Canon PowerShot S3 IS?

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:45:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>Ted Harley wrote:
>[]
>> Guess what the resolution of the
>> S3 IS display is? 360x240, the very same resolution as your (old) TV
>> display, that never seemed to bother anyone for over 50 years.
>> Everyone use to pride themselves on how sharp and clear all that
>> detail was in them (until HDTV came along, and not everyone has that
>> still).
>
>No, the S3 IS has 115,000 total pixels, so that's 38,333 RGB pixels, or
>about 168 lines of 224 pixels. In the UK, analog TV has 575 active lines,
>and in the US NTSC TV has 486 active lines (according to Wikipedia). In
>digital UK TV, there are 720 pixels per line, so a TV display has 414 RGB
>kilopixels, compared with the S3 IS 38 kilopixels.
>
>David
>

Now subtract the lines needed for the sync bar, and the data pushed outside of
the viewing area to prevent the edges from being displayed, the cropped viewable
area. You're not as near that higher resolution as you'd like to believe.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

"dwight" <tfrog93.RemoveThis@gEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:77mdnVfVJNpQyJDanZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@comcast.com...
> <jeffc226.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1192030535.830012.150810@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Camera gets good reviews. Have an opportunity to buy a new one at
>> $175. Is this being discontinued and not considered a great deal with
>> newer cameras such as the S5 out, or is it still a solid camera if I
>> like the features? (which I do, except for no optical viewfinder and
>> supposed redeye issues, but I haven't found the perfect camera in my
>> price range yet.) Would be willing to spend $300-350 or so if I found
>> the "perfect" camera, but prefer under $300.
>
> Eh. Buy it.
>
> Canon has my S1 at the moment for a covered repair, and I can't wait to
> get it back. Great little camera.
>
> dwight

Well.

For reasons that I won't go into here, I now have an S3.

The S2 tempted me, but wasn't worth it as a step up from the S1. The S3
sorely tempted me, but I went Rebel XT, instead. The S5 wasn't enough of a
leap above the S3 to move me, so I stuck with the S1. Now I have an S3,
instead.

The 12X optical is a little better than I'm used to, but Super Macro...?
C'mon! The S1 had nothing comparable. I'll be playing with this camera a lot
over the next few days, and will post examples of various aspects of the
camera then...

dwight
www.tfrog.com
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:36:43 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> Apparently you've only seen TV broadcasts through cable during your
>> life. I have an antenna-fed TV in a remote location that would say
>> the amount of usable information vs. noise is about 10% of your
>> highest UK resolutions. The same signal that most everyone grew up on
>> for the last 50 years. The comment "the very same" stands.
>
> In which case, you have failed to enjoy the excellent pictures offered by
> analogue TV for the last few decades, and a performance easily achieved
> with off-air TV over most of Europe. Analogue TV is capable of about 10
> times the resolution of the Canon S3 IS EVF. I'm sorry it's so much worse
> for you.

Sock puppets lead hard lives, apparently.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:36:43 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>> Apparently you've only seen TV broadcasts through cable during your
>>> life. I have an antenna-fed TV in a remote location that would say
>>> the amount of usable information vs. noise is about 10% of your
>>> highest UK resolutions. The same signal that most everyone grew up on
>>> for the last 50 years. The comment "the very same" stands.
>> In which case, you have failed to enjoy the excellent pictures offered by
>> analogue TV for the last few decades, and a performance easily achieved
>> with off-air TV over most of Europe. Analogue TV is capable of about 10
>> times the resolution of the Canon S3 IS EVF. I'm sorry it's so much worse
>> for you.
>
> Sock puppets lead hard lives, apparently.
>
He (or she, or it) is Captain Easy again.
Allen
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

