Highway MPG rating as to Megapixels, City MPG as to Lens Quality.

Discussion in 'The Garage' started by Kroze, Nov 2, 2012.

  1. Kroze

    Kroze Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I right?
     
  2. rommelrommel

    rommelrommel Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depends what kind of driving you do, I guess.
     
  3. tcG

    tcG Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure, bro.
     
  4. phucheneh

    phucheneh Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2012
    Messages:
    7,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can see the analogy:

    A high megapixel CCD is very common. Pretty much every modern camera is capable of being 'high megapixel.' It doesn't always (or rather, rarely does) make it a high-quality device. Taking truly good pictures requires a quality (versus megapixel quantity) CCD and a good lens.

    Given a car with decent enough aerodynamics, good highway mileage is merely a function of proper gearing. Engine displacement means increasingly little, since the bigger engines are under a lot less stress and can cruise comfortably at lower RPM's. To get above par (...shouldn't better be 'below par'? never got that) city mileage takes a lot more effort, with higher quality, more complex parts and smart design.

    There's a...rough analogy there. But I do think a BIT abstractly...
     
  5. Kroze

    Kroze Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you write my research paper? :p
     
  6. Howard

    Howard Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 1999
    Messages:
    47,963
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, and go away
     
  7. Railgun

    Railgun Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're comparing two sides of the same coin to two different currencies. The analogy doesn't work.
     
  8. KentState

    KentState Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    6,811
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here's another one apples vs oranges.
     
  9. bigi

    bigi Golden Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    1,684
    Likes Received:
    1
    Total BS. Stop posting, please.
     
  10. fbrdphreak

    fbrdphreak Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    17,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    +eleventybillion
     
  11. Eureka

    Eureka Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your topic title was the first thing on the internet in a long time that made me verbally go "what".
     
  12. Mermaidman

    Mermaidman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    7,819
    Likes Received:
    0
  13. Pulsar

    Pulsar Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    4,452
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, Op, you're not.

    City driving is the harshest test of a vehicle's fuel economy. If you want a good economical car, you look at the city economy because if it's good, the highway is too.

    People buying a camera look at the megapixels, because it's been the mostly over-riding factor in a camera's image quality: or at least it has been until just very recently. NO one walks in and says "I want a camera with really high lense quality". The people who worry about lense quality buy a dslr and buy seperate lenses.

    Megapixels = City economy.

    You've got it completely backwards.
     
  14. phucheneh

    phucheneh Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2012
    Messages:
    7,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...do you take pictures with a 10MP (or whatever) iPhone and think the quality is not, uh...need a proper adjective...ass-tastic?

    My 5MP Canon is at least 7-8 years old and makes 95% of newer point-and-shoots its bitch. He didn't get it backwards (not that it's a fabulous analogy, but it's less-fabulous the other way around). Cameras plateaued at 5-6MP and everything since then has just been cheaper crap with bigger numbers on it.

    I can't tell is this was serious or a sarcastic attempt to make even less sense.
     
  15. Kroze

    Kroze Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I wouldn't expect the general sheeple to understand the logic anyway. They feed and swallow every bit of the industry's cool aid. Move along sheeple, nothing to see here.
     
  16. KIAman

    KIAman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,210
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would say the following

    Highway MPG = Megapixels
    City MPG = Sensor size (CCD, CMOS)
    Your driving habits = Lens quality
     
  17. Itchrelief

    Itchrelief Golden Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,396
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you have to result to calling people sheeple, you didn't have much of an argument to begin with.
     
  18. phucheneh

    phucheneh Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2012
    Messages:
    7,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the abstract analogy win.
     
  19. Throckmorton

    Throckmorton Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    16,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not a good analogy.

    For one thing, it's a myth that megapixels don't matter. It depends on the quality of the lens. I have a 16 megapixel sensor and with a sharp 50mm f1.8 prime lens, I've been able to get shots that would normally require a telephoto lens, by cropping. If I had only 10 megapixels, much less 5, I wouldn't have enough pixels to do that.
     
  20. evident

    evident Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,989
    Likes Received:
    10
  21. Howard

    Howard Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 1999
    Messages:
    47,963
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow, you're stupid.
     
  22. Zenmervolt

    Zenmervolt Supermoderator<br>The Garage<br>Elite member
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2000
    Messages:
    24,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    This. The analogy is fairly crappy no matter how you look at it, but this is as accurate is it's going to get.

    ZV
     
  23. DominionSeraph

    DominionSeraph Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,275
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, that's just an artifact of current market forces driving for thermodynamic efficiency. Put a 1960's big block, a gas turbine, or a single-expansion steam engine into a car and you're going to have bad gas mileage no matter what the gearing.
     
  24. Zenmervolt

    Zenmervolt Supermoderator<br>The Garage<br>Elite member
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2000
    Messages:
    24,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    You'll have worse mileage than a new engine, but it won't be horrible. One of the biggest reasons that the old V8 engines did poorly was that they were lugging around cars with the aerodynamics of a blimp hangar and 3-speed automatics with a top ratio of 1:1 and no lockup clutch on the torque converter. The actual changes in thermodynamic efficiency for an otto-cycle gasoline engine are relatively small players in the overall increase in highway fuel efficiency.

    As far as comparing turbines or steam engines to otto-cycle gasoline engines, that's just ridiculous. It was abundantly clear that phucheneh was not talking about a 1905 Stanley Steamer nor about a turbine car that never saw mass production.

    ZV
     
  25. DominionSeraph

    DominionSeraph Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,275
    Likes Received:
    1
    You apparently don't know how analogies work.