Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

At what point will it stop?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 6:22:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The megapixel numbers game?
If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
could they then start to concentate on
the other image anomolies digital cameras have?
Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses
that have something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that
we have what are essentially "medium format" cameras
of traditional SLR Size?
What direction should they take?
-Rich

More about : point stop

April 17, 2005 7:29:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> The megapixel numbers game?
>

Since most uneducated consumers only see numbers (just like with computer
CPU's) it's not likely to stop. Now if they came up with a real ISO rating
system or a "MP performance number" like AMD did with their CPU's, this
might stop so they could concentrate on things other than MP?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 11:38:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <j00461ho8pdlg7efq3h6c95quo9120v6ip@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> The megapixel numbers game?

No time soon, I suspect.

As the OP suggested, the digicam industry has, inadvertently or intentionally,
lured the typical consumer into viewing the MP spec as a quality indicator.

My son-in-law, researching his first digital camera purchase, had fallen into
that very mindset. It took a LOT of discussion to convince him that
megapixels is NOT necessarily the primary criteria for camera performance,
particularly above the 5-6MP range.

It was (and still is) AFTER the purchase of my first digital camera (20D) that
I learned much about digital photography. I knew I wanted another Canon SLR
and had a pretty good idea of how many MP I wanted. It was the introduction
of the 20D that pushed me "over the edge" to make a purchase.

I realize there is, and probably always will be, much debate over the
differences between film and digital. However, the output of this fine camera
is, to me, as good as what I had become used to with my old AE1 and T90
shooting 100-speed film.

At highest resolution, 8.2MP makes for rather LARGE file sizes. Then there's
RAW. Thankfully, hard-disk storage is relatively cheap anymore.

> If they stopped at say 20 megapixels for a DSLR of traditional
> 35 mm configuration, could they then start to concentrate on
> the other image anomalies digital cameras have?

Ever the optimist, I expect they are addressing BOTH issues. Taking the
emphasis off the megapixel "race" would help, though.

> Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses
> that have something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that
> we have what are essentially "medium format" cameras
> of traditional SLR Size?

As the migration to digital continues, I expect that terms like "full-frame"
and "medium format" will become increasingly meaningless. I don't see any
real NEED for ever larger sensors when the technology continues to advance and
improve, allowing for even higher concentrations of pixels within a given size
of sensor.

> What direction should they take?

I hope the MP race eventually slows allowing for even more improvement in
other areas of the technology. Whether the consumer will allow the "race" to
slow remains to be seen.

:) 
JR
Related resources
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 12:23:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> The megapixel numbers game?
> If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
> for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
> could they then start to concentate on
> the other image anomolies digital cameras have?
> Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses
> that have something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that
> we have what are essentially "medium format" cameras
> of traditional SLR Size?
> What direction should they take?
> -Rich

I kind of thought that at 6 MP a DSLR would be as good as most people
would need, but then we go to 8 MP.

The tradeoff is that as we increase the pixel count the camera can't
take photos as fast as it could if it had a lower pixel count, but they
are speeding up the circuitry at the same time they are increasing the
pixel count so this is kind of hidden. When Canon replaced the 10D
with the 20D they increased the pixel form 6 to 8 but also increase the
speed by a fair bit, if they had left the pixel count closer to 6 MP it
would have been even faster yet.

I would appear that for now pixel count helps to sell a camera and so
we are likely to see the number go up.

I would like to say that I am immune to the pixel count game, but when
I look at the output from a 1Ds Mark II I do have a bit of lust in my
heart for one.

Digital cameras have be making people more demanding of quality,
regardless of what a handful of film fanatics might try to get you to
believe. 5 years ago most people where shooting film and getting
prints made no larger then 5 x 7 inches. A digital camera only needed
3 MP maybe even 2 MP to fill this need well. I know that my old Nikon
995 (3.2 MP) will produce better looking 4 x 6 prints then I ever got
from my film SLR. So if a 3 MP camera would do for what was being shot
why did we go up, in part marketing hype that more pixels is more
better but also because people for the first time started to print
large number of prints at home at 8.5 x 11 inches.

As home printer allow larger prints will people now need more pixels
yet?


Making the sensors larger will be tricky as the wafers have a high cost
per square inch and this is no likely to go down very fast.


Scott
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:35:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> writes:

> The megapixel numbers game?
> If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
> for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
> could they then start to concentate on
> the other image anomolies digital cameras have?
> Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses
> that have something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that
> we have what are essentially "medium format" cameras
> of traditional SLR Size?
> What direction should they take?

