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...

....didn't you?