ignatious_thornton wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:45:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ted Harley wrote:
>> []
>>> Guess what the resolution of the
>>> S3 IS display is? 360x240, the very same resolution as your (old) TV
>>> display, that never seemed to bother anyone for over 50 years.
>>> Everyone use to pride themselves on how sharp and clear all that
>>> detail was in them (until HDTV came along, and not everyone has that
>>> still).
>>
>> No, the S3 IS has 115,000 total pixels, so that's 38,333 RGB pixels,
>> or about 168 lines of 224 pixels. In the UK, analog TV has 575
>> active lines, and in the US NTSC TV has 486 active lines (according
>> to Wikipedia). In digital UK TV, there are 720 pixels per line, so
>> a TV display has 414 RGB kilopixels, compared with the S3 IS 38
>> kilopixels.
>>
>> David
>>
>
> Now subtract the lines needed for the sync bar, and the data pushed
> outside of the viewing area to prevent the edges from being
> displayed, the cropped viewable area. You're not as near that higher
> resolution as you'd like to believe.

The figures I gave are for the active part of the horizontal and vertical
TV scan.

http://www.epanorama.net/documents/video/pal_timing.html

With 414 kilopixels for TV versus 38 kilopixels for the Canon S3 IS - TV
is nearly eleven times better resolution. With a 702 pixel line for
analogue blanking, it's still over 400 kilopixels. The US TV does not
have as high a resolution, but still far greater than the S3 IS
viewfinder. It is not "the very same".

David
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:56:12 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>ignatious_thornton wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:45:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Ted Harley wrote:
>>> []
>>>> Guess what the resolution of the
>>>> S3 IS display is? 360x240, the very same resolution as your (old) TV
>>>> display, that never seemed to bother anyone for over 50 years.
>>>> Everyone use to pride themselves on how sharp and clear all that
>>>> detail was in them (until HDTV came along, and not everyone has that
>>>> still).
>>>
>>> No, the S3 IS has 115,000 total pixels, so that's 38,333 RGB pixels,
>>> or about 168 lines of 224 pixels. In the UK, analog TV has 575
>>> active lines, and in the US NTSC TV has 486 active lines (according
>>> to Wikipedia). In digital UK TV, there are 720 pixels per line, so
>>> a TV display has 414 RGB kilopixels, compared with the S3 IS 38
>>> kilopixels.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>
>> Now subtract the lines needed for the sync bar, and the data pushed
>> outside of the viewing area to prevent the edges from being
>> displayed, the cropped viewable area. You're not as near that higher
>> resolution as you'd like to believe.
>
>The figures I gave are for the active part of the horizontal and vertical
>TV scan.
>
> http://www.epanorama.net/documents/video/pal_timing.html
>
>With 414 kilopixels for TV versus 38 kilopixels for the Canon S3 IS - TV
>is nearly eleven times better resolution. With a 702 pixel line for
>analogue blanking, it's still over 400 kilopixels. The US TV does not
>have as high a resolution, but still far greater than the S3 IS
>viewfinder. It is not "the very same".
>
>David
>

Apparently you've only seen TV broadcasts through cable during your life. I have
an antenna-fed TV in a remote location that would say the amount of usable
information vs. noise is about 10% of your highest UK resolutions. The same
signal that most everyone grew up on for the last 50 years. The comment "the
very same" stands.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

