This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please add photo sizes (height x width) for smaller standard camera in cell phones and keychain cameras.
Please consider adding some information on how much is usually cropped from the 3x by 4x dimension point shoot camera photos (i.e, not from a 3x2 DSLR) when they are printed on modern equipment at a local drug store. The usual crop is 8% from each of the long sides and 2% from the short sides. My tests on an 8mp photo had 160 pixels taken from each long side and 24 pixels taken from each short side. This is obviously photo-store pprinter dependant but is important to note because most people do not even know that they have cropped foreheads in printed photos. CVS, Walgreens, etc.
Would someone add a section about different colour filter arrays, like the Bayer pattern and other? Or perhaps beyond the scope of article.
Digital photography is a moving target. As a writer for 2 photo magazines and the author of an eBook for first-time shoppers (www.acpress.com), I have strong opinions.
Digital photography has been usurped by the computer industry, and this is not a good thing. We are going from a situation where a glass negative from the 1800s can still be printed to a file that can only be machine read. And the industry making the machine thinks anything beyond 18 months is a long time!
Those needing archival records still need to think in terms of properly processed black and white film.
I enjoy digital photography, but I do not trust the industry that is behind it.
John Stewart
This is mostly about the possibility digital data is completely lost. But what about decay in the film workflow? How does your film scanner work if you unbox it in 2015? Is the lamp gone? Is the mech rusted? Do you still have USB connectors on your PC? Where do you buy a new film scanner in 2015? How are your films? Not everyone stores it in a film museum. My negatives were in the shed by accident for 1 year, and are completely wasted. If people with digital photo's take good care, which is 2 hard drive copies at least at 2 locations all the time, and a total transfer every 2-3 year, there is not much too worry.
I extensively cut the cost comparison section, as IMO it wasn't particularly readable and the numbers jump around so much as to be not useful. --Robert Merkel 01:58, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Read this
http://megamyth.homestead.com/imageres.html
I removed the "maximum resolution" calculations that give the width and heigth as a function of total number of pixels. I think it was too much detail that's not very helpful to many people. --Mihai 07:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Question: I heard a calculation that represents the pixels to printing ratio. It seems pretty acurate, and its the one that I've been using, but I'd like to get some concensus before I put it up: Now keep in mind, most people don't print with full res, but the printing industry max is 300 dpi (I'm talking about chemical prints, not the inkjet ones that have unrealistic dpi's). Any higher resolution than 300dpi, and the human eye can't see the difference. At 300dpi a 4x6 image needs 4*300x6*300=2160000 or 2.1MP. based on this calculation, a full res 8x10 needs 7.2MP, and a 16x20 would take 28.8MP. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks DR 12:26, January 11, 2005
I think this article could be greatly improved if you tell readers:
All these arguments are pretty much history today. Shutterlag is around 40ms today, not much different than the film reflex, multiple pictures: don't make me laugh. A DSLR can make 100 images at 5fps. How would you change 2 film cartridges in those 20 seconds and still shoot 100 photos? Boot time is instant on now. LCD's not visible? You're kidding. Film is always unvisible until processing. And we're talking DSLR, the LCD is not used for taking the pictures itself. Useless with dim light? Why that. The usability depends on lens and chip-size. With the old mf primes and full frame sensors, this is no different than with film cameras. And all those aps-size sensor cameras in use? Their customers used to photograph with entry level film SLR's and pocket camera's. Guess they see enough improvement too. Last thing, the batteries. What is easier: to find some CR2 cells or to find a common Nikon/Canon accu? And hey, we have rechargers that work anywhere, thanks to switching PSU's that eat any AC current. Those super easy penlites are never used in film cameras too! But current batterypacks and flashlights still accept penlites like they always did.
Digital photography have many restrictions. If you know what to avoid, you may find yourself a good DC that's also inexpensive. Only if you know what is your most wanted feature.
By the way, don't you guys remember that there were some professional digital cameras attached to the back of an ordinary SLR camera?
