Do In Depth SEO keyword Research And Competitor Research for $1

GIVE YOU 15 BEST KEYWORDSDo You want to know about online market research before starting your Business?? Exactly the 1st thing you need to find the best niche and appropriate keyword research to get thing start. If you targeting wrong and bad keyword research, then it will cost your money, time and business. Please don’t get stress, I will help you to find the best profitable and appropriate keywords targeting to your business niche. Also I will research your top competitors to find the weakness to puss them down. Just provide me your niche or seed Keywords and targeting location. What Can you Expect From This GIG? Give you best keywords I found.Long tail keywordsMost profitable key-wordsAverage Monthly Search Volume.Local Search Volume.Global Search Volume.Cost Per Click (CPC).Google Adwords Competitions level.Full Color report in highlighted Excel file format.

by: cindrelaseo
Created: —
Category: Onsite SEO & Research
Viewed: 266

Do smaller apertures provide more depth of field past the diffraction limit, even if peak sharpness suffers?

In Understanding Exposure (3rd edition, on page 48), Bryan Peterson has what might be called a rant against modern on-line conventional wisdom about diffraction limits. Answers on this web site are pretty much in line with that conventional wisdom; see What is a "diffraction limit"? and What's the benefit of a tiny aperture?

But Peterson is particularly dismissive of “photography forum Web sites”, and says he “wants to set the record straight”. Is there a grain of truth to what he says, or is he totally off-base?

Particularly, he says that f/22 is “the smallest lens opening that, in turn, produces the greatest depth of field” with a wide-angle lens, and that f/22 is therefore the only way to record sharpness from front to back. Will stopping down beyond the diffraction limit give more consistent across-the-field sharpness, even if it isn’t absolutely as sharp, perhaps? Or does the diffraction limit mean that at certain point, far before f/22 on APS-C dSLRs, everything is as as sharp as it’s going to get, and beyond that, everything gets worse?

Peterson also says “The question of using f/22 was never an issue during the days when we all shot film, and it should not be an issue today.” In this answer on this site, jrista (convincingly, I thought) argues that the limit is a function of the recording medium. Does Peterson, despite credentials as being a best-selling photography author, not give enough credence to the difference between film and digital?

Make in depth competitor research in 24 hrs – SEO, PPC, Backlinks & More! for $20

Get SEO Analysis + PPC Research + Top Backlinks + Quality Ad Copies under 1 price! This research is backed up by premium digital marketing tool so you’ll get the latest data, not the outdated one – IN 24 HOURS (or less). Satisfaction Guaranteed Or Full Refund, No Question Ask. NOTE: Only 10 gigs will be sold at this price & then price WILL increase.

by: AceSolstice
Created: —
Category: Onsite SEO & Research
Viewed: 205

Best practices for tracking page depth metrics such as pageviews on infinite scroll website

I have an infinite scroll website where a user can scroll very deep into content archives. Essentially they could scroll 50 pages if they wanted to.

Initially when I created the site I tracked “pageviews” on both the initial site load, but then each time a user scrolled down and loaded more content, a virtual pageview was triggered.

One of the problems here is that in some cases the amount of items loaded is less than other cases. For example, mobile pages load less content for the sake of bandwidth, and desktop pages load more content.

Because of this, the actual “page” size is not the same and a mobile site could trigger more pageviews… what I’m saying is that it doesn’t give a great baseline metric across the site.

Pageviews are important because I run CPM based ads that rely on knowing how much traffic is available to be sold. Pinterest is a lot like my website so it makes me wonder how they go about tracking the infinite scroll feeds.

Is there a better way to track virtual scroll pageviews? Perhaps using a depth metric instead or measuring the height of the browser and using that height as 100%, then as a user scrolls, incrementing the percentage?

Browser height = 600px => set baseline as 100% User scrolls down 300px more, now scroll is at 150% 

This is just one thought, but I’m open to others. Any ideas?

The role of depth of a circuit in its hardware implementation

The depth of a circuit is the maximal length of a path from an input gate to the output gate of the circuit [Reference]

Question: What is the relation between the depth of a circuit and hardware implementation of the circuit. In fact, I want to ask this question, why the low depth of a circuit results in the circuit has a suitable hardware implementation?

Thanks for all suggestions

“Focal Distance” / “Depth of field” of endocsopic and (car) backup cameras

In a nutshell, my question is:
Why is the depth of field for endoscopic cameras so limited? It seems it is generally around 3 to 8cm (some are around 3 to 40cm). Why aren’t they similar to automobile backup cameras that seem to have an “infinite” depth of field (or, at least, about 4cm to really far from the camera).

Out of the netshell:
First, it seems that my question could have aspects that may not be strictly photography related. If so, should it be posted on a different Stack?

Also, I am not a photographer, so my terms may not fit precise, strictly photographic (or other technical) usage. But, I think they’re clear enough. However, just in case I’m not as clear as I think I am, here are a couple of terms and how I think of them:

“focal distance”: The distance from the camera that is in focus. E.g., 8cm.

“depth of field”: The range of distances from the camera that are in focus. E.g. 3 to 40 cm.

However, in product descriptions of the relativly inexpensive endoscopic cameras that attach to personal computers & smart phones, is seems that either term, “focal distance” or “depth of field”, may be used to mean “depth of field” as I defined above.

Anyway, I ask because when I need to look in a wall or other tight spot, I don’t want to have such a limited range of focus (the ~3 to 8cm that endoscopic cameras have). I’ve used my android device (an otherwise inactive Samsung S3) when the wall opening was large enough, and it provided really good images in focus over, if not infinity, most of the interior of the wall. But, it is also cumbersome at best for such an application (and usually not possible at all due to hole sizes). I’ve considered MacGyvering up a backup camera for endoscopic use, but they are quite a bit larger in diameter, and would again limit usage in tight spots. Plus, I’m no MacGyver…

How do you use the Depth of Field Preview button on a Nikon D90?

I am trying my hands around using Depth of field preview button with my Nikon D90 and its 18-105mm Kit lens. I read some online material as well have seen some videos about using it, but so far I’m not having any luck.

I’ve tried the following:

  1. First i set my aperture to 5.6,focused on some object 5-6 feet away adjusted the light meter and than pressed the DOF button.
  2. Again changed the aperture to 11 with same steps than to 22 with same steps.

I don’t see any changes when I do that, though. Now this means either I am really dumb (:)) or i am missing something. Can any one help me figure this out?

Why is the Depth of Field Preview button necessary?

I’ve looked far and wide but i cannot find the answer for this question.

I know some older cameras and lenses used to have aperture rings on them, which allowed the user to set how open or closed the aperture is at any given moment. Now, on modern DSLR lenses, the aperture only closes when the shutter release button is pressed, and to view what your shot would be like with the aperture closed you must hold the Depth of Field preview button.

I know video lenses always have a ring to control the iris- really the same function as the aperture on a DSLR camera. Why don’t modern DSLR lenses have aperture rings that allow the user to set an aperture and leave it? Why does the aperture only close to the stop that it is set for when the shutter release is pressed?