Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.

Cameras are not named - photos have an id.

Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

Am 22.12.22 um 18:29 schrieb Alan Browne:
>
> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>
> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>
> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>
Cool.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 22.12.22 um 18:40 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
> Am 22.12.22 um 18:29 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>
>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>
>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>
>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>
> Cool.

And the results are very robust and relevant.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Alan Browne wrote:

>
>Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>
>Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>
>Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee

If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
quality would be near the bottom. But that's just me, I know many
people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.

On 12/22/2022 1:45 PM, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>
>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>
>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>
>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>
>
> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
> quality would be near the bottom. But that's just me, I know many
> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.

I used to be of the same opinion but recently I've come around. On my
October hiking trip in Wales I left behind my normal set of Canon photo
stuff (which I had whittled down to a small subset of my former selections)
and used a combination of my Pixel 6 Pro, Insta 360 action camera and my
DJI Mini 3 Pro drone. Most likely all of them together with their
accessories weighed less than the Canon stuff and I had a lot more options.
The Pixel takes great pictures in all sorts of conditions and didn't let me
down once. I've had a couple of the Pixel images blown up to 16X20, albeit
on "canvas" which tends to hide minor flaws, and there is nothing to
complain about.

And thinking of it, I can't remember ever taking a selfie unless you
include a couple of photos to let me see a major gash on the back of my
head taken to convince myself to go and get stitched up.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> “Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
> danger to American democracy.”

> - J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16

>- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

Great. This genius was a judge and thinks that “America is a democracy”.
🙄

The U.S. is a Republic. There IS a difference. Read the constitution if
you don’t know the difference.

I don’t give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians
who have no GD clue what they are talking about.

In article <86GdnWv_uIP0Yjn-nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Bob
Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:

> > ³Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
> > danger to American democracy.²
>
> > - J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
>
> >- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
> > committee
>
> Great. This genius was a judge and thinks that ³America is a democracy².
> ?

he's correct.

> The U.S. is a Republic. There IS a difference. Read the constitution if
> you don¹t know the difference.

<https://www.dictionary.com/e/democracy-vs-republic/>
So, is the United States a democracy or republic?
For all practical purposes, it¹s both. In everyday speech and
writing, you can safely refer to the US as a democracy or a republic.
If you want or need to be more precise in referring to the system of
the US, you can accurately call it a representative democracy. And
should you need to be exacting? The US can be called a federal
presidential constitutional republic or a constitutional federal
representative democracy.

> I don¹t give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians
> who have no GD clue what they are talking about.

that would be all of them.

On 23/12/2022 6:29 am, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>
> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>
> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>

Very interesting is the variation in exposure for his skin tone, some
extremely unable to figure a correct exposure for it, or overall with
his facial presence throw the rest of the frame out.

Most annoying is his saying of 2x ( and 3x etc) as "2 ex" rather than "2
times" !

geoff

On 2022-12-22 17:07, Bob Campbell wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> “Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
>> danger to American democracy.”
>
>> - J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
>
>> - Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
> committee
>
> Great. This genius was a judge and thinks that “America is a democracy”.
> 🙄
>
> The U.S. is a Republic. There IS a difference. Read the constitution if
> you don’t know the difference.
>
> I don’t give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians
> who have no GD clue what they are talking about.

"democracy" has a technical meaning and general usage...

....and in general usage, the US is a democracy.

Am 23.12.22 um 02:07 schrieb Bob Campbell:
> The U.S. is a Republic. There IS a difference. Read the constitution if
> you don’t know the difference.
>
> I don’t give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians
> who have no GD clue what they are talking about.

Only you have ...
*ROTFLSTC*

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 2022-12-22 20:07, Bob Campbell wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> “Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
>> danger to American democracy.”
>
>> - J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
>
>> - Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
> committee
>
> Great. This genius was a judge and thinks that “America is a democracy”.
> 🙄

Your struggle with grammar proves America should focus more on
education. This is no surprise.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2022-12-22 22:11, geoff wrote:
> On 23/12/2022 6:29 am, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>
>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>
>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>
>
>
> Very interesting is the variation in exposure for his skin tone, some
> extremely unable to figure a correct exposure for it, or overall with
> his facial presence throw the rest of the frame out.

He didn't go into settings, I suspect they just let the camera do its
default Point and Shoot to see how it would evaluate the scene.

Some cameras may default to a brighter/darker exposure and that was
somewhat the point of the overall test...

> Most annoying is his saying of 2x ( and 3x etc) as "2 ex" rather than "2
> times" !

Those young whippersnappers!

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2022-12-22 23:05, Chris Schram wrote:

>> Bob Campbell wrote:
>>> I donšt give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians
>>> who have no GD clue what they are talking about.