Even among serious hobbyists, not that many make prints beyond 8x10
inches. Even professionals don't make *that* many prints beyond 16x20
inches. The megapixel race will start to become uninteresting to the
customers at some point; there's such a thing as "big enough". Sure,
*some* people really want to do tack-sharp highly detailed wall-size
murals; but they're a very small market, and equipment won't be
designed primarily for them. (Luckily they can use stitching
techniques).

Just as 35mm equipment became the normal format used by the vast
majority of photographers, even though there were clear disadvantages
compared to medium-format and sheet film cameras. There were also
serious advantages, and most people found 35mm useful. Some also used
larger formats. It was rare for people to use *only* larger formats;
35mm was so useful and convenient.

There will continue to be some market at the high end for equipment
for people wanting unusually large or unusually sharp and detailed
prints; I have no idea how that market will be served in 5 years or in
10 years. *Most* photography will be done on digital cameras in the
4-24 megapixel range.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:22:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
> The megapixel numbers game?
> If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
> for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
> could they then start to concentate on
> the other image anomolies digital cameras have?

There's a diffraction limit of something like 1500/f lp/mm for all
lenses, and that is the point at which there is almost no contrast
left. A more useful point is that at which there is 50% contrast --
the famous MTF50. Norman Koren gives this as

f[50] = 0.38/(N*W)

N is the f-stop setting and W is the wavelength of light in mm =
0.0005 mm for a typical daylight spectrum. For f/8, that works out at
95 lp/mm. This is somewhat like the speed of light in optical terms
-- it's an absolute limit to resolution.

Lens aberrations become a problem wider than f/8 or f/5.6 on lenses of
this size, so opening the lens wider doesn't help. So, there is a
limit to the resolution of a small sensor.

> Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses that have
> something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that we have what are
> essentially "medium format" cameras of traditional SLR Size?

Yes. These already exist.

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:22:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> There's a diffraction limit of something like 1500/f lp/mm for all
> lenses, and that is the point at which there is almost no contrast
> left. A more useful point is that at which there is 50% contrast --
> the famous MTF50. Norman Koren gives this as
>
> f[50] = 0.38/(N*W)
>
> N is the f-stop setting and W is the wavelength of light in mm =
> 0.0005 mm for a typical daylight spectrum. For f/8, that works out at
> 95 lp/mm. This is somewhat like the speed of light in optical terms
> -- it's an absolute limit to resolution.
>
> Lens aberrations become a problem wider than f/8 or f/5.6 on lenses of
> this size, so opening the lens wider doesn't help. So, there is a
> limit to the resolution of a small sensor.
>
>> Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses that have
>> something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that we have what are
>> essentially "medium format" cameras of traditional SLR Size?
>
> Yes. These already exist.
>
> Andrew.

About how many pixels then, would be the maximum for a DX-sized sensor, at
F8 with 50% contrast? My algebra isn't so hot anymore!
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 6:29:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:j00461ho8pdlg7efq3h6c95quo9120v6ip@4ax.com...
> The megapixel numbers game?
> If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
> for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
> could they then start to concentate on
> the other image anomolies digital cameras have?
> Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses
> that have something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that
> we have what are essentially "medium format" cameras
> of traditional SLR Size?
> What direction should they take?
> -Rich

Hopefully what will happen is that reviewers will start making 20x24 prints
with these cameras and make their recommendations based on that. After all,
how many of us will ever make a printer larger than that? Another test
might be how well a digital camera compares to film when it comes to
commercial use of the images (magazines, etc.)

Unfortunately, many of my friends are caught up in the megpixel thing, and
even believe that a shirt pocket size camera that delivers 6 megapixels is
no different than a DSLR that delivers 6 megapixels.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 8:23:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>
>>The megapixel numbers game?
>>If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
>>for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
>>could they then start to concentate on
>>the other image anomolies digital cameras have?
>>Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses
>>that have something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that
>>we have what are essentially "medium format" cameras
>>of traditional SLR Size?
>>What direction should they take?
>>-Rich
>
>
> I kind of thought that at 6 MP a DSLR would be as good as most people
> would need, but then we go to 8 MP.
>

For most people is enough. But if you want larger prints 11x14 and
16x20, then you need more megapixels. In the 12-20 range.

I think the mega pixels will level off in the small format cameras for
optical/physics reasons as other have pointed out. After a certain point
image quality goes down the more pixels/mm you have.

I would like to see manufacturers work on two other areas - sharpness
(so that sharpening is no longer necessary) and noise. Noise, especially
at higher ISO's, is still an in most cameras.