-- Toytoy
While I agree that the shutter lag on DC's can be annoying, most of the newer point and shoots and DSLRs have minimized that time to a negligable factor. The biggest problem now, from where I see it, is in focusing time - and that was a problem in film cameras as well - ever tried to use a canon sure shot? It takes a year to focus on anything! I realize that a lot of this discussion is old, but newer cameras can take pics in quick succession. Canon's 20D can do 5 frames per second, and the Nikon coolpix series has a burst mode and will even pick the best shot. These issues are starting to get out of date. As well, most of the other comments Toytoy (sorry if they weren't made by you) mentioned have been adressed by camera manufactorers and there are cameras on the market that can do all of the things mentioned. DR 12:39, 11, January 2005 but what is being done about the problem with the lcd not being visible in sunlight?????? that creates a lot of problems.
Is that really an advantage? I don't think so. With a DC, you can't change the CCD so the gamut and colour reproduction remain the same (if you do not consider the aging of circuits and temperature-induced CCD noises). But is that an advantage? With a traditional camera, if you don't like Kodak film, you can always buy Fuji. I think this is the advantage. If you want to picture mountains, use Fuji. If you want to picture your sweetheart, use Kodak. If you want to picture your mother-in-law, use that roll of decades-old Sakura film you found last week in your attic. -- Toytoy 17:38, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
Umm... about the subsection at the bottom of this section, the one involving aspect ratios? Why wouldnt the lab simply use different sizes of paper on which to print your picture? That particular subsection implies a logical fallacy: That there is only one possible aspect ratio at which to print both film and digital. Certainly if one really wanted to, they could probably just cut the ugly blocks off the edge of the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.89.116 (talk • contribs)
User:81.131.249.189 repeatedly removes statements that claim digital cameras approach the quality of 35mm cameras. I added a link to this site [1] which shows that the EOS-1ds can beat the detail of 35mm and even medium format film. Can you back up your edits please? Rhobite 17:46, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
That 19 megapixel is very theoretical. My Nikon FX format DSLR has better fine contrast than any film I used, it has better dynamic range than all negative films I used, it has less and better looking grain up to 1600 iso than most 100iso slide films. It also completely lacks the highlight blowout artifacts of cheaper cameras. For image quality, film is now surpassed by digital on every aspect except for the quality in direct big size projection.
the is little differnce between high end digtal slr's and film slr's in speed of use. this is also true for the full range of cameras film and digital. startup time for a cheap compact can be a long as a cheap digital. pro digital slrs as ready to shoot as soon as they are turned on.
as for speed of taking images fps (frames per second) should be cited as high end digital and film camera are very close. atthe low end of the scale there are also many simialities. Ohka- 20:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Given the popularity single-use film cameras had on the film camera market, I felt it necessary to add mention about the handful of single-use digital cameras that are now available. I am the owner of one of these...but of course I modified it to be reusable. I highly doubt single-use digital cameras will have the same amount of impact that single-use film cameras had, but they still are worth mentioning. Torin Darkflight 05:50, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
I propose to grade digital cameras into several categories:
(From high-end to low-end)
-- Toytoy 14:03, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
the focal length section is misleading. the 35mm camera to digital back example does not exist. the only (fortcoming) digital back for a 35mm slr has a conversion factor of 1.37 (Leica Digital Module [3]). the example of a 2.0 conversion should be removed as it does not reflect the current level of digital technology. Most digital slr's have a conversion factor of 1.4 to 1.6. for eample a 1.6 camera such as the Nikon D100 will result in a 50mm lens regeristering the same focal length as a 80mm lens, see below for more examples:
lastly some digital slrs have full frame sensors and therefore no conversion factor:
(http://www.cameraworld.com/product/541161477.htm indicates a Lens Focal Length Conversion Factor*: Approx. 1.3 times, although)
the 4/3 system is different due to the custom made lenses. is hould also be remeberd that focal length also differs with different format film cameras and is not a 'fault' of the digital system.
