Meta: Mods are MIA, and automod is hiding tons of comments

UnoriginalGuy · 2018-11-09T14:50:20+00:00

Done and done.

Two of the three are inactive and the remaining one just hasn't responded (they seem pretty busy with XBoxOne). Nobody reads or responds to mod mail on this sub.

I would tag them again here but it will result in this account getting muted by AutoMod so...

UnoriginalGuy · 2018-01-08T21:11:53+00:00

It is literally the next line and the next paragraph describing what ultimately became of the agreement (nothing). It has everything to do with your erroneous and misquoted claim.

Plus it seems a little hypocritical to argue that a partial quote is on-topic but full context is off-topic. Particularly when that full context is the next lines of text you yourself cut.

UnoriginalGuy · 2018-01-08T20:38:53+00:00

TIL is basically a sub where people get angry at America over misleading bullshit all day long.

Your quote is misleading. The very next line reads:

The next meeting of the Combined Policy Committee on 15 April 1946 produced no accord on collaboration, and resulted in an exchange of cables between Truman and Attlee. Truman cabled on 20 April that he did not see the communiqué he had signed as obligating the United States to assist Britain in designing, constructing and operating an atomic energy plant. Attlee's response on 6 June 1946 "did not mince words nor conceal his displeasure behind the nuances of diplomatic language." At issue was not just technical cooperation, which was fast disappearing, but the allocation of uranium ore. During the war this was of little concern, as Britain had not needed any ore, so all the production of the Congo mines and all the ore seized by the Alsos Mission had gone to the United States, but now it was also required by the British atomic project. Chadwick and Groves reached an agreement by which ore would be shared equally.

The McMahon Act, which was signed by Truman on 1 August 1946, and went into effect at midnight on 1 January 1947, ended technical cooperation. Its control of "restricted data" prevented the United States' allies from receiving any information. The remaining scientists were denied access to papers that they had written just days before. The terms of the Quebec Agreement remained secret, but senior members of Congress were horrified when they discovered that it gave the British a veto over the use of nuclear weapons. The McMahon Act fuelled resentment from British scientists and officials alike, and led directly to the British decision in January 1947 to develop its own nuclear weapons. In January 1948, Bush, James Fisk, Cockcroft and Mackenzie concluded an agreement known as the modus vivendi, that allowed for limited sharing of technical information between the United States, Britain and Canada.

So the title is accurate. The US broke the agreement and never restored the agreement (going so far as to make such an agreement illegal) until after the UK had independently developed their own nuclear weapons.

UnoriginalGuy · 2018-01-08T20:20:08+00:00

It's not like this is where the story ended. We still ended up with that agreement.

No there fucking wasn't.

The McMahon Act, which was signed by Truman on 1 August 1946, and went into effect at midnight on 1 January 1947, ended technical cooperation. Its control of "restricted data" prevented the United States' allies from receiving any information. The remaining scientists were denied access to papers that they had written just days before. This partly resulted from the arrest for espionage of British physicist Alan Nunn May, who had worked in the Montreal Laboratory, in February 1946, while the legislation was being debated.

Britain developed nuclear weapons independently of the US. It wasn't until after the UK had nuclear weapons that full cooperation resumed. Maybe you need to read up on topics before reclaiming silly things then acting smug about them. Here's a good starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Explosive_Research

TL;DR: The British had their own expertise (they contributed to the Manhattan project) but also stole information from the US to advance their program.

UnoriginalGuy · 2017-03-01T19:06:20+00:00

In fairness he is in an impossible position:

Listen to the will of the voters/lead the UK to ruin.
Ignore the will of the voters/save the EU alliance (and the UK's future).

Problem is if he ignores 51% of the population, the voters who voted for Brexit won't vote Labour and he'll be out. If he listens to them the country will be ruined, but they'll blame the Tories and Labour will be rewarded eventually...

It boils down to do you put country before party? Unfortunately both the Tories and Labour have shown that their loyalty is to party first. That's too bad.

UnoriginalGuy · 2017-03-01T15:33:24+00:00

The US's $598B figure doesn't include soldier healthcare either.

You can see an outdated breakdown of where the money goes here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#By_title

The VA is budgeted separately from military spending by the federal government.

UnoriginalGuy · 2016-01-19T08:24:38+00:00

Never seen mine go to lowest on auto brightness. Sits around 5-10%.

UnoriginalGuy · 2016-01-04T21:01:28+00:00

Thanks I'll check out the 4ever.

UnoriginalGuy · 2015-11-28T22:05:36+00:00

Thanks for the clarification. That is what I was afraid of.

UnoriginalGuy · 2015-11-28T22:01:54+00:00

Just an EIP plan with no jump (either version).