--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 12:47:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:29:06 -0600, "Sheldon"
<sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:j00461ho8pdlg7efq3h6c95quo9120v6ip@4ax.com...
>> The megapixel numbers game?
>> If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
>> for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
>> could they then start to concentate on
>> the other image anomolies digital cameras have?
>> Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses
>> that have something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that
>> we have what are essentially "medium format" cameras
>> of traditional SLR Size?
>> What direction should they take?
>> -Rich
>
>Hopefully what will happen is that reviewers will start making 20x24 prints
>with these cameras and make their recommendations based on that. After all,
>how many of us will ever make a printer larger than that? Another test
>might be how well a digital camera compares to film when it comes to
>commercial use of the images (magazines, etc.)

Most all Magazines today live on digital. About the only exception I
know of is "Arizona Highways".

http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk...

http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk...

Magazines and digital images:

http://www.searchhut.co.uk/portal/articals/site/view_ar...

http://digitaljournalist.org/contents.html


*******************************************************

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission."

The Atlanta Declaration
-- L. Neil Smith
http://www.lneilsmith.com/
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 2:12:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:29:48 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> The megapixel numbers game?
>>
>
>Since most uneducated consumers only see numbers (just like with computer
>CPU's) it's not likely to stop. Now if they came up with a real ISO rating
>system or a "MP performance number" like AMD did with their CPU's, this
>might stop so they could concentrate on things other than MP?

What I found funny recently was one person who was viewing images on
their computer screen at full size. They thought the camera was
producing blurry images but I pointed out the actually size (if they
could see the whole image in one shot) would be almost 45" across!
Printed at 6" x 4" the images were sharper than any film cam the
person had used.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:15:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <m2mzrxfgrh.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Even among serious hobbyists, not that many make prints beyond 8x10
>inches. Even professionals don't make *that* many prints beyond 16x20
>inches. The megapixel race will start to become uninteresting to the
>customers at some point; there's such a thing as "big enough". Sure,
>*some* people really want to do tack-sharp highly detailed wall-size
>murals; but they're a very small market, and equipment won't be
>designed primarily for them. (Luckily they can use stitching
>techniques).

A 20x30 inch print costs me 8 euro. I really like the concept of
having a new 20x30 on wall every couple of months.

Of course, the resolution requirements for posters are usually not that
high. I guess that I look more closely at a two page spread than at
a poster (relative to the print size).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
April 18, 2005 4:22:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:29:48 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> What I found funny recently was one person who was viewing images on
> their computer screen at full size.

Exactly. Instead of looking at real prints, people look at full size images
on a computer monitor and complain about stuff they see.

But like someone else said, people buy a 6MP pocket cam and think it's as
good as a dSLR..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 4:05:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Psych-O-Delic Voodoo Thunder Pig <testing@123> wrote:

>> There's a diffraction limit of something like 1500/f lp/mm for all
>> lenses, and that is the point at which there is almost no contrast
>> left. A more useful point is that at which there is 50% contrast --
>> the famous MTF50. Norman Koren gives this as
>>
>> f[50] = 0.38/(N*W)
>>
>> N is the f-stop setting and W is the wavelength of light in mm =
>> 0.0005 mm for a typical daylight spectrum. For f/8, that works out at
>> 95 lp/mm. This is somewhat like the speed of light in optical terms
>> -- it's an absolute limit to resolution.
>>
>> Lens aberrations become a problem wider than f/8 or f/5.6 on lenses of
>> this size, so opening the lens wider doesn't help. So, there is a
>> limit to the resolution of a small sensor.

> About how many pixels then, would be the maximum for a DX-sized sensor, at
> F8 with 50% contrast? My algebra isn't so hot anymore!

Well, I already said that was 95 line pairs per mm, and the sensor is
24 mm wide. Go on, it's only a division.

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:13:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:

> I'd have to read up on digital sensors to figure out an answer to
that, but
> i'd say the back doesn't have to be perfectly round - even our eye
isn't.
> it just has to be made of lots of wafers and I think smaller silicon
wafers
> are cheaper to make than big ones.

Beyond the problem of making a curved sensor, and there would be huge
problem in this, the curvature that you would want would depend of the
FL of the lens, a 300mm lens would need/want very little curvature
whereas a wide angle lens would need much more.

Projected onto a flat surface does not add all that much cost to the
lens in any event.

Scott
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:21:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Since most uneducated consumers only see numbers (just like with computer
> CPU's) it's not likely to stop.

All the companies have to do is start quantifying other aspects.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:23:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
> for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,

Yes, 20 would be plenty.. this week. <g>

> could they then start to concentate on
> the other image anomolies digital cameras have?

Like the color fringing.. I keep wondering why they don't create a
spherical sensor, like the back of the human eye.


--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 10:14:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark Lauter <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:
>> If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
>> for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,

> Yes, 20 would be plenty.. this week. <g>

>> could they then start to concentate on
>> the other image anomolies digital cameras have?

> Like the color fringing.. I keep wondering why they don't create a
> spherical sensor, like the back of the human eye.

