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.

> Posing an impossibility as a question.

It wasn't even a question.