Products > Test Equipment

Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

<< < (24154/25808) > >>

Robert763:

--- Quote from: Cerebus on May 26, 2022, 11:41:15 am ---
--- Quote from: Robert763 on May 26, 2022, 07:07:52 am ---There are issues with more active pixels on the same size sensor. One that a lot of people miss is dynamic range. A small active area (pixel) is both less sensitive and saturates at a lower level. The ratio of active area to dead space (interconnects readout circuitry etc) goes down too. These can be fudged with processing but the raw data is still poorer. You really notive these effects when using imaging sensors for measurement purposes.
More is not automatically better

--- End quote ---

All that is true but for photographic purposes it's not really the limiting factor. Almost any reasonably modern sensor intended for photographic use can beat film in terms of dynamic range. However the ability to shift gain (aka alter the equivalent ISO number) on digital sensors tends, I suspect, to mean that this isn't always taken advantage of by being operated at the optimum exposure whereas with film you were forced to.

With the sensor disposed of the limiting factor becomes the lens in front of it and there's no doubt that this is what makes the most difference. People are quite often surprised to find that a digital photo of mine that they like, that beats their jigapixel digital picture, was made with a humble 17 year old, 6 megapixel Nikon D70. Of course the secret is that it was made with a decent lump of glass in front of the sensor with perhaps twice the resolving power of the lens on their latest Apple/Samsung/Whatever with a much more modern, better, and higher resolution sensor.

--- End quote ---

Yep, when I was more into DSLRs I spent more on the lenses (Canon "L") than the camera (20D) but that was many years ago.

tggzzz:

--- Quote from: Vince on May 26, 2022, 10:53:12 am ---Yeah real estate agencies are used to tricking people ! :-DD

In this pic they went too far though, making the pic "suspicious"  ;D

I mean the sky is SO blue that you would expect all that light to also affect the trees and make them much more bright and vibrant, not a dark dull greeN.
same for the stone walls.

Pic is not consistent "enough" light-wise to be credible, run away people, don't buy it !  >:D

Were it me I would have made the sky a bit less luminous, touched the trees to make them more vibrant, and "cleaned up" the RHS wall  >:D

--- End quote ---

Yes and no! The trees are darker under any lighting conditions, but the ashlar stonework is a "honey" colour that is typical of this area.

Here's a more representative picture, although not taken on the same day. (bd is too pessimistic!)



As for "run away, run away", there was a house nearby that fell (no pun) into that category....

It was sold in Jan 2020, and the new owners decided to update it. The problem was that it was a "listed" house (like my parents' house), which means you have to get formal official permission before making changes.

When it came on the market, the slideshow indicated that the floorboards were up, there were significant gaps in the wall, and an RSJ was visible. WTF?!

Our estate agent sold the house in 2020, and he said the new owners had been sufficiently incompetent about the updating that it had caused large cracks in the neighbouring property, and hence large lawsuits. Apparently the bank repossessed the property after it initially failed to sell. My daughter said people would have to pay her to take it off their hands!

bd139:

--- Quote from: Cerebus on May 26, 2022, 11:41:15 am ---
--- Quote from: Robert763 on May 26, 2022, 07:07:52 am ---There are issues with more active pixels on the same size sensor. One that a lot of people miss is dynamic range. A small active area (pixel) is both less sensitive and saturates at a lower level. The ratio of active area to dead space (interconnects readout circuitry etc) goes down too. These can be fudged with processing but the raw data is still poorer. You really notive these effects when using imaging sensors for measurement purposes.
More is not automatically better

--- End quote ---

All that is true but for photographic purposes it's not really the limiting factor. Almost any reasonably modern sensor intended for photographic use can beat film in terms of dynamic range. However the ability to shift gain (aka alter the equivalent ISO number) on digital sensors tends, I suspect, to mean that this isn't always taken advantage of by being operated at the optimum exposure whereas with film you were forced to.

With the sensor disposed of the limiting factor becomes the lens in front of it and there's no doubt that this is what makes the most difference. People are quite often surprised to find that a digital photo of mine that they like, that beats their jigapixel digital picture, was made with a humble 17 year old, 6 megapixel Nikon D70. Of course the secret is that it was made with a decent lump of glass in front of the sensor with perhaps twice the resolving power of the lens on their latest Apple/Samsung/Whatever with a much more modern, better, and higher resolution sensor.