i therefore propose that the focal length section of the article be ammended, including removal of current image (i am prepearing some images). Ohka- 09:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Something for the "to do list" for this page - a history section! Noting that it was the twentieth birthday of digital photography this year, NewScientist commented on the way the developmental and comercial history of digital photography gets ignored much more than that of the PC or Internet. Joe D (t) 23:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-According to the Worldbook online, the first digital 'photograph' [They use the term "image"; I guess either word could cause a problem - but it is referring to an automatic re-creation of an image, as opposed to a creation of an image, so I think it should go in here} was much earlier than given in our article. It was by Russell Kirsch in 1957 (http://www.worldalmanac.com/blog/2007/05/the_first_digital_image.html). Kdammers (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to add a section explaining some popular digital imaging techniques, such as bracketing, noise removal, editing with imaging software, etc.
The article says: "The maximum number of frames per second (frame/s) achievable on digital and film cameras is 8 frame/s (Nikon D2H digital SLR, Nikon F5 35 mm film SLR). Canon 1D Mark II can achieve 8.5 frame/s which makes it fastest SLR camera in the world."
I'm curious where this information came from. Besides being self-contradictory (is the maximum 8 or 8.5?), it seems wrong.
The EOS-1N RS (introduced March 1995), for example, has a continuous shooting speed of 10 fps. The EOS-1V HS (introduced March 2000, still available) can shoot at 10 fps continuously. (So if you just wanted to find the fastest SLR, it's a film body.)
I don't know the digital side very well, but the Olympus E-100 RS claims to do 15 fps. Of course, it's also ("only") 1.5 megapixels, and you can't get 15 fps in its high quality setting, so it's for a completely different market than the EOS-1N RS.
I guess the moral of the story is that cameras are fast enough these days. (If you need more than 10-15 fps, you'd use a camcorder.)
This article looks like it was written for engineers. There are no overviews, no explanatory text. Instead, lots is detailed analysis, and lists of reasons that digital is better/worse than film. It seems to me that this should be much more beginner friendly. Someone who doesn't know what digital photoghaphy is and is looking it up in an encyclopedia is going to be turned away by this article. I think it needs massive restructuring. --jacobolus (t) 00:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The advantages of film seems to have been written by a film enthusiast with a strong POV who has only used very expensive film cameras and cheap digital, and most of the points are worthless/illogical for one reason or another as I will show (my comments indented in bold)
I would say the only real advantages of film are: people already own film cameras (obvious but valid), no computer needed, on average they are simpler, they are initially cheaper (although photos from them are more expensive). Bluemoose
Note that the Gigapxl project relies on digitizing the 2444 negative [Heidelberg scanner], and possibly reaching 6352MP with the Asymmagon lens, as compared to the 297MP of the Betterlight 10K digital back. cquarksnow 16:44, 2005 Dec 14 (UTC)
The section on advantages of film may well be biased, and in cases of disagreements it is policy to present all POVs. However, this edit made a point of ignoring or disputing obviously valid issues, was very un-encyclopedic in style and generally over the top. I reverted it. Rl 09:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I've just put in a request for an article on purple fringing. I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it, but I expect someone reading this page can probably help.
Here is one online source [4], but I find their claim that the cause is still debated, quite hard to believe. -- Solipsist 16:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maybe because there is more than one cause? 147.80.185.181 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are we comparing "expensive" high-end film cameras with low-end "consumer" digital cameras?
At least Canon cameras and printers have a feature to link and print photos without the need of a computer, so this is not true. Also, most 'professional' locations that print analog photos also print digital photos, so, all you have to do is let the CD/memory card in there to print.
