On 2023-01-03 22:21, Your Name wrote:
> 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.

Unaddressed.

>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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??  :-(

You were implicitly making that point, sunshine.

By assuming that all photos that one might take are you "having lunch".

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> 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...

Not even possible.

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

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 12:03:51 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> 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.

Pathetic.

> I'm sorry,

Liar.

> but everything else being equal,

It never is.

> more pixels are better than fewer pixels.

That's bullshit too.

> Period.

Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it;

On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> 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...
>
> Not even possible.

Which would be my point.

We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them with
perfect clarity.

I lost my brother to cancer in 2021 and I am so grateful that he and his
wife took photos and videos of so many wonderful times we shared.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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...

>> Not even possible.

> Which would be my point.

Nope.

> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them with
> perfect clarity.

But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
managed with one of my trees.

> I lost my brother to cancer in 2021 and I am so grateful that he and his
> wife took photos and videos of so many wonderful times we shared.

But that isnt even possible with many unexpected memorable details of your
life.

On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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...
>
>>>  Not even possible.
>
>> Which would be my point.
>
> Nope.

Yup.

>
>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>> with perfect clarity.
>
> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
> managed with one of my trees.

And I never claimed it was, so...?
>
>> I lost my brother to cancer in 2021 and I am so grateful that he and
>> his wife took photos and videos of so many wonderful times we shared.
>
> But that isnt even possible with many unexpected memorable details of
> your life.

And?

Does that mean that one shouldn't take images of the moments you can
capture?

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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...
>>
>>>> Not even possible.
>>
>>> Which would be my point.
>> Nope.
>
> Yup.

Nope.

>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>>> with perfect clarity.

>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>> managed with one of my trees.

> And I never claimed it was, so...?

So your original was wrong with its EVERY.

>>> I lost my brother to cancer in 2021 and I am so grateful that he and
>>> his wife took photos and videos of so many wonderful times we shared.
>> But that isnt even possible with many unexpected memorable details of
>> your life.

> And?

So your original was wrong with its EVERY.

> Does that mean that one shouldn't take images of the moments you can
> capture?

Nope, JUST that your original was wrong with its EVERY.

On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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...
>>>
>>>>>  Not even possible.
>>>
>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>  Nope.
>>
>> Yup.
>
> Nope.
>
>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>>>> with perfect clarity.
>
>>>  But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>> managed with one of my trees.
>
>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>
> So your original was wrong with its EVERY.

Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.

I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect clarity.

Quoting myself here:

'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?'

That is one sentence...

....divided for effect...

....which ends in a QUESTION MARK?

I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take a
photo of what was happening in his life.

On 2023-01-04 06:28:10 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2023-01-03 22:21, Your Name wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Unaddressed.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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??  :-(
>
> You were implicitly making that point, sunshine.
>
> By assuming that all photos that one might take are you "having lunch".

It was just one example you braindeead twat ... another argumentative
moron meets the killfile. :-\

On 2023-01-04 13:08, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-01-04 06:28:10 +0000, Alan said:
>> On 2023-01-03 22:21, Your Name wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Unaddressed.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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??  :-(
>>
>> You were implicitly making that point, sunshine.
>>
>> By assuming that all photos that one might take are you "having lunch".
>
> It was just one example you braindeead twat ... another argumentative
> moron meets the killfile.  :-\

But you used that "one example" as a reason to NEVER TAKE A PICTURE OF
ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR LIFE.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>
>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yup.
>> Nope.
>>
>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>>>>> with perfect clarity.
>>
>>>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>
>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>> So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>
> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.

We'll see...

> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect clarity.

But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.

> Quoting myself here:

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

Not even possible given your EVERY.

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

> That is one sentence...

Which used the word EVERY.

> ...divided for effect...
>
> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>
> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take a
> photo of what was happening in his life.

But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.