The sensors are integrated circuits. These are made by cutting slices
of a silicon crystal and then printing circuitry on the surface of the
slice.

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 10:15:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <_9R8e.5848$_t3.4977@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Mark Lauter <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:
>
>Like the color fringing.. I keep wondering why they don't create a
>spherical sensor, like the back of the human eye.

Many reasons, including cost (silicon wafer processing is set up
to produce flat objects, not curved ones), and the fact that all
existing lenses are designed to try and produce a flat field.
April 18, 2005 10:15:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

> Integrated
> circuit processing tends to be done by depositing *very* thin layers
> onto the surface of the silicon (or sometime sapphire) crystal, and any
> attempt to get a connection through the bulk of the silicon is a serious
> problem, and likely to disrupt the crystal structure as well.


Sorry for the off topic but I didn't know silicon was crystals. Any
chance someone could explain how this works? I'm familiar with the
concept of printing very fine (metalic?) circuitboard patterns but how
does the crystal substrate function?

Heading off to google where I'll probably find the answer...
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:43:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> The sensors are integrated circuits. These are made by cutting slices
> of a silicon crystal and then printing circuitry on the surface of the
> slice.

2 words - Bucky Balls! :) 

http://goldennumber.net/buckyball.htm

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
April 19, 2005 2:07:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:

>>Since most uneducated consumers only see numbers (just like with computer
>>CPU's) it's not likely to stop.
>
>
> All the companies have to do is start quantifying other aspects.

I don't know how current but this is a decent chart of sensor sizes:
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.htm...
April 19, 2005 4:38:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:

>> Since most uneducated consumers only see numbers (just like with computer
>> CPU's) it's not likely to stop.
>
> All the companies have to do is start quantifying other aspects.
>


Which I hope they do!
--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 4:43:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mark Lauter" <available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> writes:

>> If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
>> for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
>
> Yes, 20 would be plenty.. this week. <g>
>
>> could they then start to concentate on
>> the other image anomolies digital cameras have?
>
> Like the color fringing.. I keep wondering why they don't create a
> spherical sensor, like the back of the human eye.

Completely incompatible with current chip-fab technology. Mind you,
it's a good idea in some ways! It'd sure give the lens designers a
challenge (not that it's hard, but it's completely different from what
they're used to doing).

But hard to slice wafers off the ingot, hard to silk-screen the
patterns at super-high resolution, etc. But electron-beam engraving
might work, maybe?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:30:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > New lenses would be cheaper because they wouldn't have to create a flat
> > field.
>
> Interesting idea. I've wondered about it myself on occasion.
> Going a step further, I also like to speculate about an optical
> sensor with variable curvature.

> Eww, now I'm imagining getting eyeball goo all over my hands while
> changing lenses. (Sorry everyone -- this is an example of "vitreous"
> humor.)

LOL!! I like it. :) 


--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:32:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > I'd have to read up on digital sensors to figure out an answer to
> that, but
> > i'd say the back doesn't have to be perfectly round - even our eye
> isn't.
> > it just has to be made of lots of wafers and I think smaller silicon
> wafers
> > are cheaper to make than big ones.
>
> Beyond the problem of making a curved sensor, and there would be huge
> problem in this, the curvature that you would want would depend of the
> FL of the lens, a 300mm lens would need/want very little curvature
> whereas a wide angle lens would need much more.

a bucky ball structure, not a single curved chip, could adjust based on the
lens FL.

> Projected onto a flat surface does not add all that much cost to the
> lens in any event.

But results in all the well known optical aberrations.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 5:41:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> >New lenses would be cheaper because they wouldn't have to create a flat
> >field.
>
> Part of the problem is that the sensor should ideally have a
> radius which matches the focal length of the lens -- so it would not
> work as well with particularly wide or long lenses.

Perhaps each lens would have it's own sensor..

> Yes -- but you are neglecting the problems of making connections
> to the sensors.

I'm a software engineer - that sounds like a hardware problem. <g>

> Those connections are normally made along the edges
> (rows of pads connected to by wire bonding on the top surface), and tend
> to be rather in the way of the next batch of sensors. The eye has the
> advantage of the wiring (nerves) feeding in from the back -- easier to
> do with organically grown sensors than with silicon ones.

I didn't actually think there were wires involved.. just figured traces,
shows what i know. why is it hard to attach them to the back? in my mind i
actually sort of visualized connections from the back. hmm.

> Integrated
> circuit processing tends to be done by depositing *very* thin layers
> onto the surface of the silicon (or sometime sapphire) crystal, and any
> attempt to get a connection through the bulk of the silicon is a serious
> problem, and likely to disrupt the crystal structure as well.

Oh, I think you just answered my last question.

