And what was the topic of this thread? I seem to have forgotten but it's good for a laugh anyway.
Jack
Jack
Upvote
0
... Here in a nation founded on tax rebellion, literally no individual anywhere has ever sent in uncollected state sales tax on an internet purchase ...
Under continuous shooting/continuous AF this should be true for the 2nd or 3rd frame forward. But as the recent TDP review of the RF 100mm macro shows, you can still get focus shift with single shot AF because the initial acquisition is made wide open. Focus shift is really something that should be managed at the lens firmware level though, and I imagine Canon will fix it there at some point.Plus, if a lens shifts a focal plane with aperture, you simply don't care!
If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images. Suppose you are trying to separate adjacent images of points, then it's the linear resolution in all directions that determines whether the points are visibly separable from their neighbours. And, that's what I want know about a sensor; how much does it resolve fine detail? And that resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels, and not the number of pixels. That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2. Similarly with the focal length of lenses. An increase from 400mm to 500mm increases the number of pixels per duck by a factor of (500/400)^2 but resolves detail on that duck by a factor of only 500/400. And the resolution of lenses is also given in linear MTFs or linear line-pairs/mm etc or in angular degrees and not degrees^2.Linear resolution sure, but I look at the difference as data points, and that is what images are made of. 24,000,000 is 20% more than 20,000,000.
I don’t see that it is relevant or fair to refer to a two dimensional image in one dimension.
Well... Would you rather argue about whether or not EXIF info is actually confirmation, and in which newfangled ways Canon is DoOoMED because they still dare to listen to their market instead of the internet?And what was the topic of this thread? I seem to have forgotten but it's good for a laugh anyway.
Jack
Nonetheless, 24 MP is 20 % more than 20 MP. It isn't really wrong to call that resolution, is it? What else does MP measure? Sure, it is ambiguous, but just from the natural way of reading it, stating that 24 MP is ~10 % more resolution than 20 MP is somewhat odd. Clarifying that linear resolution is meant would help.If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images. Suppose you are trying to separate adjacent images of points, then it's the linear resolution in all directions that determines whether the points are visibly separable from their neighbours. And, that's what I want know about a sensor; how much does it resolve fine detail? And that resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels, and not the number of pixels. That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2. Similarly with the focal length of lenses. An increase from 400mm to 500mm increases the number of pixels per duck by a factor of (500/400)^2 but resolves detail on that duck by a factor of only 500/400. And the resolution of lenses is also given in linear MTFs or linear line-pairs/mm etc or in angular degrees and not degrees^2.
Just to hang a few numbers on the 'trivial small percentage' you're talking about, in 2018 (the year prior to SD v. Wayfair), there was an estimated $517B in e-commerce, and the national average state-level sales and use tax rate was 5.11%. So, that 'trivial small percentage' represented about $26 billion dollars of lost state revenue in 2018. That's more money than the annual government budgets of 2/3 of the countries in the world.InchMetric said:
No one cares about the trivial small percentage of unpaid uncollected tax...
So, that 'trivial small percentage' represented about $26 billion dollars of lost state revenue in 2018.
I’ve 50 plus items listed and have always got all the money. It’s sold for apart from the 10% eBay fee. Uk VAT is 20% I’d have noticed if a huge chunk was missing. I agree it says it, I’ve just never ever seen it in practice. Granted I’ve never sold more than £10k a year. Pretty sure you been to turn over £85k/year before you have to register for vat.That is not true. Everything I've sold on Ebay in the last year ran sales tax on my buyers. I am a private seller.
Paying tax on eBay purchases
Many countries and jurisdictions around the world apply some type of tax on consumer purchases, including items bought on eBay. Whether the tax is included in the listing price, added at checkout, charged at the border, or paid directly by the buyer depends on the seller's status, the order...www.ebay.com
The answer is simple: if someone is talking resolution difference, that should mean total resolution, and therefore 24mp is 20% more than 20mp. If someone wants to refer to linear resolution, he or she should specify that upfront. Then there is no confusion.If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images. Suppose you are trying to separate adjacent images of points, then it's the linear resolution in all directions that determines whether the points are visibly separable from their neighbours. And, that's what I want know about a sensor; how much does it resolve fine detail? And that resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels, and not the number of pixels. That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2. Similarly with the focal length of lenses. An increase from 400mm to 500mm increases the number of pixels per duck by a factor of (500/400)^2 but resolves detail on that duck by a factor of only 500/400. And the resolution of lenses is also given in linear MTFs or linear line-pairs/mm etc or in angular degrees and not degrees^2.