--- End quote ---

I actually had a D70. Nice camera :)

Completely agree. I'm going to be honest and say I rather like the modern smartphone cameras. You can get some shockingly good results out of them but the lack of glass is mostly what kills them for me. I missed a lot of opportunities. So I traded someone else's kidney for some mirrorless kit  :-DD

Cerebus:

--- Quote from: med6753 on May 26, 2022, 11:38:36 am ---Some good news here. My daily insulin routine is having some positive effects. Since upping the daily shot from 10 units to 15 units my fasting blood sugar has come down dramatically. Tuesday was 120mg/dL. Yesterday 113mg/dL. This morning 109mg/dL. For a non-diabetic should ideally be 100mg/dL or less. But anything under 120mg/dL is considered "acceptable". So I'm getting there.  :-+

--- End quote ---

Good news.

A word of caution if I may, and I'll add that you've said nothing to make me suspect you're doing this, so treat this as a public service announcement and not directed at you. A doctor I was talking to once said that it was "Important to remember to treat the patient or disease, not treat the numbers". With any physiological process that can spit out numbers ostensibly characterising how 'good' or 'bad' things are there's a tendency for both doctors and patients (also public health authorities and policy makers) to fixate on the numbers, sometimes to the detriment of the person/people being treated.

In a perfectly healthy individual you can expect the numbers to bounce around from day to day and it's important to remember that you're measuring a noisy process, with the analytical equivalent of 2 or 3 digit DVM, and also that the 'normal' figures are derived from population norms that are themselves noisy and sometimes from such small sample sizes that it'd be embarrassing to be caught relying on them. Thus the practical difference between 109mg/dL and 'normal' is a bit like the practical difference between 5.25V on a rail and the nominal 5V figure. Sure, if you've got a handy adjustment and an accurate enough meter you'd probably adjust that rail to 5.00V but you don't actually have to. As long as the device is working well 5.25V is fine, and similarly with disease processes that have 'numbers', as long as the patient is healthy that's the important thing, not that the 'numbers' are spot on. On the particular subject of diabetes I wonder what effect happens  in the US where 3 digit mg/dL figures are used, versus places that use mmol/L figures that are usually expressed as two digits - that 109 mg/dL would come out as 6.1 mmol/L. Does it predispose people to inappropriate over-precision because there are 3 rather than 2 digits in the number?

With diabetes we're quite lucky that HbA1c figures give a much better picture than regular blood sugar readings, so those are the numbers to pay attention to. Of course with HbA1c being a long term measurement they are much harder to tune in (long phase delay in the control loop). Beware doctors who inappropriately obsess on short term measures of physiology (like instantaneous blood sugar measurements) versus long term ones (like HbA1c) and/or the actual health of their patients. For the avoidance of doubt there are, of course, values of short term measurements that need treating as medical emergencies, it's quite right to react to 'numbers' that are so statistically significantly off the norm that they indicate an immediate or immanent problem.

Specmaster:

--- Quote from: Cerebus on May 26, 2022, 11:14:16 am ---
--- Quote from: tautech on May 26, 2022, 03:47:46 am ---
--- Quote from: med6753 on May 26, 2022, 03:30:41 am ---Guess I'm gonna have to make more popcorn.       

--- End quote ---
:wtf: you through that whoppa bag already ?  :o

Dawn duels will be next.  :box:

--- End quote ---

Well you know what popcorn's like, you just keep dipping your hand in the bag without looking and all of a sudden it's empty and you want some more.  :)

I get Mike's point though. Whether he intends it to be so or not is another question, but Mnem's tone when he thinks he knows what he's talking about can get a bit



--- End quote ---
The important points to remember are though that as always, the advice on offer is always given with the very best of intentions and the other is that the reader accept that is the case, but whether they read or accept the advice, is their decision. We are all big boys here and if we all act like we believe we are, there will no arguments, no need to bring moderators in to sort things out, we will do that naturally by our own ethos. We all have different ideas and beliefs and adds to the spice of life. Long live this thread.  :-+

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version