What I now imagine isn't 1 curved silicon bit, but lots of very small chips
side by side.

I wonder if anyone can provide a good link on how sensors are constructed?

> Enjoy

Of course!! :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 9:14:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I desperately wanted to reply to that post and explain the "problem",
but I spend enough of my day trying to explain the correlation between
MP and DPI to the people at work. *sigh*
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 12:35:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

bH wrote:

> I desperately wanted to reply to that post and explain the "problem",
> but I spend enough of my day trying to explain the correlation between
> MP and DPI to the people at work. *sigh*

There is no correlation.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 4:47:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 42tva$33i$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> bH wrote:
>
>> I desperately wanted to reply to that post and explain the "problem",
>> but I spend enough of my day trying to explain the correlation between
>> MP and DPI to the people at work. *sigh*
>
> There is no correlation.
>
OK, I missed the beginning of the thread, but of course there is a
correlation. Ultimately, what allows me to choose a particular dpi, or more
accurately ppi, for a print is the incoming number of MP. Right?
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 4:47:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 42tva$33i$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>> bH wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I desperately wanted to reply to that post and explain the
>>> "problem", but I spend enough of my day trying to explain the
>>> correlation between MP and DPI to the people at work. *sigh*
>>
>> There is no correlation.
>>
>
> OK, I missed the beginning of the thread, but of course there is a
> correlation. Ultimately, what allows me to choose a particular dpi,
> or more accurately ppi, for a print is the incoming number of MP.
> Right?

DPI / PPI (print) may set a quality limit (or compromized quality) for a
given number of pixels caught, but the two parameters are independant.

Try setting your printer to 72dpi and print a 4x6. That's only 288 x
432 pixels. But the print won't bear close inspection.
Try again at 180 dpi for the same 4x6. 720 x 1080. Print will look
very good.
Now, move along to an 8x12 at 72 dpi: 576 x 864. View it from two feet
away and it's okay. Up close, not too good.

For the above always start with more pixels and downsample to the output
size, of course. Upsizing 288x432 to 720x1080 will not work well!

What is important is to know what reasonable limit you should put on
printing with a given number of pixels and a given printing process.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:02:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Y579e.6840$716.1995@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Tom Scales <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>OK, I missed the beginning of the thread, but of course there is a
>correlation. Ultimately, what allows me to choose a particular dpi, or more
>accurately ppi, for a print is the incoming number of MP. Right?

You can scale a digital image to any size you like.

The real metric should be the total number of line pairs at MTF 50 (lp/ph)
you need in the resulting image and the number of line pairs delivered by
the camera.

The number of line pairs you need depends on the size of the print and the
minimum viewing distance that is to be expected/supported.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 9:23:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > Like the color fringing.. I keep wondering why they don't create a
> > spherical sensor, like the back of the human eye.
>
> Completely incompatible with current chip-fab technology. Mind you,
> it's a good idea in some ways! It'd sure give the lens designers a
> challenge (not that it's hard, but it's completely different from what
> they're used to doing).
>
> But hard to slice wafers off the ingot, hard to silk-screen the
> patterns at super-high resolution, etc. But electron-beam engraving
> might work, maybe?

I have a disciple! <g>

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
April 20, 2005 6:36:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:

>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 42tva$33i$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> bH wrote:
>>
>>> I desperately wanted to reply to that post and explain the "problem",
>>> but I spend enough of my day trying to explain the correlation between
>>> MP and DPI to the people at work. *sigh*
>>
>> There is no correlation.
>>
> OK, I missed the beginning of the thread, but of course there is a
> correlation. Ultimately, what allows me to choose a particular dpi, or
> more
> accurately ppi, for a print is the incoming number of MP. Right?


Correct.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 7:08:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <i4w8e.4899$c93.3205@trnddc08>,
UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:

>I would like to see manufacturers work on two other areas - sharpness
>(so that sharpening is no longer necessary) and noise.

Sharpness is never going to be automatic at 100% viewing on a monitor.
Sharpness is only automatic when you are vieing the pixels small, and a
100% trandsition takes up angles close to the limits of perception. RAW
data will always be unsharp at 100% viewing at 72 or 96 PPI. The only
way to get it sharper is to weaken the AA filter or eliminate it, and
that has problems of its own. The Kodak full-frame DSLRs have no AA
filter, and that can cause problems when sharp optics are used. The D70
has a very weak AA filter, and people have experienced color moire. The
20D has a slightly weak AA filter, and color moire can occur in certain
circumstances as well.

>Noise, especially
>at higher ISO's, is still an in most cameras.