All my digital prints are also "produced professionally with reasonably permanent results" and most people I know do the same way. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 8 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can say why there is no page detailing film cameras in general? the comparsions of digital film on this page are mostly out of place. for example whilst there are many types of media there are also many types of film (35, APS, 120 etc), negative, positive, b&w, IR (etc) and many film speeds. working in a camera shop i know that many consumers get confused as to what they should be using.
i would argue that the clearest example of an advantage of film is archival purposes. A properly conserved, large format postive (slide film) requires no addtional devices for viewing. Ohka- 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to start a page about film cameras in general - it would be a useful addition to WP - I might well have stuff, even photos of equipment, to add to such a page, since I have used film cameras from Minox 8x11 mm to Sinar & Linhof 9x12 cm! --Janke | Talk 10:11:29, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
That's it for now. Hope you don't mind ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:11:29, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
A few things:
That's it here, too, for now. --Janke | Talk 10:53:15, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
Shouldn't we try to keep down the "advantages" sections, both film and digital. Especially, the film section has grown uncontrollably. This article is about digital cameras, not film cameras. I'm trimming down the film section quite a bit, leaving the most important stuff, and removing that which has an "opposite" in the digital section. If you feel I've been too heavy-handed, pleas re-insert, but try to keep it concise, thanks! --Janke | Talk 07:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I just removed all this, it is all wrong; (comments added)
To upload, to sort through, to organize and to print proof sheets for the 290 digital frames took about six hours of my time on the computers, and about another four hours of time for the computer to run batch processes on the photo files (and I have pretty good computers). That's about ten hours to edit that shoot.
To edit my eight rolls of film, to enter the photo info into my computer database and assign each photo a file number, and to label the slides ... that all took a grand total of two hours.
Martin 08:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Since this article is about digital cameras, I changed "Advantages of film" to "Disadvantages of digital". This will probably also keep some film afficionados from bloating this section. What do you think? --Janke | Talk 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This is probably a sensible trend, as digital photography evolves much faster. Was anyone able to reference the 1135MP resolution quoted for large format, aside the lens ? I could only figure 669MP with the (unique) Polaroid 80" x 40" camera using T-809 film (9 line pairs/mm ==> 36576 x 18288), well beyond the 297MP of the Betterlight back anyway. Also on the Gigapixel project [5] I gather that the Kodak 2444 film can achieve 125 lp/mm , equivalent to 6350dpi (2 dots per line pair), thus resulting in a theoretical 57150 x 114300 [6532 MP] using 9" x 18" film, short of the Asymmagon lens MTF performance. -- cquarksnow 16:23, 13 December 2005
Comment from a passerby as I'm browsing on through: This "There is no company, as of January 2006, that has software that can detect what, if anything, has been altered." seems to imply that A) No software development occurs outside of for-profit organizations, and B) no digital manipulation can ever be detected by humans without the aid of software. Would not a simple statement that there is no reliable way to detect manipulation be better? Howdoesthiswo 01:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Digital photography/Temp contains a test version of the history of digital cameras. Include it if its fine.
Shashank Shekhar 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
At "Capture format: pixel count, digital file type (RAW, TIFF, JPEG), film format (135 film, 120 film, 5x4, 10x8). " say why you are still talking about film. Perhaps just for 'camera back sizes?'
At first mention of 1/1.8, say why you use such difficult units.
Say why if we want to shoot star trails with hours long exposures, we would still want a film camera... I mean you make it seem digital is best for astro photography but at the low $$ end, tell if the opposite applies. Say what digital "bulb" (open shutter) is like and involved factors.
I like the cameras that use standard usb storage specifications when it comes to interfacing with computers. You don't have to install any software to download images from the camera to the PC. The camera just shows up as another drive on the computer, and you can transfer your images that way. When I was doing stuff for church, I'd sometimes have the camera that belonged to the church, and I soon found out that if I wanted to transfer pictures I had taken to my computer that I had to first go out to the camera manufacturer's web site and download drivers first before the camera would talk to the computer. I just got my second digital camera (another Sony) and I was glad to see that Sony still has their cameras show up as a USB mass storage device - I haven't even opened the disc that came with the camera yet.