On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Not even possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Yup.
>>>  Nope.
>>>
>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>>>>>> with perfect clarity.
>>>
>>>>>  But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>
>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>  So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>
>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>
> We'll see...
>
>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect clarity.
>
> But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>
>> Quoting myself here:
>
>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>> clarity...
>
> Not even possible given your EVERY.
>
>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
>> accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>
>> That is one sentence...
>
> Which used the word EVERY.
>
>> ...divided for effect...
>>
>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>
>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take a
>> photo of what was happening in his life.
>
> But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.

It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.

Posing an impossibility as a question.

On 2023-01-04, chop <chop654@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>>>> clarity...
>
>>> Not even possible.
>
>> Which would be my point.
>
> Nope.
>
>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>> with perfect clarity.
>
> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of EVERY
> MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously with the very unexpected
> events like one of the kids falling out of a tree with a ruler in her
> mouth like one of the neighbours managed with one of my trees.

Pointless absolutism aside, something is better than nothing.

Also, never say "never":

<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/?ref_=ttep_ep3>

: )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup.
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>>>>>>> with perfect clarity.
>>>>
>>>>>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>
>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>> So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>
>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>> We'll see...
>>
>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect
>>> clarity.
>> But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>
>>> Quoting myself here:
>>
>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>>> clarity...
>> Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>
>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
>>> accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>
>>> That is one sentence...
>> Which used the word EVERY.
>>
>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>
>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>
>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take a
>>> photo of what was happening in his life.
>> But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:58:48 +1100, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2023-01-04, chop <chop654@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>>>>> clarity...
>>
>>>> Not even possible.
>>
>>> Which would be my point.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>>> with perfect clarity.
>>
>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of EVERY
>> MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously with the very unexpected
>> events like one of the kids falling out of a tree with a ruler in her
>> mouth like one of the neighbours managed with one of my trees.

> Pointless absolutism aside, something is better than nothing.

Your Name feels otherwise.

> Also, never say "never":

NEVER.

On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Not even possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall
>>>>>>>> them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>  So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>
>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>  We'll see...
>>>
>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect
>>>> clarity.
>>>  But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>
>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>
>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>>>> clarity...
>>>  Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>
>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also
>>>> an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>
>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>  Which used the word EVERY.
>>>
>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>
>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>
>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take a
>>>> photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>  But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>
>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>
> Bullshit, you bullshit artist.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall
>>>>>>>>> them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>> So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>> We'll see...
>>>>
>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect
>>>>> clarity.
>>>> But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>
>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>
>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>>>>> clarity...
>>>> Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>
>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also
>>>>> an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>
>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>> Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>
>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take a
>>>>> photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>> But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>
>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>> Bullshit, you bullshit artist.

On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall
>>>>>>>>>> them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>  So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>  We'll see...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect
>>>>>> clarity.
>>>>>  But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>  Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also
>>>>>> an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>  Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take
>>>>>> a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>  But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>
>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>  Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>  It wasn't even a question.
>
>> Really?
>
> Yep.
>
>> You didn't see the question mark?
>
> There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse for a
> bullshit artist.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:41:54 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall
>>>>>>>>>>> them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>> So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect
>>>>>>> clarity.
>>>>>> But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>> Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also
>>>>>>> an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>> Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take
>>>>>>> a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>> But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>>
>>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>> Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>>
>>> Nope.
>> Yep.
>>
>>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>> It wasn't even a question.
>>
>>> Really?
>> Yep.
>>
>>> You didn't see the question mark?
>> There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse for a
>> bullshit artist.

On 2023-01-04 15:56, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:41:54 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> recall them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or
>>>>>>>>>>> video of
>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>>>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>>>  So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>>>  We'll see...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect
>>>>>>>> clarity.
>>>>>>>  But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>>>  Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're
>>>>>>>> also an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>>>  Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER
>>>>>>>> take a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>>>  But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>>>  Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>  Yep.
>>>
>>>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>>>  It wasn't even a question.
>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>  Yep.
>>>
>>>> You didn't see the question mark?
>>>  There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse for a
>>> bullshit artist.
>
>> You're a liar or simply too stupid to understand what a question mark
>> looks like.
>
> We'll see...
>
>> Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it appeared:
>>
>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>> clarity...
>
> So no question mark, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:59:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 15:56, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:41:54 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or
>>>>>>>>>>>> video of
>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling
>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>>>> So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect
>>>>>>>>> clarity.
>>>>>>>> But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>>>> Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're
>>>>>>>>> also an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>>>> Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER
>>>>>>>>> take a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>>>> But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>>>> Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>>>> It wasn't even a question.
>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>>> You didn't see the question mark?
>>>> There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse for a
>>>> bullshit artist.
>>
>>> You're a liar or simply too stupid to understand what a question mark
>>> looks like.
>> We'll see...
>>
>>> Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it appeared:
>>>
>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>>> clarity...
>> So no question mark, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
> So you snipped the last half of that sentence...