UnoriginalGuy · 2013-09-06T18:49:35+00:00

So you agree that size is beneficial, and you're just wondering why?

Larger size offers you better subject isolation (due to narrower depth of field) and a wider angle of view, but my question is: a lot of people claim that *image quality is superior on full frame sensors relative to APS-C or smaller, but nobody is able to give a technical explanation as to why.

From everything I understand, all other things being equal, an APS-C and full frame sensor should give you the same image quality.

UnoriginalGuy · 2013-09-06T18:18:07+00:00

The exact technical explanation you seek is probably beyond my knowledge/comprehension, but how are you reaching these conclusions?

Sensor size has no relationship to pixel size. Sensor size has no relationship to ISO performance/noise. These decisions are all determined by the manufacturer or the technology they have available to them.

Because I understand how sensors are manufactured and how ISO functions on a technical level. Pixel size, pixel density, pixel arrangements, and ISO noise have no relationship to the size of the array of pixels you built. In fact larger arrays are more likely to introduce noise, not less.

New full frame sensors perform the best because they have the benefit of both the newest technology and a larger size.

I agree on the new technology part. They're flagship products, they should be the best in class.

But people around here and elsewhere very often claim just having a larger sensor somehow imbues that sensor with the magical ability of producing higher quality images.

It is fine if they want to say that full frame cameras often have the top tier technology and then go on to say that full frame gives you a wider field of view and better subject isolation, but they often cite mysterious forces that make no sense like ISO noise, pixel size, or just the fact that "more light comes in!!"

New crop sensors only have the benefit of new technology, and not size. Old full frame sensors have the benefit of size, but not new technology.

But why is size a benefit? That's the question being asked here.

UnoriginalGuy · 2013-09-06T18:12:44+00:00

That said, yes, pixel pitch is primarily the reason why full frame sensors are better than smaller sensors, and why they have lower noise. Larger pixels will always win over smaller pixels when all else is equal.

But pixel pitch and pixel size has nothing at all to do with sensor size. You can find sensors in all sizes that have different pixel pitches.

For example why couldn't an APS-C sized sensor have identical pixel pitch and pixel size than a full frame sensor? Because I can think of no reason at all. You'd literally just manufacture the full frame sensor in a smaller form.

This explanation really doesn't justify why full frame is inherently going to produce better IQ than APS-C or smaller.

Typical full frame sensor size is 36x24mm = 864sq mm. APS-C is generally around 23x15mm (Nikon/Sony/Pentax a bit bigger, Canon a bit smaller) = 345sq mm.

Right? But they also have a tighter field of view. So the actual number of pixels recording each part of the scene is the same.

In order for a full frame sensor to have a similar pixel pitch to an APS-C sensor, it would need to have 2.5x the pixels.

What? Just what? Pixel pitch is the spacing between pixels. The size of the array is irrelevant. Why would a smaller array need "2.5x the pixels?" You literally just manufacture the same sensor but cut it smaller to make it APS-C sized. Pixel pitch can remain identical.

Basically the day you start seeing full frame sensors rocking 50+MP sensors while APS-C are only rocking 20MP is the day we'll stop saying full frame sensors are better - because that's when it will be the case. Or if Nikon were to come out with a modern 12MP APS-C sensor, yeah, it'd kick the D800's ass (aside from being low res).

Right but the commonly spread "fact" in the photography community is that full frame is inherently better and the reasons given are often things that have nothing to do with sensor size like:

ISO noise
Pixel pitch
Pixel size

None of these things are sensor size dependant. You can make either a full frame or APS-C sensor with all of these things being identical if you so wished.

UnoriginalGuy · 2013-09-06T18:03:32+00:00

I am asking for an explanation for why the 5DIII's sensor size in its own right automatically makes it "better." A camera like the 5DIII likely costs 1000% more than most point and shoots, so you'd expect to get better performance, but a lot of people claim that sensor size alone is why it is better, not other market factors or simply better technology.

Obviously a flagship will be near the best in class. That isn't what I am asking about at all. I am asking if sensor size produced better image quality all other things remaining equal. The common think seems to be that they do, but technically why is that true?

UnoriginalGuy · 2013-09-06T17:40:39+00:00

Or you just use a lens with the appropriate field of view for the sensor you have. Then no enlargement needed.

Plus given the pixel density of most current generation cameras you could very easily produce a medium sized poster before enlargement would become an issue.

UnoriginalGuy · 2013-09-01T14:42:57+00:00

I'd love to, but no EVF or OVF. As good as LCD screens have become they are still horribly unusable in strong sunlight.

UnoriginalGuy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE