[GUB]

The other thing about this thread that I like is the good natured way it is being conducted by those on both sides of the argument. I commend you all.

True and I have to admit I have been the most impolite in the last page or two because things have actually got better natured as the thread progressed.

[dbs]

This thread has become a 'Circle of confusion"
The kookaburra express is flying in the pretzels

Dave

[Dartmoor Dave]

The other thing about this thread that I like is the good natured way it is being conducted by those on both sides of the argument. I commend you all.

Well said. I don't want to us all end up so irritated by the way we're just repeating ourselves that it gets nasty. So perhaps, since we're just going round in circles, we could at least all agree that it might be best at this point if the mods put an end to it by closing the thread?

[slartibartfast01]

Well said. I don't want to us all end up so irritated by the way we're just repeating ourselves that it gets nasty. So perhaps, since we're just going round in circles, we could at least all agree that it might be best at this point if the mods put an end to it by closing the thread?

[pschlute]

Well said. I don't want to us all end up so irritated by the way we're just repeating ourselves that it gets nasty. So perhaps, since we're just going round in circles, we could at least all agree that it might be best at this point if the mods put an end to it by closing the thread?

Sounds good

(sorry for those who have not finished their popcorn)

[slartibartfast01]

Sounds good



(sorry for those who have not finished their popcorn)

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

[pschlute]

Monty Python: The Argument Sketch

I can remember when it was first broadcast. I was 10

[StephenHampshire]

I can remember when it was first broadcast. I was 10

No you weren't

[slartibartfast01]

No you weren't

I laughed out loud at that.

[Photobill]

What end the thread?
But But But I had one more question🤪
I to like the way the thread evolved. Thanks everyone for contributing! As “I THINK” I’m smarter now.
But the bottom line is I got a FREE beer from my buddy
And that always makes life good 🍻

[stevebrot]

What end the thread?
But But But I had one more question🤪
I to like the way the thread evolved. Thanks everyone for contributing! As “I THINK” I’m smarter now.
But the bottom line is I got a FREE beer from my buddy
And that always makes life good 🍻

Continuing this thread is a form of cruelty to electrons and an insult to pixels everywhere, especially those fostered by pixies.


Steve

[GUB]

What am I supposed to do now ? Actually go out and do some work?

[PDL]

1:1 means that the image circle from the lens projected onto the film plane/digital sensor is the same size as the actual object. It has nothing to do with how that image is recorded by digital technology.

---------- Post added 08-23-19 at 05:40 PM ----------



show me that in the exif

---------- Post added 08-23-19 at 05:41 PM ----------



Nope. Digital sensor data has no concept of size.

Sorry, but the EXIF does contain image size in terms of pixels.

from ExifTool
K-3II (DNG)
[EXIF] Image Width : 6080
[EXIF] Image Height : 4032

[Composite] Image Size : 6080x4032

When viewed in Windows Photo the size is 4000x6016. The larger size in pixels is the number of pixels before de-mosaicing from the Bayer Layer, the 4000x6016 is total number of pixels after running through the Windows Photo de-mosaic function (i.e. Adobe DNG codex)

Data for other bodies
*istDS: (PEF)
[MakerNotes] Pentax Image Size : 3008x2008 or 3040x2024
K-10D (PEF)
[Composite] Image Size : 3936x2624
3872 x 2592 in Windows Photo
K-20D: (PEF)
[Composite] Image Size : 4864x3136
3104 x 4672 in Windows Photo

However, there is no sensor size in mm provided in the EXIF.

As for sensor images, those things you are seeing are pixels, yes. But they are not pixels that you see when you view an image on your screen. You do not see the "RAW" pixels, you see the de-mosaiced pixels when you see an image on your screen. (Sorry, I just didn't see the need to republish close ups of a sensor).
For instance, when you zoom into a digital image and begin to see individual pixels, you do not see the pixels as seen on the sensor which are either Red, Green, Blue (RGB - remember?). Those RGB values are only detected by the sensor as luminance values and are basically B&W. The de-mosaic algorithm employed by your software (Adobe RAW, Capture One, DarkTable, OSX, Windows etc.) converts those B&W voltage levels to color values by combining the luminance values with the RGB filters on the Bayer Layer. Then the combined color pixels are displayed on your monitor. Please look at the EXIF information above - there are two values given for pixel count - one before de-mosaic and one after.


---------- Post added 08-24-19 at 02:20 PM ----------

So what your saying is as the OP in my original question I just miss spoke (used the wrong term) when I used the term "EQUIVALENT EXPOSURE" I should of said "get the same exposure"?
The term " EQUIVALENT EXPOSURE" refers to exposure (SS, ISO & F:stop) + FOV?

Exposure is Shutter speed, ISO & F:stop ... FOV is not a parameter in the equation. Also note: there is no discussion of "total light", that is a made up term.

"In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance in a specified region."

Exposure (photography) - Wikipedia

---------- Post added 08-24-19 at 02:32 PM ----------

How does my slide projector know how much enlargement is needed to project it onto my wall? does this not knowing invalidate the fact that my slide has a physical size and needs to be enlarged so that it can be displayed on my wall ?

Dude, you turn the focus knob. The projector does not care - it can not think.
What does happen is that in order to project an image on the wall, the projector lens has to be a known distance from the slide in order to be focused. In fact my slide projector is a automatic focus device. It uses a light and sensor at 45degrees from each other to move the lens mechanism to "focus" the picture on the wall/screen. The lens is a zoom, so that is how you control the size of the projected image. The relationship between the slide and the focus point of the lens is what changes. This has consequences on my slide projector, as the light passing through the slide heats it up (poor heat control internally to the projector) the slide will move/flex etc. and the focus function will move the lens to reestablish good focus. So the projector will re-focus for each slide, which can be a hassle.

[pschlute]

Sorry, but the EXIF does contain image size in terms of pixels

The discussion was about physical size not pixel dimensions.

We really would be in trouble if a digital image did not know how many pixels it contained.

[GUB]

The discussion was about physical size not pixel dimensions.

We really would be in trouble if a digital image did not know how many pixels it contained.

Yes he was confirming our viewpoint. EDIT And because a pixel does not have a size the measurement in pixels does not define a physical size for the sensor.