JesseG 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Film cameras require no batteries to actually store the image on film, whoever reverted my edit needs to read up a little ;)--Mincetro 08:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
a cupla points:
-- film cameras that used batteries only for the meter or for the meter and some but not all shutter speeds were readily available through the 1990s and a few are still made.
-- the comment about "quarter century ago" raises an important point, ie, that the characteristics and capablities of a film camera are in large part determined by the film that is loaded into into it. so a well made old camera becomes a state of the art image maker when state of the art film is loaded (though it may not offer state of the art convenience). there are plenty of decades old film cameras still going strong and producing excellent quality images.
There are at least two areas which are treated a bit generally and would benefit from clearer distinctions:
-- The archival charactertistics of film is treated as a single topic. It is really two as silver based and dye based images have different archival characteristics.
-- The lag problem of digital cameras is blamed on autofocus mechanisms. Slow autofocus can effect film cameras that have autofocus too. Digital cameras have other potential sources of lag because the other electronics that run the camera can take time to boot up (or wake up). At the moment this characteristic varies from one product to the next and is an area of competition between vendors. Nikon is advertising exceptionally fast boot-up. I suspect that pretty soon all the vendors will figure out how to beat this problem and it will go away, but for now it's an issue.
- ef
The following ideas are alluded to in a round-about way but not spelled out concisely:
-- Film tends to require modest capital investment and expensive materials.
-- At least until recently film cameras have tended to remain current partly because film kept getting better. An old high quality camera loaded with state of the art film can become a state of the art imaging device.
-- Digital offers reduced materials costs at the cost of greater capital investment for a given level of image quality and capabilities.
-- Digital permits many users to execute more of the process in-house without modifying the environment very much and using familiar tools. (It may actually be cheaper to set up for chemical processing and do it than to upgrade computer gear for digital imaging, but darkroom work requires creating a special environment for the work and more specialized skills.)
-- Film and digital is not necessarily and either or choice. They are often used in combination. Images originated on film are frequently scanned for digital post-processing and/or distribution. Film recorders can be used to make film images from digital images. (Sections on scanners and film recorders -- or mention with links to separate articles -- would be a good addition.)
-- The diversity of RAW image file formats has been a problem, but that may be lessening. There are a couple of formats now being used by more than one camera/back maker (Adobe and Kodak) that I know of. An update on this would be nice.
I think the section on archiving needs to be reworked. There are several omissions that taken together are misleading.
-- It is true that digital copies cause no quality loss. However, that is not the only determinant of archival characteristics.
-- Digital copies must be stored on *something* and problems with digital archives have less to do with the file contents and formats than the media the files are stored on. There are two main concerns about digital media.
-- -- Longevity of the media: "Archival" in the IT world usualy refers to the period of time a business is required to retain it's records, ie ten years. While there have been institutions that retain data for many decades until the recent popularity of digital media they have been the exception, and some have had problems. (NASA had some problems with tape print-through that got some publicity a few years ago.) However, since in the IT world data loss is embarassing at best, its not something a typical IT shop would go public with and it's hard to know how much has occurred.
In the mean time there have been anacdotal reports of consumer grade optical disks becoming unreadable after only a few years. I haven't been able to determine how wide spread this has been, or what factors have been involved. Some input from someone with more expertise in this area would be welcome. In any event, as the technology is relatively new, the predictions about longevity are just that. There is no track record.
-- -- Hardware availablitly: Data storage technology changes quickly and devices become obsolete quickly. If you'd like to keep image for up to a century are you confident that you successors be able to find a working CD-ROM toward the end of that period. Two inch quad video tape was the industy standard format for commercial telvision for years. Now machines that can play those tapes are very scarce. Tried to find a drive to read Bournuli disks? or Jazz disks? or single sided Mac diskettes lately?
-- So digital archiving requires constantly copying the archives to new, current media to assure that the media will be intact and that there will be machinary to read it with. This is an ever-increasing on-going expense, and operation that is easily overlooked, postponed, or cut from a tight budget.
