Chris - twisting words to make things sound more important is not as bad as
frigging the numbers (<I>pace</I> VolksWagen). In this context I highly
recommend a book I'm reading called "How not to be wrong" (subtitled "The
hidden maths of everyday life") by Jordan Ellenberg...
Jez
On 23 September 2015 at 06:16, ChrisB <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks, Chuck. Now he has lost me: I noticed a couple of other
> idiosyncrasies of language and ignored them, but to call film an “image
> sensor” as if there were some physical similarity between film and a chip
> and I lose interest.
>
> I’m co-author on another science paper at the moment; I know the basis of
> the claims being made and I can see how words are being twisted (slightly)
> to make the claims sound more important. I now feel that this passage is
> using unnecessarily complicated terminology to present a more
> impressive-looking discussion and outcome. There might be some substance
> to the subjects which we have been discussing, but I have lost faith in the
> presentation and therefore some of that substance.
>
> It might not be complete bolleaux (pidgin French for bollocks) but it has
> the smell and feel . . .
>
> Chris
>
>
> > On 22 Sep 15, at 22:19, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Film vs digital. I wouldn't have known that if he hadn't clarified what
> he meant with: "... image-based sensors rely on photo-sensitive chemical
> reactions."
> >
> > Chuck Norcutt
> >
> >
> > On 9/22/2015 2:33 PM, ChrisB wrote:
> >> Thanks, Chuck. I did study physics, but I must have missed the
> >> lessons on digital sensors;-)
> >>
> >> But what is the difference between digital and image sensors, in this
> >> context?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>>> On 22 Sep 2015, at 15:06, Chuck
> >>>> Norcutt<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you not study physics? Does this paper help?
> >>>> <
> http://people.csail.mit.edu/hasinoff/pubs/hasinoff-photon-2012-preprint.pdf
> >
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>> From the first page of the paper: Image sensors measure scene
> >>>> irradiance by*counting* the number of discrete photons incident
> >>>> on the sensor over a given time interval. In digital sensors, the
> >>>> photoelectric eff ect is used to convert photons into electrons,
> >>>> whereas image-based sensors rely on photo-sensitive chemical
> >>>> reactions. In both cases, the independence of random individual
> >>>> photon arrivals leads to photon noise, a signal- dependent form
> >>>> of uncertainty that is a property of the underlying signal
> >>>> itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> My emphasis on*counting* Chuck Norcutt
> > --
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> > Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> > Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> >
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|