Part is the camera, and part is the software. Most converters are
pretty careless with numeric precision of shadows. Most color-cast the
shadows and their noise unnecessarily.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 7:36:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <slrnd683qb.541.br@panix5.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>Eww, now I'm imagining getting eyeball goo all over my hands while
>changing lenses. (Sorry everyone -- this is an example of "vitreous"
>humor.)

As much as we like to praise our eyes, they are very crude imagers, and
it is our brains that create the images we see, most of it fabricated
for any given point in time.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 6:26:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 03:36:22 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
> As much as we like to praise our eyes, they are very crude imagers, and
> it is our brains that create the images we see,

Oh, yeah, well, just think of which body part is *telling* you that.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 6:26:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 03:36:22 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
>>As much as we like to praise our eyes, they are very crude imagers, and
>>it is our brains that create the images we see,
>
>
> Oh, yeah, well, just think of which body part is *telling* you that.

<kapow!>

Eyes have very sharp color def in the middle and poor towards the edges,
and as JPS says, a lot of the 'off center' "sight" we have is 'fill'
from the mind.

In fact some aircraft simulators had eye tracking devices that would
fill in scene detail where the pilot was looking and leave the rest at
lower resolution. Lowered the graphics rendering load. Today that
would be less of a problem.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:05:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:o aidnRkQQ8yeWv_fRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
>
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:j00461ho8pdlg7efq3h6c95quo9120v6ip@4ax.com...
> > The megapixel numbers game?
> > If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
> > for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
> > could they then start to concentate on
> > the other image anomolies digital cameras have?
> > Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses
> > that have something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that
> > we have what are essentially "medium format" cameras
> > of traditional SLR Size?
> > What direction should they take?
> > -Rich
>
> Hopefully what will happen is that reviewers will start making 20x24
prints
> with these cameras and make their recommendations based on that. After
all,
> how many of us will ever make a printer larger than that? Another test
> might be how well a digital camera compares to film when it comes to
> commercial use of the images (magazines, etc.)
>
> Unfortunately, many of my friends are caught up in the megpixel thing, and
> even believe that a shirt pocket size camera that delivers 6 megapixels is
> no different than a DSLR that delivers 6 megapixels.

I think part of the problem lies (sadly, I might add) in the declining
importance of the print among camera users. 'Way back before digital, when
I was using a 35mm SLR exclusively, nearly every piece of camera equipment I
acquired was to help answer the question, "How can I get the best print
possible within my budget?" Most of the folks in this group probably still
think like this, but most other people I talk with don't.

If you're viewing pictures exclusively on a TV or a monitor, the pics from a
6mp P&S don't look much different from those produced by a 6mp dSLR. The
megapixel designation has become a meaningless status symbol, a badge of
mindless consumerism which confers bragging rights upon the owners of the
highest megapixel cameras. Size matters, don't you know?

I'd be happy if the megapixel wars stopped somewhere between 6 to 12 mp.
What I'd really like to see most is greater color depth, drastically
improved dynamic range, and greater user programmability. Regarding the
latter, I'd like to be able to set up my camera on a tripod untethered to a
computer and tell it to make 10 exposures, one every 7.5 minutes, for
example. Or have the camera take an exposure, analyze it, then take several
more exposures according to a custom bracketing scheme.
May 6, 2005 2:40:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul H. wrote:
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:o aidnRkQQ8yeWv_fRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
>
>>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:j00461ho8pdlg7efq3h6c95quo9120v6ip@4ax.com...
>>
>>>The megapixel numbers game?
>>>If they stopped at say 20 megapixels
>>>for a DSLR of traditional 35 mm configuration,
>>>could they then start to concentate on
>>>the other image anomolies digital cameras have?
>>>Or, will they produce DSLRs and supporting lenses
>>>that have something like a 2" x 3" sensor, so that
>>>we have what are essentially "medium format" cameras
>>>of traditional SLR Size?
>>>What direction should they take?
>>>-Rich
>>
>>Hopefully what will happen is that reviewers will start making 20x24
>
> prints
>
>>with these cameras and make their recommendations based on that. After
>
> all,
>
>>how many of us will ever make a printer larger than that? Another test
>>might be how well a digital camera compares to film when it comes to
>>commercial use of the images (magazines, etc.)
>>
>>Unfortunately, many of my friends are caught up in the megpixel thing, and
>>even believe that a shirt pocket size camera that delivers 6 megapixels is
>>no different than a DSLR that delivers 6 megapixels.
>
>
> I think part of the problem lies (sadly, I might add) in the declining
> importance of the print among camera users. 'Way back before digital, when
> I was using a 35mm SLR exclusively, nearly every piece of camera equipment I
> acquired was to help answer the question, "How can I get the best print
> possible within my budget?" Most of the folks in this group probably still
> think like this, but most other people I talk with don't.
>
> If you're viewing pictures exclusively on a TV or a monitor, the pics from a
> 6mp P&S don't look much different from those produced by a 6mp dSLR. The
> megapixel designation has become a meaningless status symbol, a badge of
> mindless consumerism which confers bragging rights upon the owners of the
> highest megapixel cameras. Size matters, don't you know?
>
> I'd be happy if the megapixel wars stopped somewhere between 6 to 12 mp.
> What I'd really like to see most is greater color depth, drastically
> improved dynamic range, and greater user programmability. Regarding the
> latter, I'd like to be able to set up my camera on a tripod untethered to a
> computer and tell it to make 10 exposures, one every 7.5 minutes, for
> example. Or have the camera take an exposure, analyze it, then take several
> more exposures according to a custom bracketing scheme.
>
>
>

