-[MegaMess] Pixel
Chie^'cTa~Tho+m
bo+?i va^.y mo+'i no', Vee tho^ng minh nha^'t...haha.
sharpshooting vee.
Ca^u cha? lo+`i ne`:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pixels la` su+. chi? -di.nh ca'c Dot la`m ro~ hi`nh.
Kho^? la` size nhu+ng hie^.n nay va^~n la^`m la^~n giu+~a
size va` pixels nhu+ 1600 x1200 pixels, size 5M
To'm la.i so^' pixels ca`ng lo+'n, hi`nh ca`ng sharp nhu+ng file
size se~ bu+., hi`nh size la` kha'c, ma'y/DVD projector co'
pixels lo+'n la` ca`ng ro~ Ex.
Du`ng photo shop thi` bie^'c :)))) chu.p hi`nh kho^? nho? cheap
digicam thi` cu~ng la`m ra kho^? lo+'n easy 1600x1200 nhu+ng
no' toa`n la` vi chu`ng O tho^i
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of a pixel is context specific.
there is a sycronym for a particular pixel depending the
the specific context. For example,
Pixel in printing a page described in terms of dpi; pixel in
digital image dislay formulated in terms of resolution. And in this
case, pixel in digital cameras are attually the number of photosensor
or pixel sensor. e.g. a camera with an array of 2048×1536 sensor
elements is commonly s
prefered to have "3.1 megapixels" (2048 × 1536 = 3,145,728).
Mr. 2Le' is a novice of digital photorgraphy, i think :-). He might
mistaken
a size of an image (kho^?) for a pixel in a digital camera. If he uses
a 6Mpixel (number of pixel sensors) camera to capture
an image of the smaller size
he will get a finer picture. It is not a matter of "wasting unused
sensor", but it' matter
of resolution setting of your digital cameras. I don't know if you can
set your 6MegaPixel
cameras to a lower setting or not, but if you use a cameras with
6Mgpixel to capture
an image with smaller size, you will see the difference in quality with
one captured by
a 2Mgpixel camera. By the way, a 6Mgpixel cam usually has larger pixel
sensors than
those in a 2Mgpixel.
Lambada
Chie^'cTa~Tho+m wrote:
> Cho+`i o+i la` cho+`i!
>
:)))))))))
:))
wrote:
:
:Lambada wrote:
:> Chie^'cTa~Tho+m wrote:
:> > Cho+`i o+i la` cho+`i!
:> >
:>
:> :)))))))))
:
:Xo+`i :-))))
:
:Ma^'y o^ng tha^`y ho^ng hie^?u ca^u ho?i cu?a o^ng tha^`y Le' !
:
:JoJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuo^'i tua^`n thi` o^ng Lambada nha^.u xi?n.
Ta^m tha^`n cha.y tu*' phi'a, loa.n xa` nga^`u...ta^?u ho?a nha^.p
ma...
Co' bie^'t gi` dda^u dde^? ma` hie^?u ne`...
Vo*' va^?n. :-)
Ho^m nay o*? dda^y va^~n co`n la` chu'a nha^.t.
DDi le^~ nha` tho*` xong nha^.u tie^'p he'ng !
:-)))
Have a wonderful one !
Pooh
Chie^'cTa~Tho+m
jupiterean wrote:
>
> Ma^'y o^ng tha^`y ho^ng hie^?u ca^u ho?i cu?a o^ng tha^`y Le' !
>
> JoJ
O+`i, let me try one more time.