> This is the kind of stupid off topic bullshitt talk that belongs on an
> apple iphone newsgroup. not android.

Yes, Bob Campbell really stepped on his own crank with this one.
Needs grammar lessons too.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>
>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>
>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>
>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>
>
> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
> quality would be near the bottom. But that's just me, I know many
> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.

Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
cameras, camera quality is important for many users.

Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my wife's
phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking so much
time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very little
over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten much older.

It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
taking a picture of something.

On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>
>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>
>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>
>>
>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>
> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>
> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my wife's
> phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking so much
> time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very little
> over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten much
> older.
>
> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
> taking a picture of something.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:54:51 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my wife's
>phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking so much
>time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very little
>over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten much older.

*Much* older? My guess was that you were only 40+ years older. <g>

On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>
>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>
>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>
>>
>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>
> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.

Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now simply
a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they don't
really need.

> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten
> much older.
>
> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
> taking a picture of something.

"a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.

On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>
>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>
>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>
>>>
>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>>
>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
>> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>
> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
> pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
> the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now simply
> a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they don't
> really need.

Utterly wrong.

A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that is
too far away to fill the frame.

>
>
>
>
>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
>> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
>> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have
>> gotten much older.
>>
>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>> taking a picture of something.
>
> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
> using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.

What a limited life you've chosen.

On 2023-01-03 21:41:50 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>
>>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
>>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>>>
>>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
>>> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>>
>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
>> pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
>> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
>> the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now simply
>> a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they don't
>> really need.
>
> Utterly wrong.
>
> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
> is too far away to fill the frame.

Most phone and proper cameras already have some degree of physical
zoom, especially these these days (the software zoom is rather
pointless sinc it only guesses what the missing pixels should be).

>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
>>> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
>>> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten
>>> much older.
>>>
>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>>> taking a picture of something.
>>
>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
>> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
>> using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.
>
> What a limited life you've chosen.

Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of anything.

On 2023-01-03 13:58, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 21:41:50 +0000, Alan said:
>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on,
>>>>> camera
>>>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>>>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and
>>>> shoot cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>>>
>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so
>>> many pixels that you could professional print the image as a
>>> full-size advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count
>>> went way past the usefulness range for the average person years ago
>>> and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new
>>> device they don't really need.
>>
>> Utterly wrong.
>>
>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
>> is too far away to fill the frame.
>
> Most phone and proper cameras already have some degree of physical zoom,
> especially these these days (the software zoom is rather pointless sinc
> it only guesses what the missing pixels should be).

Again, utterly wrong.

Let us posit three phones.

One with a 640x480 and no optical zoom.

One with 640x480 and a 2x optical zoom

And one with a modern phone's 8064x6048 pixel sensor with no optical zoom.

And let us imagine that we are interested in taking a picture of
something that only occupies a small 100x100 are of the first phone's
sensor.

On the 2x optical zoom camera, you've now got an image with 200x200 pixels

But on the modern phone's sensor, you get an image with 1,260x1,260 pixels.

>>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>>>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was
>>>> taking so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have
>>>> changed very little over the 40+ years we've been going there,
>>>> though we have gotten much older.
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>>>> taking a picture of something.
>>>
>>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
>>> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone
>>> else using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.
>>
>> What a limited life you've chosen.
>
> Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of anything.

So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
clarity...

....and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
accomplished artist in drawing and painting?

On 2023-01-03 23:02:32 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2023-01-03 13:58, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2023-01-03 21:41:50 +0000, Alan said:
>>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
>>>>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>>>>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
>>>>> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>>>>
>>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
>>>> pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
>>>> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
>>>> the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now simply
>>>> a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they don't
>>>> really need.
>>>
>>> Utterly wrong.
>>>
>>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
>>> is too far away to fill the frame.
>>
>> Most phone and proper cameras already have some degree of physical
>> zoom, especially these these days (the software zoom is rather
>> pointless sinc it only guesses what the missing pixels should be).
>
> Again, utterly wrong.
>
> Let us posit three phones.
<snip>

Oh dear, here we go yet again ... since when did "most" suddenly get
redefined to mean "all". :-\

>
>
>>>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>>>>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
>>>>> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
>>>>> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten
>>>>> much older.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>>>>> taking a picture of something.
>>>>
>>>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
>>>> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
>>>> using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.
>>>
>>> What a limited life you've chosen.
>>
>> Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of anything.
>
> So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter clarity...

There is nothing I need or want to remember.

> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
> accomplished artist in drawing and painting?

There's also nothing I need or want to "share" with anyone else.