You don't need anywhere near 6 MP for TV viewing. Good point though.

Clyde
May 6, 2005 4:24:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> You don't need anywhere near 6 MP for TV viewing. Good point though.
>
> Clyde

If I were designing DSLRs for the prosumer market (with the current 3:2 ratio)
the sensor would be 3840x2560 pixels (9.86 megapixels) and as large as needed
(up to full frame) for excellent dynamic range.

I believe in the near? future most consumers will view photos on true HDTV sets
at 1080p resolution (1920x1080) so I sized the sensor at exactly twice the pixel
width of the HDTV standard. 3840x2160 (16:9 ratio - 8.3 mp) would be a good
sized option for landscape photos. Easy to lossless resize (divides by 16 for
jpeg) to view on HDTV and also large enough for most prints. There are many
other changes I would also make to DSLRs... but that's for another thread.

Steve S
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:11:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steve wrote:

>>You don't need anywhere near 6 MP for TV viewing. Good point though.
>>
>>Clyde
>
>
> If I were designing DSLRs for the prosumer market (with the current 3:2 ratio)
> the sensor would be 3840x2560 pixels (9.86 megapixels) and as large as needed
> (up to full frame) for excellent dynamic range.

I would resize the sensors to be ISO 216 "A" proportional so that
printing could be a cropless process regardless of the "A" sized paper
chosen.

Another alternate would be golden section ratio.

The reality is that sensor dimensions are mostly driven by addressing
logic issues/efficiencies.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 7:35:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> >>You don't need anywhere near 6 MP for TV viewing. Good point though.
> >>
> >>Clyde
> >
> >
> > If I were designing DSLRs for the prosumer market (with the current 3:2 ratio)
> > the sensor would be 3840x2560 pixels (9.86 megapixels) and as large as needed
> > (up to full frame) for excellent dynamic range.
>
> I would resize the sensors to be ISO 216 "A" proportional so that
> printing could be a cropless process regardless of the "A" sized paper
> chosen.
>
> Another alternate would be golden section ratio.
>
I agree with the A-series of sizes; the aspect ratio of these (1.414:1)
is almost exactly midway between current camera ratios of 4:3 (1.33:1)
and 3:2 (1.5:1).

The Golden Mean has a ratio of (Phi:1) or (1.618:1) which may be ok for
landscapes but is too narrow for portait orientation. Scholars have
pointed out the extensive use of the Golden Mean in classical art, but
it applies to figures and constructions within the picture, and not to
the overall aspect ratio of the artwork.

Nitpick: English usage would prefer 'alternative' to 'alternate' in your
sentence above. You are slipping into American usage, Alan {:-)

Colin
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 7:35:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colin D wrote:

>
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You don't need anywhere near 6 MP for TV viewing. Good point though.
>>>>
>>>>Clyde
>>>
>>>
>>>If I were designing DSLRs for the prosumer market (with the current 3:2 ratio)
>>>the sensor would be 3840x2560 pixels (9.86 megapixels) and as large as needed
>>>(up to full frame) for excellent dynamic range.
>>
>>I would resize the sensors to be ISO 216 "A" proportional so that
>>printing could be a cropless process regardless of the "A" sized paper
>>chosen.
>>
>>Another alternate would be golden section ratio.
>>
>
> I agree with the A-series of sizes; the aspect ratio of these (1.414:1)
> is almost exactly midway between current camera ratios of 4:3 (1.33:1)
> and 3:2 (1.5:1).
>
> The Golden Mean has a ratio of (Phi:1) or (1.618:1) which may be ok for
> landscapes but is too narrow for portait orientation. Scholars have
> pointed out the extensive use of the Golden Mean in classical art, but
> it applies to figures and constructions within the picture, and not to
> the overall aspect ratio of the artwork.

I'd dispute that as a 'requirement'; eg: IMO the G-section may apply to
the boundaries of the work as well as relationships in the work.

