Why do cars "bong!" when you crash?

It's not bullshit. I'm talking about displayed dimensions, you're talking about making the object occupy more space on the screen.

For some things an optical zoom is still a useful feature. I have only said that zoom has less importance than it used to have.

It assumes many things. I don't assume that every picture taken has to be good enough to hang in a gallery.

So distant objects are much closer than they used to be? The world is shrinking! Help!

Then in future I will have to bear in mind that if a photo has no value to you, I must not take it. If I do take it, is it just a police matter or will you be round to threaten me with a gun?

Your post wouldn't have any value if came with a neon flashing sign giving the exact time and co-ordinates of a troupe of dancing girls.

No, just a large detachable zoom lens would be enough.

Now that I would pay for!

What a waste of a zoom lens! At least use a cheaper blunt object like a clawhammer, monkeywrench, etc.

Shall we start the bidding?

YOU used the word "unremarkable". Why would anyone take a picture of anything THEY considered unremarkable?

Do you grasp the concept of resolution at all? If your phone is 10MP, with no zoom lens, and the object you want to look at takes up 10% of the width and 10% of the height of the picture, then zooming in on your computer will make that a 0.1MP image. Now take the same photo with the same 10MP resolution camera with a 10x zoom lens, and you get a 10MP image of what you were looking at. 100 times more dots!

Wasn't me. You're not following the thread properly.

Well done. And your point is?

Do you believe that all the messages posted on newsgroups are remarkable in some way?

You don't seem to grasp that a monitor is larger than an old film print and that when a picture is viewed at the same distance, objects on the monitor appear larger.

When I say "zoom has less importance..." in that context it means only that. It does not mean "zoom has no importance", "I don't have a camera with zoom", "I only ever use a crapphone", "I don't wipe my bottom after going to the toilet" or anything else anybody might want to think.

Well done. It might be useful when you want an answer to a different argument.

No idea why you're changing the subject, but I'd say 90% of them. That's why I don't reply to every single one.

Learn the difference between size and resolution.

And you're still wrong.

This is for THIS argument. You seem to think looking at part of an image more closely magically gives it more dots. I guess you're one of those f*****ts that believes those CSI programs where they take a CCTV picture and magically zoom in on someone's face 50 times and see it crystal clear.

No, you're not. I was replying to TMS and you were nothing to do with it.

That TMS doesn't understand this basic concept. I was replying to him remember? Check the notation at the top of this post.

Yeah, you're not wrong. He's just spouting random technical words in the hope he sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

By that standard, the scenes I photograph are all remarkable.

I have. When are you?

Only if I wanted to significantly enlarge and crop a section of the picture when viewing it instead of using a zoom when taking it. That's all you're banging on about.

What happens if when viewing pictures I don't have a pressing need to enlarge and crop out sections?

It is...? Then where can I get a practical camera with 100x zoom? (FYI, zoom is area multiplier, not length multiplier.)

Yes, since the technique of making something from nothing has been around for a fairly long time, it is strange the software isn't now freely available. Must be a government conspiracy.

Assigning them to keys assumes a certain level of technical ability which I suspect might be beyond him. :)

He could have got someone to help him.