-- Digital images cannot be read without loading them from media into computer memory. This makes indexing and cataloging more critical. It also slows the processes of verifying that a particular piece of media has the desired images and/or determining if the images on a given peice of media are worth keeping at all.
-- Silver based film images have now been around for a century. (There have been some problems with base materials along the way that have been resolved.) There is a track record. The images last. You can see the images with the naked eye, making image evalutation fast and easy. As the technoloy required to print from silver negatives is fairly low tech it can probably be recreated if it becomes commercialy scarce.
-- Dye base slides and negatives can fade. Dye based prints of digital images can fade too. This is less a film vs digital question than a dye vs silver issue. Color images can be archived as color seperations on silver negatives. Film recorders can be used to make silver images (composite or seperations) from digital images.
-- IMHO, on the whole, silver images on film are the hands-down champ in the archival department. In many respects they may seem expensive and inconvenient and they may no longer be the medium of choice for many applications, but this is one area in which they clearly excel.
The article mentions that digital camera don't do well in low light (if I recall correctly.) This is changing fast. Max ISO equivelent has been stuck at 1600 for a while (and a bit noisy in some cases) but the integration of image stabilization (or vibration reduction if you prefer) technology into more cameras and lenses is adding the equivilent of a stop or two. This is an area to keep tabs on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Er1cF (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's been up to 3200 ISO for a couple of years. Canon IS lenses add up to three stops of anti-shake for slow shutterspeeds. Hu 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we create additional categories for digital camera articles? I think DSCs can be grouped by:
These categories may be helpful to DSC users and buyers. -- Toytoy 04:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
How about a "future of photography" or "current research" section?
Lighting, optics, sensors, processing, and display are all seeing innovation. With the suggestion of profound change in the pipeline. Examples... Computer controlled lighting (a user photographing an object says "soften that shadow" and the light sources adapt). Optics like the "flutter shutter". Four-channel and gradient pixel sensors. Combining images to get 3D models. Integrating lighting/optics/sensor/display control and analysis into a flexible/powerful blob. HDR displays.
Digital photography is still almost entirely film-like. But that is starting to change, with nifty possibilities. 66.30.117.127 22:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea, but "futures" are not really the subject matter of the encyclopedia, which describes things as they are or have been. A "Current research" section is a possibility if it is firmly rooted in what has been accomplished already. You could use the See Also section to point to some articles that document these Research and Development advances. Hu 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add a reference to my website (a non commercial site) for further reading on the history of digital photography. The page I have in mind is http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/history_of_digital_photography.html
The whole section of my site concerning the history of digital photography is over five pages. Please do have a look, and if you think it should go into the "External Links" or "Resources" section, I'd be obliged if you could add it.
Dazp1970 12:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
.....I took a look at the site you mentioned and I think it is a good one to add to the External Links" section. I have added it there. --Ftord1960 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find your addition in the External Links section, but have now added the link myself. If it is no longer of relevance, please remove it, or possibly give a suggestion as to where the link could be better placed. Dazp1970 11:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have today re-added two links that were recently removed. One is to a page on digital photography terminology, and one to a page on the history of digital photography.
These are two pages from my own website that I feel are of relevance to Wikipedia. They have also both been "approved" by other Wikipedia members.
When the links were added, I was queried as to whether the information from my site could just be addedd to Wikipedia. Well, I think the terminology page is too long to be added. And the page on the history of digital photography leads to other pages that trace the story of digital photography. Again, this is too long to add directly to Wikipedia, and the style of my pages is more "story of" rather than "here are some facts".
However, having said all that, if anyone wants to take the information from my site and tailor it to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. As long as I get credited for the original work, I'm more than happy!
Dazp1970 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. My site relates to the criteria under "What should be linked", part 4, where it states "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"
Thanks for clarifying the situation with regard to incorporating material. I was thinking along the lines of a mention under the "References" section, rather than attribution.