>
> Nitpick: English usage would prefer 'alternative' to 'alternate' in your
> sentence above. You are slipping into American usage, Alan {:-)

Yes. Most of out television (not that I watch a lot) is US. I speak
French half the time and English the other 2/3. It's harder and harder
to be correct in any language, esp. Japanese which I don't speak at all.

In about 2025, under President Jenna Bush, the US will invade Canada for
our fresh water, oil, wood, minerals, hydro power and Poutine. They
will learn, finally, that Starbucks is really not that good compared to
the great variety of coffee shops that have been in Montreal for well
over a century. So I'm just getting ready by letting my English decay.

The other day I actually said "zee" instead of "zed" while spelling a
word for my son. At that, the word was "criticise". It's too late to
save me.

I don't spell color 'colour' anymore, but I still seem to be stuck on
cheque.

Cheers,
Alan




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 3:49:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> Colin D wrote:
> > Nitpick: English usage would prefer 'alternative' to 'alternate' in your
> > sentence above. You are slipping into American usage, Alan {:-)
>
> Yes. Most of out television (not that I watch a lot) is US. I speak
> French half the time and English the other 2/3. It's harder and harder
> to be correct in any language, esp. Japanese which I don't speak at all.
>
> In about 2025, under President Jenna Bush, the US will invade Canada for
> our fresh water, oil, wood, minerals, hydro power and Poutine. They
> will learn, finally, that Starbucks is really not that good compared to
> the great variety of coffee shops that have been in Montreal for well
> over a century. So I'm just getting ready by letting my English decay.
>
> The other day I actually said "zee" instead of "zed" while spelling a
> word for my son. At that, the word was "criticise". It's too late to
> save me.
>
> I don't spell color 'colour' anymore, but I still seem to be stuck on
> cheque.
>
Well, I have to admit that my spelling at least does change depending on
the perceived audience. In this predominantly American group I spell it
'color' and 'check' and 'criticize' just to be in the swim, so to speak
- that's if the participants are US-bred. OTOH if I am replying to
Commonwealth-bred types, I use proper English. (ducking for cover here
....)

Come to think about it, I dunno why I do that - maybe I'll stick with
Queen's English from here on {:-)

Colin
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 5:25:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul H. <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:

> What I'd really like to see most is greater color depth, drastically
> improved dynamic range, and greater user programmability.

I'm not sure it's possible to see greater colour depth. Digital
cameras in RAW mode are already good for a very wide gamut, and the
loss of colour happens later in the chain.

Andrew.
May 10, 2005 9:25:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:427D5426.2F453851@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> > Colin D wrote:
> > > Nitpick: English usage would prefer 'alternative' to 'alternate' in
your
> > > sentence above. You are slipping into American usage, Alan {:-)
> >
> > Yes. Most of out television (not that I watch a lot) is US. I speak
> > French half the time and English the other 2/3. It's harder and harder
> > to be correct in any language, esp. Japanese which I don't speak at all.
> >
> > In about 2025, under President Jenna Bush, the US will invade Canada for
> > our fresh water, oil, wood, minerals, hydro power and Poutine. They
> > will learn, finally, that Starbucks is really not that good compared to
> > the great variety of coffee shops that have been in Montreal for well
> > over a century. So I'm just getting ready by letting my English decay.
> >
> > The other day I actually said "zee" instead of "zed" while spelling a
> > word for my son. At that, the word was "criticise". It's too late to
> > save me.
> >
> > I don't spell color 'colour' anymore, but I still seem to be stuck on
> > cheque.
> >
> Well, I have to admit that my spelling at least does change depending on
> the perceived audience. In this predominantly American group I spell it
> 'color' and 'check' and 'criticize' just to be in the swim, so to speak
> - that's if the participants are US-bred. OTOH if I am replying to
> Commonwealth-bred types, I use proper English. (ducking for cover here
> ...)
>
> Come to think about it, I dunno why I do that - maybe I'll stick with
> Queen's English from here on {:-)
>
> Colin

Here is one commonwealth-bred type, but living in the US - I also use the
Americani[s|z]ed speak to avoid confusion. Try going to a Subway and asking
for "capsicum" on your sandwich - you will go hungry that day.

On the topic of language - it is eroding quickly and the internet is
accelerating the erosion, with its short-hand speak and acronyms (IMHO ;-)

Musty.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:25:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nBXfe.67467$hu5.39300@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>

> Here is one commonwealth-bred type, but living in the US - I also use the
> Americani[s|z]ed speak to avoid confusion. Try going to a Subway and
asking
> for "capsicum" on your sandwich - you will go hungry that day.

...and if you request "Spotted Dick" for dessert, you'll either make some
"special" friends or you'll find yourself in the back of a police car.

:-)
!