Problem with HDFoxT2 remote

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:01:11 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Martin wrote:

[Snip]

[2] I wasn't sure of the spelling of "ignoratti" (or even if it was a
'made up word') so googled it and found an urban dictionary reference
which seemed appropriate enough for the 'wannabe photographer' but
perhaps less so for MS fashion victims.

Why use an Italian word when ignorant means the same thing?

no it doesn't. "Ignoratti" means "ignorant people"

It is possible to use "ignorant" as a noun: "the ignorant" meaning "the
ignorant people" perhaps contrasted with "the well-informed".


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Woody wrote:

Where 6Mp does come into play is that, for most people printing with an
inkjet printer or taking their memory cards to a local supermarket and
having them printed on normal photo paper, 6Mp will produce prints up to
10x8 or A4 of the standard that is acceptable to most people .

Just to add another specific point about the 6Mpixel sensor and
"acceptable to most people" up to A4: it is acceptable because the
resolution is already higher than a normal inkjet colour printer can
print.

In other words, for less-than-A4 prints a higher resolution sensor is
wasted because the printer can't print that finely.

It's even more of an issue on a computer screen, which typically
resolve only to about 100dpi.

There is, though, one big advantage to a higher resolution sensor: you
can crop the picture and still maintain a better-than-your-printer
resolution.

Frankly, though, I think the megapixel race is utterly senseless for
normal use. It's a triumph of marketing over technology.

--
SteveT

In message , Martin
writes
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:33:41 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:01:11 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Martin wrote:

[Snip]

[2] I wasn't sure of the spelling of "ignoratti" (or even if it was a
'made up word') so googled it and found an urban dictionary reference
which seemed appropriate enough for the 'wannabe photographer' but
perhaps less so for MS fashion victims.

Why use an Italian word when ignorant means the same thing?

no it doesn't. "Ignoratti" means "ignorant people"

It is possible to use "ignorant" as a noun: "the ignorant" meaning "the
ignorant people" perhaps contrasted with "the well-informed".

Thank you, Peter.

The word pretenziose comes to mind. :-)

Today is the first day in my life that I have ever thought of using
"cognescenti". With luck, I'll resist the temptation.
--
Ian

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:51:35 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Martin
writes
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:33:41 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:01:11 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Martin wrote:

[Snip]

[2] I wasn't sure of the spelling of "ignoratti" (or even if it was a
'made up word') so googled it and found an urban dictionary reference
which seemed appropriate enough for the 'wannabe photographer' but
perhaps less so for MS fashion victims.

Why use an Italian word when ignorant means the same thing?

no it doesn't. "Ignoratti" means "ignorant people"

It is possible to use "ignorant" as a noun: "the ignorant" meaning "the
ignorant people" perhaps contrasted with "the well-informed".

Thank you, Peter.

The word pretenziose comes to mind. :-)

Today is the first day in my life that I have ever thought of using
"cognescenti". With luck, I'll resist the temptation.

How do you pronounce the "sc" in "cognescenti"? "ss" as in "s(c)ent",
"sh" or "sk"?

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

sintv wrote:



On Saturday, 7 July 2012 14:05:23 UTC+1, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 14:02:37 +0100, "Brian Gaff"

wrote:

Ahem, I suppose the little window on the unit or the remote has
not still got that sticky protective film over it has it?
although seemingly transparent, it seems some of it is not very
transparent to IR.
Brian

Good thought, Brian!

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)#

Dunno if you know this but you can test the remote by pointing it
at your digital camera or phone camera and you'll see it flash as
you press the buttons.

That seems to depend on the camera. My Kodak DX4530 can see the
flash from a remote, but my Nikon D40 can't. The Nikon has a larger
lens with more glass elements in it than the Kodak. The infrared
from the remote can't get through that amount of glass.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Easier to use a phone camera.Thats what I use anyway

I came unstuck trying to use an iPhone 4s. The main camera has an IR
filter. I had to use the back facing camera.

--

Johny B Good wrote:

To be fair to Peter, he acknowledged my explanation without starting
a pointless argument.

snip

I don't know why you wrote all that, but as someone who is considering a
new camera purchase I read it with great interest.

Thank you.

Bill

Martin wrote:


Why use an Italian word when ignorant means the same thing?

For the sake of increasing the gaiety of nations. As you will know it is
a play on such words as 'literati' and 'cognescenti'. To use a rather
fancy-sounding word to describe those upon whom we like to look down
adds to out mirth.

'Ignorant' doesn't quite mean the same thing. 'Ignorati' refers to the
group, not to their condition.

Bill

In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 10:51:35 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Martin
writes
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:33:41 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:01:11 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Martin wrote:

[Snip]

[2] I wasn't sure of the spelling of "ignoratti" (or even if it was a
'made up word') so googled it and found an urban dictionary reference
which seemed appropriate enough for the 'wannabe photographer' but
perhaps less so for MS fashion victims.

Why use an Italian word when ignorant means the same thing?

no it doesn't. "Ignoratti" means "ignorant people"

It is possible to use "ignorant" as a noun: "the ignorant" meaning "the
ignorant people" perhaps contrasted with "the well-informed".

Thank you, Peter.

The word pretenziose comes to mind. :-)

Today is the first day in my life that I have ever thought of using
"cognescenti". With luck, I'll resist the temptation.

How do you pronounce the "sc" in "cognescenti"? "ss" as in "s(c)ent",
"sh" or "sk"?

AH! "Common misspelling of cognoscenti."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cognescenti
Pronounced:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cognoscente
https://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/tag/cognoscenti/
http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=cognoscenti
et al.
--
Ian

On 08/07/2012 10:12, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 10:02:10 +0100, Steve Thackery
wrote:

Woody wrote:

Where 6Mp does come into play is that, for most people printing with an
inkjet printer or taking their memory cards to a local supermarket and
having them printed on normal photo paper, 6Mp will produce prints up to
10x8 or A4 of the standard that is acceptable to most people .

Just to add another specific point about the 6Mpixel sensor and
"acceptable to most people" up to A4: it is acceptable because the
resolution is already higher than a normal inkjet colour printer can
print.

In other words, for less-than-A4 prints a higher resolution sensor is
wasted because the printer can't print that finely.

It's even more of an issue on a computer screen, which typically
resolve only to about 100dpi.

There is, though, one big advantage to a higher resolution sensor: you
can crop the picture and still maintain a better-than-your-printer
resolution.

Frankly, though, I think the megapixel race is utterly senseless for
normal use. It's a triumph of marketing over technology.

There is both a megapixel and zoom race going on.


I'm sitting looking at a screen which is capable of 1920x1200 - Roughly
speaking 2Mpixels. And it's 24 inch diagonal, just over 12 inches
vertically so about 100 pixels per inch. I don't think it's quite sharp
enough for photos.

I've just printed off a couple of shots I took that my wife wants to put
on the wall. They're 12x18, and they look fine. Off a 4mpx sensor,
that 144 pixels per inch.

Remembering that most home printers are 300dpi max, and they need
halftoning to get the colours, that's no real surprise.

It's also "x10 zoom" and that's about the limit I can handle without a
tripod... though I daresay modern electronic anti-shake would help that.

The pocket compact we bought earlier this year has far more pixels. And
doesn't look nearly as good!

Andy

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 08:35:39 +0100, "Woody"
wrote:

To save space I have snipped JBG's reply.

Two points JBG:

Many modern SLR cameras at the bottom end of the market - such as
the D40 and its current replacement the D3100 - have a
pentamirror rather than a pentaprism. This is to keep cost and
(specifically) weight down.

Ok then, a cheaper and, as you pointed out, lighweight version of
exactly the same thing.


If you do a bit of googling and reading you will find some very
interesting data, not least of which is that to get the
equivalent resolution of high-grade 35mm film stock on a APS
sized sensor (approx 23x15mm) you will need something (for colur)
approaching 100Mp - not 6Mp as you say.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from (perhaps you
can post a link or two?) but that claim that a 35mm colour slide or
negative film contains 100Mpxl's worth of content seems highly
improbable to me.

The highest resolution monochrome film that was readily available
(speed rating of 32 or 50 ASA) was only good for about 50 lines per mm
resolution (equivilent to a 100 Pixels per mm linear resolution) which
was an order of magnitude less than a high quality wide aperture
standard lens made for 35mm SLRs[1]. Colour film stock has less
resolution than its monochrome speed equivilent.

Guesstimating at 25 lines per mm resolution for good quality 35mm
ASA200 colour film, the resulting image effectively contains just over
2Mpxl's worth which ties in with my Canadian experience.


Where 6Mp does come into play is that, for most people printing
with an inkjet printer or taking their memory cards to a local
supermarket and having them printed on normal photo paper, 6Mp
will produce prints up to 10x8 or A4 of the standard that is
acceptable to most people . There is also a good arguement for
APS-C and most certainly for compact camera sensors that 6Mp is a
good balance point; below that resolution is not good enough,
above that thermal noise starts to become significant. In the
case of compact cameras many would also argue that - save on a
small handful of exceptions - to match a sensor of 6Mp the lens
resolution would not be good enough either.

I have been using a Nikon D70s since 2005 (6Mp) and have always
been satisfied with the results it produces. A couple of months
ago I got a s/h D80 (10Mp) body and find little improvement in
perceived picture resolution, albeit the metering is better and
focussing significantly quicker.

[1] I'm wondering if you're confusing the lens resolving power with
the film stock resolution. Calculating the effective Mpxl in an image
framed in a 24 by 36 mm rectangle using a high quality 55mm F 1.4 lens
gives me a figure of 864Mpxls! That's such a high value, I've just
googled for data on film and lens resolution and found this website:

http://jameskbeard.com/Photography/Film_Pixels.html

This pretty well confirms that the AP article I read some 30 odd
years back had some basis in fact regarding this subject. However, the
500 lines per mm figure for an F1.4 lens was the theoretical
diffraction limit and, it seems in practice, that a more realistic
upper limit would approximate to 250 lines per mm which equates to a
Mpxl rating at the film plane of a 35mm SLR of about 200Mpxl, way in
excess of the film's resolving power which was unlikely to be much
better than about 14.5Mpxl.
--
Regards, J B Good