Rich wrote:
nospam wrote in news:040320120926345162%
:

In article , Bruce
wrote:

You're wasting your breath, Rich, by arguing with people who postulate
from theory but don't ever seem to look at the images being discussed.

actually, it's you who is wasting breath, because you haven't an
inkling of a clue about what you're talking about.

They argue that a DSLR with an AA filter gives sharper and more
detailed results than one without despite the evidence of images that
show the complete opposite.

bull****.

if you have images that prove longstanding signal theory is wrong, by
all means present them. quite a few people will be interested in seeing
such evidence, far more than just the readers of this newsgroup. you
could turn the entire industry on its head. you'd be famous.

There have BEEN images showing CLEARLY more resolution with no AA
filter,

Resolution that is swamped by artifact noise is worthless.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe