Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: HELP!... Geeks overrunning LuLa Forums! Call 911!  (Read 8019 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6200


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« on: August 30, 2011, 01:56:10 PM »
ReplyReply

From recent threads:

Quote
...Suppose the true signal is some value X between zero and one, over a patch of the image (we are going to ignore natural scene variation for the purpose of answering your question).  Suppose the noise is of strength N, for example let N be one level.  The noise adds a random number roughly between -N and N to X, so that the pixel wants to record some number between X-N and X+N.  Of course, the resulting signal plus noise is digitized so the output is either 0 or 1; if the noise is random (uncorrelated from pixel to pixel), the value of X is reflected in the percentage of 1's vs 0's in the patch -- a fraction X of the pixels will be 1 and the rest 0.  If we average the levels over a large enough patch, we recover the original signal, even though each individual pixel only recorded 0 or 1...

And:

Quote
That is only true when the leading order (Fraunhofer) approximation vanishes, such as in the rarely supernumeraries in rainbows, not in typical circumstances such as optics, photography, etc., so in our case: Diffraction is a range of field intensities from the superimposition of propagating waves... Another way to think of it is that diffraction is as an effect of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The principle says that there is a limit to the precision with which you can simultaneously know both the position and the momentum of a particle. When you reduce the size of the lens aperture, you are increasing the knowledge of the position of the photons: you know even more accurately what space they went through, because the opening is smaller. But the price you pay is you now know less about their direction: they go in more random directions.

So, diffraction is... wait, what? What the... what!?

Seriously!?

Any photographers left on LuLa?

Hello!?

Anybody?

Cry
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 846



« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2011, 02:19:28 PM »
ReplyReply

 Elevated noise levels about noise and levels.


 Rich
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9234



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2011, 02:19:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Define Photographer.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
degrub
Guest
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2011, 02:20:45 PM »
ReplyReply

creak.......door opens a crack....light pours forth.....
nope, just another engineer  Wink

Frank
Logged
degrub
Guest
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2011, 02:22:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Define Photographer.

"light weaver" ? "photon parser" ?
 Smiley
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 02:24:15 PM by degrub » Logged
degrub
Guest
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2011, 02:28:35 PM »
ReplyReply

"
So, diffraction is... wait, what? What the... what!?
"

think ripples from the boat bobbing in the bay.... and then capturing some of them with a tennis ball can sitting in the water with a sensor that measures the ripples at the other end of  the can.

All we care about is the boat on the water... Smiley
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 02:30:32 PM by degrub » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6200


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2011, 02:44:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Define Photographer.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6200


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2011, 02:45:26 PM »
ReplyReply

... All we care about is the boat on the water... Smiley
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
degrub
Guest
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2011, 02:55:23 PM »
ReplyReply

 Cheesy
Logged
degrub
Guest
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2011, 02:56:20 PM »
ReplyReply



that's called a "dark slide"  Smiley




{hmm...image didn't copy...}
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 02:58:32 PM by degrub » Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1975



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2011, 07:38:44 PM »
ReplyReply

You are right on target. Fussing about technology is easy, taking great photographs is hard. Imagine the writer carrying on about the composition of the tip of his pen, the painter fussing about the wood used for the brush handles, the pianist objecting because the keys are not real ivory.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1993


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2011, 12:50:07 PM »
ReplyReply

the painter fussing about the wood used for the brush handles, the pianist objecting because the keys are not real ivory.
Sorry, but start looking into those and that's exactly what artists do obsess about, Water colourists discuss paint, paper, brushes and technique obsessively and have you ever started talking to guitar enthusiasts about guitars ?
They're 'arts' that have been around for ages and their 'tools' are at a high level of maturity, digital photography has only hit the mass market about a decade ago and is still a long way from maturity, so users will obsess about understanding and developing their tools and techniques for a long time yet.
If you don't want to read it just look elsewhere. At least on LuLa we get informed mature debate.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6200


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2011, 01:48:06 PM »
ReplyReply

...If you don't want to read it just look elsewhere...

Looks like geeks not only lack in the social-skills department, but have no sense of humor either Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2011, 10:34:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Looks like geeks not only lack in the social-skills department, but have no sense of humor either Wink

I tend to agree Slobodan. I sometimes find that some posters take serious issue with a comment of mine, despite the accompanying smiley.

