Bob, I really didn't want to pummel you, so sorry for the bit harsh
response. But the thread was all about such pummeling before, I only
adopted to your and others' tone. Back to topic:
But I still think you are somewhat mistaken, that wave quality of
light DOES influence macroscopic qualities
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:57:58 +0100, you wrote:
snip
that wave quality of
light DOES influence macroscopic qualities of image in such a way that
there is no absolute sharpness even at macroscopic scale, not only
quantum scale. What I am referencing to is Law of diffraction
Huygens' principe.
I
Back light it with a black (or very dark) background. Catch the glint off
the fine stuff at the edges. Oops, I'm told there are no edges. Catch the
glint off the fine stuff at the uncertainty blur surrounding the duckling.
This will probably work, as the solution to the duckling's wave function
BB 1.Point your face toward any automobile.
BB 2.Note that there are photons comming at your (I'm beginning to think
BB blind) eyeball.
BB 3.Some photons are comming from the background.
BB 4.Some photons are comming from the car.
BB 5.There photons from the car and the
doom.'
It is a very serious consideration that millions yet
unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.
- Samuel Adams, 1771
- Original Message -
From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: And did I
Exasperated, Bob Blakely tried one more time to explain sharp lines and
edges, concluding thus:
If you do not understand this, there is no hope for you.
and Frantisek replied:
Bob, perhaps it's time for you to rehearse physics - light is a wave
as much as particle thing. Therefore, there is
On Friday, January 18, 2002, at 10:17 AM, Peifer, William [OCDUS] wrote:
See John Gribbin's In Search of Schroedinger's Cat for a good story
about
all of this stuff. Gribbin's a great writer. He not only makes
comprehensible (for the general reader) the famous double-slit
experiment,
PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 18. tammikuuta 2002 0:36
Aihe: Re: And did I mention wrong
Are you some reincarnated version of The Who - and I'm not talking about
the band?
From: Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You still do not seem to get my point. I did
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 16. tammikuuta 2002 22:51
Aihe: Re: And did I mention wrong
No, it is not effectively MTF. In fact, lpm is not a transfer function. In
fact, being a single point, it does not meet the mathematical definition of
a function!
Further, absolute black
consideration that millions yet
unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.
- Samuel Adams, 1771
- Original Message -
From: Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:42 AM
Subject: Vs: And did I mention wrong
Yes, it is. Where do you
:58
Aihe: Re: And did I mention wrong
Raimo sez: it (lpm) is effectively MTF
Bob sez: No, it is not effectively MTF.
Raimo insists: Yes, it is.
And Raimo continues: Where do you find your points and lines made of points to
measure
your lpm?
Bob's Answer: For measurement, we create the lines
Are you some reincarnated version of The Who - and I'm not talking about
the band?
From: Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You still do not seem to get my point. I did not express myself clearly
enough, sorry.
Automobile edges - show me one automobile with really sharp edges.
1.Point
No. You are wrong. Lines Per Millimeter is objective. It's often read with
the human eye, but can be read by instruments. Lines Per Millimeter can also
be calculated mathematically from the rise from black to white of a single
edge (or fall from white to black). It is identical to the concept of
-
Lähettäjä: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 16. tammikuuta 2002 19:33
Aihe: Re: And did I mention wrong
No. You are wrong. Lines Per Millimeter is objective. It's often read with
the human eye, but can be read by instruments. Lines Per Millimeter can
No, it is not effectively MTF. In fact, lpm is not a transfer function. In
fact, being a single point, it does not meet the mathematical definition of
a function!
Further, absolute black is available in nature. I did *NOT* claim that
absolute black exists or is necessary, but it exists. Stop
There is no such thing as apparent sharpness. Sharpness is an
absolute and quantifiable value.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users'
- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston
Subject: And did I mention wrong
There is no such thing as apparent sharpness. Sharpness is
an
absolute and quantifiable value.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Please elaborate.
William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List
serious consideration that millions yet
unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.
- Samuel Adams, 1771
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: And did I mention wrong
- Original
There is no such thing as apparent sharpness. Sharpness is
an
absolute and quantifiable value.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Please elaborate.
Sharpness is a PERCEPTION. It is not the same thing as any property that can
be measured, such as resolution, acutance, microcontrast, edge effect,
19 matches
Mail list logo