Dazp1970 06:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for your reply. I have already briefly described the content of my pages (see above), and of course, there's nothing to stop anyone who is interested looking for themselves.
I have read the section on references. The second bullet point provides this reason for adding a reference "To credit a source for providing useful information". If my pages are the source, then they should be rightfully referenced.
My pages have been reviewed by previous Wikipedia members, and were recommended for inclusion (see "Ftord1960" above).
Finally, I have always signed my posts here with four tildes. Not sure what you mean by this?
I have to say, I get the distinct impression that my input is not wanted on Wikipedia. A shame, as I thought quality contributions were welcomed. Clearly I was wrong.
Dazp1970 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel I'm going round in circles. I've already explained why adding the content direct to Wikipedia is not appropriate, and others were happy for it to be added as an external link. I've also stated that if someone else wants to use my site directly then they can, provided it was referenced. I've followed the guidelines (and have quoted from them above), but what's the point in following them if everything gets changed simply because another user doesn't like something? The majority of us with something to contribute might as well all pack up & go home and leave it to a small group of like minded people. After all, if we add something of relevance they'll only change it, whether we followed the guidelines or not.
Dazp1970 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
On your points; I stated that photocopiers stem from this technology, I didn't say they share the same technology. Similarly few people would dispute that digital cameras stem from film cameras, yet the technology involved is vastly different. On your second point, I seriously doubt that anyone could find fault in my statement that if the film didn't make it back to Earth you wouldn't have any pictures at all. I think you misunderstand what my pages are. They are a brief history of digital photography, not a complete history, and not an encyclopedia. My pages are for interested people to have an enjoyable and informative read, that might spark their interest to delve even further. Interested people like Wikipedia readers. It's presented as an extra for readers, not a substitute.
As I said before, we're going round in circles. I still feel that external sources are valuable, and they don't have to be just a collection of facts for them to be of interest to readers. You will continue to want facts, facts and then more facts, and who cares if it's interesting or not. And as I stated a long way up this thread, little point in people like myself adding to Wikipedia. We'll only get brushed aside by those who disagree with our opinions, whether we follow the guielines or not.
Dazp1970 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see now that I did something dumb in adding explanations about Resolution at the end of the table of Common resolutions because there was already a section about Pixel counts. I hadn't even noticed that section.
Now there are sections about both Pixel counts and Resolution. Surely these should be merged into one section? And without starting a conflict between the Foveon fans and the Foveon skeptics? (There's currently an incorrect statement regarding Foveon sensors, "while the cameras with Foveon sensors produce uninterpolated image files with one-third as many RGB pixels as photosensors" - the Sigma SD14 with its interpolated JPEG format has changed that.) --RenniePet 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I would **NOT** call your addition "dumb". :)
I think the pixel count and resolution should stay separate: resolution depends on the physical geometry which makes it independent of pixel count. I more than welcome any cleaning up or rewriting you want to do though. Cburnett 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a major issue for me, but I would like to indicate a negative vote for the change that shows aspect ratios as Yes | No in two columns. Partly because it (currently) gives the impression of providing a lot of unnecessary (redundant) information, since a Yes in one column implies a No in the other column. (That could change if a future camera is made that supports both aspect ratios.) And partly because it prevents indication of an aspect ration such as 16:9, which the article claims is available on a Panasonic camera from 2005 (but not mentioned in the Common resolutions table.) In other words, I liked the previous method using non-breaking spaces better. --RenniePet 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd try something different and I pretty much agree with the sentiments here. What I propose is two separate images: one with a 3:2 and another with a 4:3 ratio. I think it would set them apart visually (the original issue with using text) while not being redundant as with the yes/no columns. Cburnett 19:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the ((refimprove)) at the top of the article. Please tag individual items that need citations. Cburnett (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
i like to learn about photography. Please send me notes from the bigining to nalanu80@yahoo.com.
Thank You. Nalaka - Srilanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.56.178 (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |