More on the Mirrorless Battles

On Sep 16, 2018, wrote
(in ):

Not all cameras without mirrors are MILCs.

Lots of great point 'n shoots, like the Sony HX80 my wife and I both
have. 30X optical zoom, can't be beat in so many ways ! Very small and
light, will easily fit in a shirt pocket, relatively inexpensive, nice
automatic lens cover, cheap batteries, etc.

Nice, and I am sure that your two Sony HX80’s serve you, and your wife quite
well. However, in today’s context “mirrorless� generally refers to those
M43, APS-C, FF, and MF MILCs which compete with DSLRs, and have replaced DSLRs
in the kit of many photographers. Few here would think of the Sony HX80 as
“mirrorless�, but would classify it as acompact rather than P&S.

On Sep 16, 2018, wrote
(in ):


No, that simply not true.

it absolutely is true.

Apps are designed to provide display points at the available
resolution pixcels, and will provide a seamless display of all
necessary points, without any excess computations etc.

pixels and points are not the same.
If the screen resolution is 1920 x 1080, then there's only 2,073,600
posible points which can be plotted. Why compute any more !

Consider that other folks might care to use your software on systems with higher
resolution.

In article ,
wrote:

If the screen resolution is 1920 x 1080, then there's only 2,073,600
posible points which can be plotted. Why compute any more !

because modern computers have higher resolution displays, some
significantly so. upscaling is going to look like ****.

microsoft surface studio: 4500 x 3000
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surf...tudio/tech-spe
cs

microsoft surface laptop: 2256 x 1504
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surf...aptop/tech-spe
cs

retina imac 4k: 4096x2304
https://support.apple.com/kb/SP759?locale=en_US
retina imac 5k: 5120x2880
https://support.apple.com/kb/SP760?locale=en_US

In article ,
wrote:


there are numerous reasons, security being one of the key ones, but
win10 is just a lot more pleasant to use than win7.

How so ?

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think Windows 7 looks just fine .

i didn't say anything about looks. i said more pleasant to use.

win10 is a lot more polished than earlier versions of windows. the same
tasks are easier to do.

as for looks, win10 does not win awards. its design language is
something a 10 year old could have come up with (and probably did).

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 14:03:57 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


.... Round off isn't an issue here.

yes it is.

You'll have to explain pecisely how round off figures into this.

because mirrorless and slrs *combined* has under 1% share, and that was
two years ago. it's less now.

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/lat...t-reveals-deat
h-compact-camera/
But literally 98.4% of the consumer cameras sold in 2016 were built
into smartphones Â* only 0.8% were compacts, 0.5% DSLRs, and 0.2%
mirrorless.

OK fine, but I don't see a word about round off, which was my
question.

98.4% is close enough to 100%.

Sloppy!

Also, smartphones are mirrorless, as perhaps other things
not included in the mirrorless tally.

the categories are clear.

Aren't only SLRs and DSLRs the only things with mirrors ?

cars have them, and they even have cameras too.

Bars have them, and they even have cameras too.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 11:14:04 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Sep 16, 2018, wrote
(in ):


Normal screen resolution is 1920 x 1080 pixcels.

nope. that's one of *many* display resolutions available today.
Well it's common for most desktops running Windows. Sure laptops and
others will be different. So what ? Just substitute other appropriate
numbers and my arguments still hold.

If an image is
produced by a sensor with the same resolution, then enough
information, as levels of red, green and blue, ranging from 0 to 255,
are obtained for each of the 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixcels, and the
image can be displayed accordingly. Now, if the number of sensor
pixcels are doubled in both dirrections, then the image is produced at
a higher resolution, and fully 4 pixcels have to be mapped into each
of the full screen display pixcels. In this case, the 4 should be
resolved into one, using some kind of round off scheme.

what you're describing is a retina display, except that it's a lot more
complicated than simply rounding off and may not be double either.