That's a major silliness of the Instagram generation ... nobody gives a
flying crap what you are having for lunch, let alone wants you to share
a photo of it with them. :-\

On 2023-01-03 15:41, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 23:02:32 +0000, Alan said:
>> On 2023-01-03 13:58, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-03 21:41:50 +0000, Alan said:
>>>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>>>>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on,
>>>>>>> camera quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I
>>>>>>> know many people are more concerned about selfies than
>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and
>>>>>> shoot cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so
>>>>> many pixels that you could professional print the image as a
>>>>> full-size advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count
>>>>> went way past the usefulness range for the average person years ago
>>>>> and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a
>>>>> new device they don't really need.
>>>>
>>>> Utterly wrong.
>>>>
>>>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something
>>>> that is too far away to fill the frame.
>>>
>>> Most phone and proper cameras already have some degree of physical
>>> zoom, especially these these days (the software zoom is rather
>>> pointless sinc it only guesses what the missing pixels should be).
>>
>> Again, utterly wrong.
>>
>> Let us posit three phones.
> <snip>
>
> Oh dear, here we go yet again ... since when did "most" suddenly get
> redefined to mean "all".  :-\

I was making a point by exaggeration.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>>>>>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was
>>>>>> taking so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have
>>>>>> changed very little over the 40+ years we've been going there,
>>>>>> though we have gotten much older.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day
>>>>>> without taking a picture of something.
>>>>>
>>>>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in
>>>>> my entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for
>>>>> someone else using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo
>>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>> What a limited life you've chosen.
>>>
>>> Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of anything.
>>
>> So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>> clarity...
>
> There is nothing I need or want to remember.
>
>
>
>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
>> accomplished artist in drawing and painting?
>
> There's also nothing I need or want to "share" with anyone else.
>
> That's a major silliness of the Instagram generation ... nobody gives a
> flying crap what you are having for lunch, let alone wants you to share
> a photo of it with them.  :-\

'since when did "most" suddenly get redefined to mean "all".'

Or is that too subtle for you?

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:34:20 +1100, Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:

> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on,
>>> camera
>>> quality would be near the bottom. But that's just me, I know many
>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
>> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.

> Picture quality is important.

And that involves a lot more than just the pixel count.

> The ability to take a photo with so many pixels that you could
> professional print the image as a full-size advertising billboard, not
> really. The 'megapixel' count went way past the usefulness range for the
> average person years ago and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con
> people into buying a new device they don't really need.
>
>
>
>
>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
>> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
>> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten
>> much older.
>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>> taking a picture of something.
>
> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
> using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.

Just because you never use any tech, so fucking what ?

On 2023-01-03 16:58, farter wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:34:20 +1100, Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>>  Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>  Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>   If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on,
>>>> camera
>>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>>>  Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and
>>> shoot cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>
>> Picture quality is important.
>
> And that involves a lot more than just the pixel count.

But without pixel count, there would be no quality at all.

I'm sorry, but everything else being equal, more pixels are better than
fewer pixels.

Period.

On 2023-01-04 00:24:23 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2023-01-03 15:41, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2023-01-03 23:02:32 +0000, Alan said:
>>> On 2023-01-03 13:58, Your Name wrote:
>>>> On 2023-01-03 21:41:50 +0000, Alan said:
>>>>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
>>>>>>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>>>>>>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
>>>>>>> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
>>>>>> pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
>>>>>> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
>>>>>> the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now simply
>>>>>> a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they don't
>>>>>> really need.
>>>>>
>>>>> Utterly wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
>>>>> is too far away to fill the frame.
>>>>
>>>> Most phone and proper cameras already have some degree of physical
>>>> zoom, especially these these days (the software zoom is rather
>>>> pointless sinc it only guesses what the missing pixels should be).
>>>
>>> Again, utterly wrong.
>>>
>>> Let us posit three phones.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Oh dear, here we go yet again ... since when did "most" suddenly get
>> redefined to mean "all".  :-\
>
> I was making a point by exaggeration.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>>>>>>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
>>>>>>> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
>>>>>>> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten
>>>>>>> much older.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>>>>>>> taking a picture of something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
>>>>>> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
>>>>>> using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.
>>>>>
>>>>> What a limited life you've chosen.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of anything.
>>>
>>> So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter clarity...
>>
>> There is nothing I need or want to remember.
>>
>>
>>
>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
>>> accomplished artist in drawing and painting?
>>
>> There's also nothing I need or want to "share" with anyone else.
>>
>> That's a major silliness of the Instagram generation ... nobody gives a
>> flying crap what you are having for lunch, let alone wants you to share
>> a photo of it with them.  :-\
>
> 'since when did "most" suddenly get redefined to mean "all".'
>
> Or is that too subtle for you?

Where did I say "most" or "all"??

Why is reading comprehension so dismally dire these days?? :-(