STAPLES STORES WILL TAKE OLD COMPUTERS

From: Christopher Smith <csmith_at_amdocs.com>
Date: Fri Feb 15 10:49:10 2002

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doc [mailto:doc_at_mdrconsult.com]

> What's happening more and more, though, is a long pseudotechnical
> mis-explanation of the part's function. I was looking at digital

I love those. :) See my previous comment about the composite video
input.

> cameras last year, and asked the salesperson at the camera
> counter what
> 3.2 megapixels translates to in terms of resolution and color
> depth. He

I always assumed megapixel was referring to the number of pixels at
a fixed color depth (probably 24-bit)... I'm certain that it's just
a manufactured slang term to make digital cameras sound more impressive
and annoy people who know what they're talking about.

Chances are that we're either talking about 1024 * 1024 pixels, or 1000
* 1000 pixels, in which case 3.2 megapixels gives one a resolution of
something like:

3355443.2 (?) pixels -- that's using 1024, so it's probably incorrect :)
(The .2 of a pixel makes me wonder)

3200000 (Sounds better to me, so it's based on 1000s)

A square picture of 1789 * 1789 would be slightly larger than this. You
can probably assume some kind of a rectangular aspect ratio, though. I
would guess that a normal camera is something around 1.5 (wide) to 1,
but I don't really feel like calculating that. ;)

> explained to me at length that megapixels was a measure of "how many
> pictures you can take on one smartcard"
> Not being busy that day, and being unduly irritated by his
> condescension, I made him repeat himself in front of the
> store manager.
> I don't know if the manager cared at all, but it made _me_ feel much
> better.

Chris


Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL

/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
 
Received on Fri Feb 15 2002 - 10:49:10 GMT