Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 30, 2011, 02:56:10 pm
-
From recent threads:
...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:
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?
:'(
-
Elevated noise levels about noise and levels.
Rich
-
Define Photographer.
-
creak.......door opens a crack....light pours forth.....
nope, just another engineer ;)
Frank
-
Define Photographer.
"light weaver" ? "photon parser" ?
:)
-
"
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... :)
-
Define Photographer.
-
... All we care about is the boat on the water... :)
-
:D
-
that's called a "dark slide" :)
{hmm...image didn't copy...}
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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 ;)
-
Looks like geeks not only lack in the social-skills department, but have no sense of humor either ;)
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. ;D
-
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 ;)
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 (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Jack
.
-
Looks like geeks not only lack in the social-skills department, but have no sense of humor either ;)
Humor? Humor?!? The interweb is no place for humor! :)
-
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. ;D
-
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 ;D
Jack
.
-
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.
-
It's 'humour', not 'humor'. Just saying. ;)
-
It's 'humour', not 'humor'. Just saying. ;)
In Britain, but not in the U.S. Just saying ;)
-
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.
Russ, should I assume that, as photographers, you and Bob build and design your own cameras and lenses then ... and that you have the modern technical know-how? (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Jack
.
-
Right, Bill. And it's aluminium, colour, cheque, plough, and tyre, to name just a few other misspellings. But if you think that's strange you should hear my Texan friends talk about "all." That's that stuff you put in your car.
-
You've got it, Jack. But the rate of my camera construction is constrained by the speed with which I can eat oatmeal. ;D
-
All righty then ;D
-
It's 'humour', not 'humor'. Just saying. ;)
In Britain, but not in the U.S. Just saying ;)
Let's call the whole thing off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2oEmPP5dTM) ;)
-
There was a lovely Beyond the Fringe skit in which a young woman was auditioning.
She was asked to sing Let's Call the Whole Thing Off and insisted on pronouncing all cross-spelled/pronounced words identically.
Finally frustrated, she huffed in rather plummy English:
I really don't understand what's wrong with this relationship!
-
It's 'humour', not 'humor'. Just saying. ;)
+1
Why can't these colonials spell?
Jeremy
-
Russ, should I assume that, as photographers, you and Bob build and design your own cameras and lenses then ... and that you have the modern technical know-how? (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Jack
.
Does a homemade pinhole camera count? ;D
But look, pilots build experimental aircraft from scratch. Hardcore car guys machine car parts from scratch. Look at some of the accessories that have come from guys noodling around in a shop. Where do you think some of the things like the Promote Control came from? Or the Dynamic Perception dolly rig, controller and firmware? Or the DitoGear slider and controller?
-
In Britain, but not in the U.S. Just saying ;)
What about in Canada (since this is, after all, a Canadian site)? Just saying ;) ;)
-
What about in Canada (since this is, after all, a Canadian site)? Just saying ;) ;)
Yeah, Eric. There too. I grew up near the Canadian border, spent three years stationed in Beausejour, Manitoba, and had several close Canadian friends during my time at NORAD headquarters. If you're ever in doubt about whether or not somebody's Canadian, get him to say, "out." But at least Canadians put oil in their cars.
-
Does a homemade pinhole camera count? ;D
For you, Bob, I will say "Yes" ;D
But look, pilots build experimental aircraft from scratch. Hardcore car guys machine car parts from scratch. Look at some of the accessories that have come from guys noodling around in a shop. Where do you think some of the things like the Promote Control came from? Or the Dynamic Perception dolly rig, controller and firmware? Or the DitoGear slider and controller?
There is no question that, the more knowledgeable a person becomes about photography, the more knowledge he is going to get about certain working elements behind his equipment. However, I maintain that there is a divergence between becoming more knowledgeable in the "geek" sense and developing skill and creativity in the artistic sense.
Not every race car driver has to become Carroll Shelby (and manufacture his own cars) ... and, by the same token, Shelby's total knowledge of automobile craftsmanship doesn't mean he couldn't be defeated by other talented drivers, who lacked his car-making abilities. Similarly, not every photographer needs to turn himself into a software geek to be able to take great photos.
In the end, it is simply absurd to believe a photographer needs the know-how to produce a D3x himself in order to get incredible results while using one.
Jack
.
-
Call 911? is that the police or a Porsche 911? ;D
(http://www.mundoinsolito.net/wp-content/uploads/germany-porsche-911-carrera.jpg)
-
It would have to be the Porsche, triple zero (000) is the official emergency number in Australia. It is interesting to see what the emergency numbers are throughout the world. You can find out more about the numbers here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone_number).