There is frequently an obsession with certain technical aspects that seems totally out of proportion with the practical significance of the issue in a broader context.

I'm also sometimes guilty of such obsessions, I don't deny. However, in my opinion, such obsession is not confined to geeks. We have the house-proud wife who is obsessed about cleanliness and a spotless floor; the young lady obsessed with the best type of lipstick and face cream; the healthfood fanatic concerned about 'organically grown' issues, etc etc.

We have writers obsessed with the juxtaposition of certain words in a particular sentence, that is rewritten 20 times as a consequence.

We have music composers like Beethoven whose original manuscripts show frequent corrections, and others like Mozart who knew exactly what they were going to write before putting pen to manuscript.

I guess we are all in search of some sort of perfection in our own way. But the job of the scientist is one of the most difficult, trying to match the predictions of established theory with real-world observations that in practice ofen don't correspond, then trying to find out why they don't match. Is the theory wrong, or is there some other factor that hasn't been taken into consideration?

So I guess I'm sympathetic to Geeks, and Greeks, although let's not confuse the two etymologically.  Grin
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2011, 05:10:22 AM »
ReplyReply

You are right on target. Fussing about technology is easy, taking great photographs is hard. Imagine the writer carrying on about the composition of the tip of his pen, the painter fussing about the wood used for the brush handles, the pianist objecting because the keys are not real ivory.


Mmmm ... I'd say it is exactly the opposite: it would be a whole lot harder to learn how to make a topshelf digital camera than "to take" a good photo with one Wink

And yet I agree that just because someone is a tech geek doesn't mean they are a great artist. It's kind of like making the car versus racing the car. The driver doesn't have to know how the car is made to be a hulluva driver ... and, conversely, just because an engineer can design all the specs of the race car doesn't mean he has the nerve to be a top driver in one. Two different skill sets.

But, at the end of the day, the geek and the engineer are most important ... because without them there is no car and there is no camera ... so hat's off to all of the geeks, who give the rest of us Simple Simons something to have fun with and enjoy

Jack



.
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 499


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2011, 06:53:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like geeks not only lack in the social-skills department, but have no sense of humor either Wink

Humor?  Humor?!? The interweb is no place for humor!  Smiley
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2011, 07:59:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually Jack, the driver, if s/he's going to be any good at all does need to know about the car so that s/he can communicate effectively to the engineers what's going on with the car on the track so that the car can be adjusted correctly to make it perform better.  Listen to really good drivers talk about suspension geometry or mechanical vs. aero grip (suspension geometry being related to mechanical grip, of course) or similar and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. 

As far as LuLa being overrun by geeks, LuLa has long been known as the internet home of the measurebators.  Grin
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2011, 11:23:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course there has to be a certain depth of knowledge about cars, Bob, same as a photographer has to have a certain depth of knowledge about light, flash use, f/stops, ISO settings (not to mention post-processing software and how to use it), etc. ... but the driver doen't have the kind of total knowledge of how to design the entire car in order to be able to drive it well.

Same as a photographer doesn't have to be able to design his own camera, and all the software to run it, in order to learn to take great shots and process them well. An aspiring photographer just has to develop his knowledge in how to use these tools, not in how to design them.

I have high degree of respect for those who can design photographic tools, as well as the software to maximize their potential ... and I appreciate the fact some people have a passion for "undertanding and creating" better cameras and software ... but I have absolutely ZERO desire ever to learn how to do any of these things myself ... I just like to take pretty pictures Grin

Jack


.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6520



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2011, 12:39:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually Jack, the driver, if s/he's going to be any good at all does need to know about the car so that s/he can communicate effectively to the engineers what's going on with the car on the track so that the car can be adjusted correctly to make it perform better.

Bob, You're right, and I can tell you from personal experience that it's mighty important for a pilot -- at least a military pilot -- to understand the technology built into his airplane. The problem is that if you have a problem you can't just pull over to the shoulder and shut down.
Logged

Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1598


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2011, 12:50:35 PM »
ReplyReply

It's 'humour', not 'humor'. Just saying.  Wink
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad