantum computing was so complex that the presenter selected >>> it to avoid probing questions. BTW My conclusion was that SIP is actually >>> fundamental to proper operation of a quantum environment. But that topic >>> too is way beyond anything of interest to the vast majority here. >> >> I'm interested in your conclusion. Not because I know much about it, >> rather, I would like to understand a little about it. I watch a >> documentary on quantum cryptography and have been interested to learn >> about quantum computing ever since. > > > I will try to over simplify for reasons of brevity, at the risk of the > trolls thinking food. > My reasons are more business than technical. With quantum we are > manipulating particles smaller than bits. At the current state of > technology much work needs to be done. The actual machines are > presently nothing more than sophisticated toys. There is nothing in the > current SIP algorithms that would prevent their application in quantum. > While in the future more efficient algorithms will be developed, it is > a complete waste of time and money to work on initiation protocols, > when the current one will work. The time and money is better spent on > developing machines and networks. I also think that the concentration > on cryptology is a waste of effort that could be more socially > beneficial. Thanks for that. I hadn't even considered the business/technical side at all, let alone your other views. My opinions on the subjects of quantum computing and cryptography were strong, but realizing they were without proper foundation gives me the chance to learn and change. I'm still holding onto the idea of "Why change a current protocol if it is sufficient." I've seen the result of making changes for change's sake so many times, not only in photographic equipment. -- Pete |