When you adjust the native (higher) resolution of good LCD to a non
native (lower) resolution, the computer performs an interpolation
algorimth, before it gives you new display on the computer screen. The
new display will look kinna blurry because of
lower number of dots on the screen or the display pixels. Similiarly,
when you use a
6Megapixel cam to photograph an image with 2Megapixel resolution, the
software
in the cam controller will interpolate a PRE-EXISTING set of light
data(e.g. light
intensity or brighness of ligth that falls on the plane of focus of the
cam) before it creates a new digital image. By PRE-EXISTING, i mean
that interpolation
is an numerical approximation process which REQUIRES a PRE-EXISTING
data. Also, approximation do leave marginal errors. Thus, I think what
the
guy said on the website is right in a sense that all sensors are used
(3 sensors pixel
for one photo pixel of the final produced image)
The camera must use all sensors to gather the light data (pre-existing)
before it
performs the interpolation.
Do i make sense?
The quality of the 2Megapixel image captured by a 6Megapixe camera is
not
necessarily better than the one produced by a 2Megapixe cam since there
are new
image-enhancement technology that help lower res cam to acheive a
better quality
digital image.
when i
:))
wrote:
:>Thus, I think what the guy said on the website is right in a sense that all sensors are used
:> (3 sensors pixel
:> for one photo pixel of the final produced image)
:> The camera must use all sensors to gather the light data (pre-existing)
:> before it
:> performs the interpolation.
:>
:> Do i make sense?
:Yes sir !
:
:Now you can count o^ng ma(.c ta~ on the Yes camp, sir Le' :-))))
:
:JoJ
Sa('p la`m mo^.t chuye^'n ve^` Vietnam nu*~a ro^`i ha? JoJ.
Cho tui ddi theo vo*'i. :-))))))
Pooh
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desire Controls What We See, Study Finds
Heather Whipps
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com
Sat Jul 15, 1:00 PM ET
Without realizing it, people will perceive things according to how
they want to see them, a new study suggests.
"There is an age old hypothesis in psychology that a person's wishes,
hopes and desires can influence what they see," said David Dunning,
Cornell University psychologist and co-author of the study. "This
theory had lay dormant for about 40 years, though, without any
supporting evidence. We wanted to test the murky waters again."
In five separate tests conducted by Dunning and a graduate student,
Emily Balcetis, 412 volunteers from Cornell were presented with an
ambiguous picture that could be interpreted as two distinct
figures?either a horse's head or the body of a seal, for example. They
were told they would be assigned to a taste test of either
fresh-squeezed orange juice or a gelatinous, clumpy and rather
unappealing veggie smoothie, depending on whether they saw a farm
animal or sea creature.
More often than not the participants chose the figure that would lead
them to the juice.
The trick to making the study meaningful was making sure the test
subjects didn't know what was going on, Dunning said, noting that the
generally high IQ of Cornell students made cheating a real
possibility.
"The figures we used were chosen so we knew the people weren't just
lying or tricking us," Dunning told LiveScience. "We also tracked
automatic, unconscious eye movements which were out of their control."
Not only did participants routinely see the figure that produced
favorable results, their eye motions indicated that they were never
aware of the alternate option being available.
Other scientists who have studied the connection between belief and
physiological reactions in the eye, now supported by Dunning's
research, point to its possibilities in the world of positive thinking
and self-motivation.
"Determining whether a person walking towards you is smiling or
smirking, how close the finish line seems in a race or how loud a
partner?a wife, husband, lover?is yelling during an argument," Dunning
gave as examples that could arise in life. "Could we interpret
ambiguous situations towards our expectations and hopes and away from
our fears? That is the ultimate question."
The study will be published later this year in the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
Duped and Clueless: How Easily We Fool Ourselves
Why Taking Medicine Works, Even if the Medicine Doesn't
Scientists Say Everyone Can Read Minds
Old People See Big Picture Better
The Biggest Popular Myths
Visit LiveScience.com for more daily news, views and scientific
inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience
reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating
for people on the go. Check out our collection of Science, Animal and
Dinosaur Pictures, Science Videos, Hot Topics, Trivia, Top 10s,
Voting, Amazing Images, Reader Favorites, and more. Get cool gadgets
at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email
newsletter and check out our RSS feeds today!
:>
:> The quality of the 2Megapixel image captured by a 6Megapixe camera is