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.