those terms really have more to do with the quality of the image. sharpness and fineness both have to do more with contrast than resolution.elpmis said:could be more of a semantics issue ... they should have said "fineness" instead of "sharpness"
websters is something like thistheacoustician said:those terms really have more to do with the quality of the image. sharpness and fineness both have to do more with contrast than resolution.
it doesn't help that manufacturer's call the same adjustments different things either.elpmis said:websters is something like this
resolution - The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, as on a video display terminal
contrast - The difference in brightness between the light and dark areas of a picture, such as a photograph or video image.
sharpness - the quality of being sharp and clear
edit: you can see where there is room for error if you don't look at resolution just by the numbers
While "What is 8?" is the common answer, it isn't a set thing. I've heard of machines using 4, 6, or 12 bit bytes. All a byte is, is the smallest addressable unit and the number of bits is determined by architecture. Right?taeric said:What is wrong with the question? Especially if you know the target audience, it is perfectly acceptable. I've seen another that was just as incorrect, but perfectly acceptable before. The answer basically said "The number of bits in a byte," or something similar. Anybody know what is wrong with that?
You can't address in bytes anymore or its just not common?taeric said:It isn't the smallest addressable unit, either. That is typically a word nowdays.
It is now pretty much 8-bits, although that is just a historical slang that has stuck. It has no physical meaning in most computers.
tre said:This is a trick question. That is actually an answer, not a question.
theacoustician said:You can't address in bytes anymore or its just not common?
ChikkenNoodul said:In 8086 assembler you could address the four 16 bit general purpose registers as eight 8 bit registers (low and high), so you could work one byte at a time
Either directly within the code or with a pointer to a memory location.taeric said:How did you load the registers, though? Typically I've always seen addressing the data referring to how it is addressed in memory, not in registers.