You'll have to clarify. retina display ? I only used double as a
convenient reference, but any increase would also apply.

I don’t know about *nospam* clarifying anything, but the term “Retina
display� is an Apple thing. For example the 27� iMac 5K Retina display that
I am using right now has a resolution of 5120 x2880 with an appropriate pixel
density, and it is undoubtably a higher resolution than the 1920 x 1080 of my
old non-retina display iMac.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display

I expect that 'Retina Display' is trade-marked and nospam is in error
applying the term as broadly as he just has.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 17:15:51 -0400, wrote:


I've developed applications intended for both the recommendeds with
user selection of either.

then your apps will look like **** on modern displays, and they
shouldn't be hardcoded to specific resolutions anyway.

No, that simply not true.

Apps are designed to provide display points at the available
resolution pixcels, and will provide a seamless display of all
necessary points, without any excess computations etc.

Why bother computing any more than the available display pixcels.

If displays are developed capable of higher resolutions, then I'll
simply provide that option.

Currently my apps look great on either 1920 x 1080 or 1366 x 768, and
run as fast as possible .

I'm currently running two Dell UP2516U monitors with a native
resolution of 2560 x 1440. These are noticably sharper than 1920 x
1080 but are far from being the sharpest displays on the block.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 06:36:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


decrease and increase of what?

Just read the first post starting this thread, dumbass.

quote it in your post for context.

THis from the guy who routinely deletes text when replying to posts
and justifies it by saying that if you want to know what was
previously there you should look up the thread.

i *always* quote the relevant context in my replies.

Your version of 'relevant'.

i delete what is superfluous. in other words, noise.

Once again your version of 'superfluous' or 'noise'. To make matters
worse you _never_ indicate that you have made such deletions.



better yet, ignore it.

Refuge of someone who's lost an argument.

nope.

like that part that you didn't snip. you didn't comment on it and there
is no need to include it. it's noise.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


decrease and increase of what?

Just read the first post starting this thread, dumbass.

quote it in your post for context.

THis from the guy who routinely deletes text when replying to posts
and justifies it by saying that if you want to know what was
previously there you should look up the thread.

i *always* quote the relevant context in my replies.

Your version of 'relevant'.

yep. i'm the one commenting so i get to decide what parts i respond to,
which are always quoted.

i delete what is superfluous. in other words, noise.

Once again your version of 'superfluous' or 'noise'. To make matters
worse you _never_ indicate that you have made such deletions.

that is complete bull****.



better yet, ignore it.

Refuge of someone who's lost an argument.

nope.

like that part that you didn't snip. you didn't comment on it and there
is no need to include it. it's noise.

once again, you didn't snip superfluous text.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If an image is
produced by a sensor with the same resolution, then enough
information, as levels of red, green and blue, ranging from 0 to 255,
are obtained for each of the 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixcels, and the
image can be displayed accordingly. Now, if the number of sensor
pixcels are doubled in both dirrections, then the image is produced at
a higher resolution, and fully 4 pixcels have to be mapped into each
of the full screen display pixcels. In this case, the 4 should be
resolved into one, using some kind of round off scheme.

what you're describing is a retina display, except that it's a lot more
complicated than simply rounding off and may not be double either.

You'll have to clarify. retina display ? I only used double as a
convenient reference, but any increase would also apply.

I don¹t know about *nospam* clarifying anything, but the term ³Retina
display² is an Apple thing. For example the 27² iMac 5K Retina display that
I am using right now has a resolution of 5120 x2880 with an appropriate
pixel
density, and it is undoubtably a higher resolution than the 1920 x 1080 of
my
old non-retina display iMac.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display

I expect that 'Retina Display' is trade-marked and nospam is in error
applying the term as broadly as he just has.

i'm not the one applying it broadly.

yes, apple trademarked the name, but because they were first to mass
market it, it has become somewhat of a generic term, which i explained
in another post.

people 'photoshop an image' even if they use other software to do it.