LuLa seems to go a bit quiet during the northern summer as photographers go on holidays. Leaving the geeks to control the asylum forum.
Cheers,
-
Wholeheartedly agree, Jack. I do think sometimes there's too much concentration on the technical, the 1s and 0s, and not enough on the artistic.
-
If anyone is in doubt about what Slobodan calls geeks then read the recent threads on the ETTR debate. Then again if you don't like it you don't have to read it.???? I didn't need to read this thread but I did to see what was being said. ;) :)
-
It would have to be the Porsche, triple zero (000) is the official emergency number in Australia. It is interesting to see what the emergency numbers are throughout the world. You can find out more about the numbers here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone_number).
We have 112 in Europe so, yes, I think the 'Call 911' was not the best choice to give the thread a name in an international forum ;D. 112 will work on any mobile phone, no matter if your provider doesn't have coverage at your location (as long as some other operator has of course), and no matter if you have a 'pay as you go' contract and ran out of money. Is the same in Australia? just curious.
Regards
-
... an international forum...
Hmmm... Given that the owner is a Canadian who resides in Mexico half oh the time, I would argue that if we average his geographical location, it would be the U.S. Or, from another perspective, truth is usually somewhere in the middle, which would, once again, be in the U.S. Hence, this is an American forum. Just saying ;)
-
Hmmm... Given that the owner is a Canadian who resides in Mexico half oh the time, I would argue that if we average his geographical location, it would be the U.S. Or, from another perspective, truth is usually somewhere in the middle, which would, once again, be in the U.S. Hence, this is an American forum. Just saying ;)
Not really. If you average Michael's geographical location you would get some underground place a good amount of Kms below the US surface, where calling 911 would be a waste of time. Just saying ;D
-
... some underground place a good amount of Kms below the US surface, where calling 911 would be a waste of time...
Even if so, such undisclosed, deep-under bunker location did not stop Dick Cheney from calling the shots, let alone 911 :D
-
I too thought that this forum had a lot of geeks and nerds. (I use those terms with admiration.) So, in the thread titled “Will Michael revisit ETTR?”, I made a feeble attempt at humor when I posted “Perhaps a better title for this thread would have been “Stalking the Reichmann Hypothesis”? :)”.
My post was meant to be a reference to the book “Stalking the Reimann Hypothesis”, a well known (among mathematicians) mathematical conjecture. http://www.chronon.org/reviews/stalking_riemann.html
Well, my post fell on deaf ears. Perhaps my reference was too obscure, or not humorous. Or, maybe the participants just aren’t as geeky or nerdy as I assumed.
More likely, I shouldn’t have made this post, but should have slunk off and hoped people would continue to ignore and forget my nerdy attempt at humor. :-[
-
oh we noticed it.....well known to all the engineers and scientists here that use calculus...it was a dry chuckle in this corner.....unfortunately it didn't differentiate itself from all the other algebraic color theory postings.. oh well, someday it will get there.
Frank
-
What about in Canada (since this is, after all, a Canadian site)? Just saying ;) ;)
Most (Canadian) dictionaries and style guides accept either as correct spellings. They usually advise that a publication be consistent and stick with one or the other. Unless a web site takes the time to edit every forum entry, this will never happen on forums such as this one, because it's not worth the time or the trouble. English has always had numerous acceptable spellings and usages for words and expressions.
-
There are exclusively Canadian dictionaries? And style guides? For a country that has no style? ???
-
I too thought that this forum had a lot of geeks and nerds. (I use those terms with admiration.) So, in the thread titled “Will Michael revisit ETTR?”, I made a feeble attempt at humor when I posted “Perhaps a better title for this thread would have been “Stalking the Reichmann Hypothesis”? :)”.
My post was meant to be a reference to the book “Stalking the Reimann Hypothesis”, a well known (among mathematicians) mathematical conjecture. http://www.chronon.org/reviews/stalking_riemann.html
Well, my post fell on deaf ears. Perhaps my reference was too obscure, or not humorous. Or, maybe the participants just aren’t as geeky or nerdy as I assumed.
More likely, I shouldn’t have made this post, but should have slunk off and hoped people would continue to ignore and forget my nerdy attempt at humor. :-[
I noticed it, but I guess I'm not sufficiently geeky or nerdy to appreciate the reference. I hadn't heard of the Reimann Hypothesis.
However, I did think of making my own suggestion for retitling that thread, which would have been, "How to Make a Simple Matter Complicated." ;D
-
Yes, some discussions like e.g. in the broader context of ETTR
tend to bring out our geeky evil twin.
Something we have to go through, I guess.
Things / the air is supposed be purer and clearer after a thunderstorm
(and if it is just in the teacup of a www forum).
Peter
--