Well there is no doubt you are more scientific than I am, and a much more knowledgeable mathematician!If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images. Suppose you are trying to separate adjacent images of points, then it's the linear resolution in all directions that determines whether the points are visibly separable from their neighbours. And, that's what I want know about a sensor; how much does it resolve fine detail? And that resolution scales with the square root of the number of pixels, and not the number of pixels. That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2. Similarly with the focal length of lenses. An increase from 400mm to 500mm increases the number of pixels per duck by a factor of (500/400)^2 but resolves detail on that duck by a factor of only 500/400. And the resolution of lenses is also given in linear MTFs or linear line-pairs/mm etc or in angular degrees and not degrees^2.
My biggest complaint with CRAW is that it prevents DLO from working, so I have to remember to switch back to regular RAW when using lenses like then EF28 f/1.8.Actually, my bad, I’m sorry. You are correct. It is the same but depth. I was confusing electronic shutter and CRAW. Both raw formats become 12 bit when using electronic shutter.
However, CRAW is compressed. That compression is “lossy” or in other words not “lossless”. You do loose information by compressing the file. What you get back is not exactly the same as what you started with. It may be very hard to tell the difference, but Canon do admit there is one.
But people accurately stating what they mean is very difficult across a basic earth wide platform where it is difficult to express differences in understanding, education, language, technical references etc etc.The answer is simple: if someone is talking resolution difference, that should mean total resolution, and therefore 24mp is 20% more than 20mp. If someone wants to refer to linear resolution, he or she should specify that upfront. Then there is no confusion.
That answer may be simple, but it is simply wrong. Resolution is a linear measure, pixels per inch etc. See also for printing: printer resolution is given in dots per inch or metric equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch If you think you are correct, please define what "total resolution" is and where it is used technically. As you probably know, resolution can be different in different directions - astigmatism - and resolution in MTF charts is given in sagital and meridonial lines at right angles to each other.The answer is simple: if someone is talking resolution difference, that should mean total resolution, and therefore 24mp is 20% more than 20mp. If someone wants to refer to linear resolution, he or she should specify that upfront. Then there is no confusion.
Well, judging by the rate the pro 1 series sensor mpixels increase we will get 75 to 100 mpixels (for these models) by the year 2200 to 2300I was really looking forward to the R3 as I was expecting the sensor to be in the 75 to 100mpx range.
If it has only a 25mpx sensor... I will personally be passing until mk2 or mk3 etc if and when the model refresh has at least treble the 25mpx size.
But to determine how many discrete points of data are visibly separate from their neighbors in an image, you have to apply that measurement from a single dimension to both dimensions. It's really not accurate to say that a 24mp sensor resolves only 9.6% more data than a 20mp sensor when it is capturing 20% more data points. It is a two dimensional sensor after all, and we look at two dimensional images.If you are interested only in the number of pixels in an image, fair enough to compare the number of pixels in a sensor. If you are interested in how well that sensor resolves detail, then it is the square root that is crucial. It is scientifically correct to use linear (one-dimensional) resolution for determining the resolution of two-dimensional images.
We throw around single numbers out of convenience. If you really want to model the performance of an optical system you need to measure lp/mm horizontally or vertically, and then also along the diagonal. You basically need two measurements which betrays the fact that we're dealing with an array of data in two dimensions. So yes, 24mp really is resolving 20% more data than 20mp, assuming of course that every pixel captures a distinct point.That is why the resolution of sensors is given in line-pairs/mm or lines per picture height, ie linear resolution, and not (line-pairs/mm)^2.
Canon doesn’t care... at least that’s something we can both agree on...WHYYYY?? Because that’s what Canon believes the intended market segment will buy. Apparently you are not the part of intended market segment. Canon doesn’t care.