On 2023-01-04 17:50, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:59:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 15:56, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:41:54 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids
>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>>>>>  So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>>>>>  We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with
>>>>>>>>>> perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>  But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>>>>>  Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're
>>>>>>>>>> also an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>>>>>  Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER
>>>>>>>>>> take a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>>>>>  But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>>>>>  Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>  Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>>>>>  It wasn't even a question.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>  Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't see the question mark?
>>>>>  There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse for
>>>>> a bullshit artist.
>>>
>>>> You're a liar or simply too stupid to understand what a question
>>>> mark looks like.
>>>  We'll see...
>>>
>>>> Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it appeared:
>>>>
>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>>>> clarity...
>>>  So no question mark, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>
>> So you snipped the last half of that sentence...
>
> Nope, what I snipped was a new sentence, stupid.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:19:13 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 17:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:59:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 15:56, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:41:54 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighbours
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>>>>>> So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with
>>>>>>>>>>> perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>> But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>>>>>> Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're
>>>>>>>>>>> also an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>>>>>> Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER
>>>>>>>>>>> take a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>>>>>> But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>>>>>> Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>>>>>> It wasn't even a question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't see the question mark?
>>>>>> There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse for
>>>>>> a bullshit artist.
>>>>
>>>>> You're a liar or simply too stupid to understand what a question
>>>>> mark looks like.
>>>> We'll see...
>>>>
>>>>> Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it appeared:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>>>>> clarity...
>>>> So no question mark, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>>
>>> So you snipped the last half of that sentence...
>> Nope, what I snipped was a new sentence, stupid.
>
> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?

On 2023-01-04 18:46, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:19:13 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 17:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:59:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:56, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:41:54 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighbours
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>>>>>>>  We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with
>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>  But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered
>>>>>>>>>>>> with utter clarity...
>>>>>>>>>>>  Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're also an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>>>>>>>  Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER
>>>>>>>>>>>> take a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>>>>>>>  But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>>>>>>>  Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>  Yep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>>>>>>>  It wasn't even a question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>  Yep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You didn't see the question mark?
>>>>>>>  There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse
>>>>>>> for a bullshit artist.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a liar or simply too stupid to understand what a question
>>>>>> mark looks like.
>>>>>  We'll see...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it appeared:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>  So no question mark, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>>>
>>>> So you snipped the last half of that sentence...
>>>  Nope, what I snipped was a new sentence, stupid.
>>
>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>
> Irrelevant to your stupidity.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:01:43 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 18:46, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:19:13 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 17:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:59:34 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:56, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:41:54 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 15:11, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 09:55:28 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 14:08, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:34:33 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 13:25, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:57:27 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:52, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 07:22:04 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 12:12, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which would be my point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recall them with perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> video of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighbours
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed with one of my trees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I never claimed it was, so...?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your original was wrong with its EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect clarity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quoting myself here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with utter clarity...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even possible given your EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're also an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is one sentence...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...divided for effect...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a photo of what was happening in his life.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.
>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit, you bullshit artist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't even a question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You didn't see the question mark?
>>>>>>>> There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse
>>>>>>>> for a bullshit artist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're a liar or simply too stupid to understand what a question
>>>>>>> mark looks like.
>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it
>>>>>>> appeared:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with
>>>>>>> utter clarity...
>>>>>> So no question mark, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you snipped the last half of that sentence...
>>>> Nope, what I snipped was a new sentence, stupid.
>>>
>>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>> Irrelevant to your stupidity.