[HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:10:29 +0200
Richard Schiff wrote:
[...] the problem is that optical science has a long way to go to get
optics to match the detectors....
What nonsense...
As things stand (and for the foreseeable future too), detector technology
has a long way to go to begin getting close to what optics (even poor ones)
deliver.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
- References:
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Richard Schiff
Other related posts:
- » [HUG] Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Richard Schiff