ignatious_thornton wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:56:12 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> ignatious_thornton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:45:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ted Harley wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>> Guess what the resolution of the
>>>>> S3 IS display is? 360x240, the very same resolution as your (old)
>>>>> TV display, that never seemed to bother anyone for over 50 years.
>>>>> Everyone use to pride themselves on how sharp and clear all that
>>>>> detail was in them (until HDTV came along, and not everyone has
>>>>> that still).
>>>>
>>>> No, the S3 IS has 115,000 total pixels, so that's 38,333 RGB
>>>> pixels, or about 168 lines of 224 pixels. In the UK, analog TV
>>>> has 575 active lines, and in the US NTSC TV has 486 active lines
>>>> (according to Wikipedia). In digital UK TV, there are 720 pixels
>>>> per line, so a TV display has 414 RGB kilopixels, compared with
>>>> the S3 IS 38 kilopixels.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now subtract the lines needed for the sync bar, and the data pushed
>>> outside of the viewing area to prevent the edges from being
>>> displayed, the cropped viewable area. You're not as near that higher
>>> resolution as you'd like to believe.
>>
>> The figures I gave are for the active part of the horizontal and
>> vertical TV scan.
>>
>> http://www.epanorama.net/documents/video/pal_timing.html
>>
>> With 414 kilopixels for TV versus 38 kilopixels for the Canon S3 IS
>> - TV is nearly eleven times better resolution. With a 702 pixel
>> line for analogue blanking, it's still over 400 kilopixels. The US
>> TV does not have as high a resolution, but still far greater than
>> the S3 IS viewfinder. It is not "the very same".
>>
>> David
>>
>
> Apparently you've only seen TV broadcasts through cable during your
> life. I have an antenna-fed TV in a remote location that would say
> the amount of usable information vs. noise is about 10% of your
> highest UK resolutions. The same signal that most everyone grew up on
> for the last 50 years. The comment "the very same" stands.

In which case, you have failed to enjoy the excellent pictures offered by
analogue TV for the last few decades, and a performance easily achieved
with off-air TV over most of Europe. Analogue TV is capable of about 10
times the resolution of the Canon S3 IS EVF. I'm sorry it's so much worse
for you.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

On 3 Oct 2007 18:48:16 -0400, <caught DeleteThis @22.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:36:43 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>> Apparently you've only seen TV broadcasts through cable during your
>>> life. I have an antenna-fed TV in a remote location that would say
>>> the amount of usable information vs. noise is about 10% of your
>>> highest UK resolutions. The same signal that most everyone grew up on
>>> for the last 50 years. The comment "the very same" stands.
>>
>> In which case, you have failed to enjoy the excellent pictures offered by
>> analogue TV for the last few decades, and a performance easily achieved
>> with off-air TV over most of Europe. Analogue TV is capable of about 10
>> times the resolution of the Canon S3 IS EVF. I'm sorry it's so much worse
>> for you.
>
> Sock puppets lead hard lives, apparently.

Usenet Trolls with no lives, no valuable information, nor informative opinions
about anything often invent a purpose for themselves. Some do it by comparing
ASCII strings in post headers because that's something they can do. It's a
challenge for them, one they know they can do. Even though it often taxes the
very limits of their abilities. Like playing with their favorite "Where's Waldo"
book which still leaves them befuddled at times. No doubt ripping out and
throwing away any pages that reveal their limitations to themselves. They can
tell the difference between an A or an E in post headers as they sing along to
the tune of "One of these things in not like the other, one of these things just
doesn't belong," while Sesame Street on PBS is playing in the background.

Unfortunately, this being the limits of their ability to reason and think leaves
Usenet trolls like Assaar erroneously ass-uming that everyone online is a
sock-puppet. Anyone posting from the same news-feed is a potential member of
that group in their minds. If all of those posters disagree with Assaar's
blatant stupidity then they must all be the same person posting as sock-puppets.
He has proof from that. That's all the proof he needs. This is all that he has
going for him in life so nobody mentions it, out of pity for him. That's as
creative and intelligent as he'll ever be. If Usenet was the Special Olympics
Assaar would be sure to be awarded a bright shiny honorable-mention like every
other participant. Then he could feel good about his asstounding, but wrong,
accomplishments. A good thing that news readers have a kill-filter in them. He
can rip out pages/participants from his "Where's Waldo" level of mental activity
while reading posts. He won't have to be faced with the ego-shattering proof
that he's wrong, again, and again, and again.

Trolls like Assaar never once stop to realize that the brighter people on Usenet
change their names continuously to evade the resident trolls in any newsgroup.
It's the only way to avoid them. Once you get one stuck to the bottom of your
shoe just change your name again. Just like changing email addresses to dump the
useless spam. It's that simple. The only drawback is that this leaves the few,
much more stupid resident trolls now thinking they are all sock-puppets of each
other.

They're not even bright enough to figure that out, even when you tell them.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:59:11 GMT, The Garison o`keeF sock puppet
trolled:

> the brighter people on Usenet change their names continuously to evade
> the resident trolls in any newsgroup. It's the only way to avoid them.

Your logic may work with dimwits, but most others realize (for
many reasons, including the content of your message) that you're the
troll, and are continuously changing your nym so that your replies
won't get routed to hundreds (at least!) of killfiles.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

ignatious_thornton wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:45:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Ted Harley wrote:
>>[]
>>
>>>Guess what the resolution of the
>>>S3 IS display is? 360x240, the very same resolution as your (old) TV
>>>display, that never seemed to bother anyone for over 50 years.
>>>Everyone use to pride themselves on how sharp and clear all that
>>>detail was in them (until HDTV came along, and not everyone has that
>>>still).
>>
>>No, the S3 IS has 115,000 total pixels, so that's 38,333 RGB pixels, or
>>about 168 lines of 224 pixels. In the UK, analog TV has 575 active lines,
>>and in the US NTSC TV has 486 active lines (according to Wikipedia). In
>>digital UK TV, there are 720 pixels per line, so a TV display has 414 RGB
>>kilopixels, compared with the S3 IS 38 kilopixels.
>>
>>David
>>
>
>
> Now subtract the lines needed for the sync bar, and the data pushed outside of
> the viewing area to prevent the edges from being displayed, the cropped viewable
> area. You're not as near that higher resolution as you'd like to believe.

PAL (the TV standard used in UK and Australia) has 480 visible lines.
ISTR that NTSC has 420 visible lines.
Digital UK TV has a visible area of 720 lines.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

dj_nme wrote:
[]
> PAL (the TV standard used in UK and Australia) has 480 visible lines.

No, 625 lines, 575 visible.

> ISTR that NTSC has 420 visible lines.

No, 525 lines, 484 visible.

> Digital UK TV has a visible area of 720 lines.

No, UK SDTV is still 575 visible lines, but with a 16:9 aspect ratio.
Interpolated by the display.

See:
http://stjarnhimlen.se/tv/tv.html#HDTV

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

David J Taylor wrote:
> dj_nme wrote:
> []
>> PAL (the TV standard used in UK and Australia) has 480 visible lines.
>
> No, 625 lines, 575 visible.
>
>> ISTR that NTSC has 420 visible lines.
>
> No, 525 lines, 484 visible.
>
>> Digital UK TV has a visible area of 720 lines.
>
> No, UK SDTV is still 575 visible lines, but with a 16:9 aspect ratio.
> Interpolated by the display.
>
> See:
> http://stjarnhimlen.se/tv/tv.html#HDTV
>
> Cheers,
> David

I should perhaps note that the "resolution" figures on that page are not
the number of pixels, but a subjective measure. If you apply the the same
measures to the Canon S3 EVF, which has 168 lines of 224 pixels, the
"resolution" would be a vertical resolution of 84 and a horizontal
resolution of 112, still far less than even US TV (242 vert by 330 horiz).

David
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS? 

"Garison o`keeF" <spamless DeleteThis @noaddress.net> wrote in message
news:ukk2h31stqe1ei64tiv0rodmjiq7kg83ig@4ax.com...
> On 3 Oct 2007 18:48:16 -0400, <caught DeleteThis @22.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:36:43 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>>
> Trolls like Assaar never once stop to realize that the brighter people on
> Usenet
> change their names continuously to evade the resident trolls in any
> newsgroup.
> It's the only way to avoid them. Once you get one stuck to the bottom of
> your
> shoe just change your name again. Just like changing email addresses to
> dump the
> useless spam. It's that simple. The only drawback is that this leaves the
> few,
> much more stupid resident trolls now thinking they are all sock-puppets of
> each
> other.
>
> They're not even bright enough to figure that out, even when you tell
> them.

You should not have to change your name on usenet!
(unless you want to irritate people by avoiding their kill files).

e-mail address maybe but not username.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon PowerShot S3 IS?