Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net From: "James Wilkinson Sword" Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.cellular-phone-tech Subject: Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:46:48 +0100 Organization: ~ Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: <7699542da7f01f1304183cf9c297a669@dizum.com> <100420172009002755%nospam@nospam.invalid> <2017041114434712366-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <2017041115295799247-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <2017041115501412991-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <201704111720307730-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <150420171445165045%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171013465413%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171032312950%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171040573298%nospam@nospam.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:410269 comp.sys.mac.system:104790 alt.comp.os.windows-10:40280 alt.cellular-phone-tech:1214 On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:40:57 +0100, nospam wrote= : > In article , James Wilkinson Sword > wrote: > >> >> >> >> > As for making prints look just like those from a 35mm came= ra, that >> >> >> >> > sort of degradation is easily done with software. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I take it you didn't have a professional SLR 35mm camera. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > film is worse than digital in every metric. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > digital can be downgraded to look like film if the user wants= , but >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > would be stupid if quality is the goal. >> >> >> >> >> >> Decent film is as good as digital. >> >> > >> >> > definitely not. >> >> > >> >> >> I mean professional quality low ASA >> >> >> film on a camera with a good lens. >> >> > >> >> > doesn't matter. >> >> >> >> Maybe not nowadays, digital improves all the time. >> > >> > digital has been better than film for well over a decade. >> >> I'd have rated a professional film camera at about 6MP. > > 6 mp cameras were common over a decade ago. Probably, I have a bad concept of time. I once tried to return a 3 year= old VCR under a 1 year warranty. I had a =A33000 (DSLR with two lenses) that was 6MP. I thought that was= about 6 years ago, probably more. > it also depends on the film too. > >> Don't ever get a Fuji digital camera, they LIE about the MP. > > no they don't. Oh they do. I have a compact digital from them which claims 10MP. It's= easy to see it's only a quarter of that when you zoom in in Photoshop. = They use software interpolation inside the camera, the CCD is not 10MP.= It's a Finepix S1000FD if you want to check. > the only company that lies about the number of megapixels is sigma. Only ever used their lenses, which are good. -- = I met this gal in a bar and one thing lead to another. I said, "Let's g= o back to my place." She said, "Oh, do you have cable?" I said, "No, but I have some old ropes that should do just fine."