Ron Hunter wrote:
Holy **** - the morons never quit wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:04:30 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

daveFaktor wrote:
John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor

wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to
a compact
camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good
job of
low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg
Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey
haired bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light
photography at it's best!
Nonsense.
It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic
sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with
their current (and future it world seem) technology.
Likewise nonsense.
Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data,
you
would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable
achievement.

If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some
credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to
recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras
guarantee a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them
producing low noise images too.

There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed
to achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of
them. The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at
all is the extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use
FZ50 Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's
examples he
http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/

That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work
where large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is
over six feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S.

http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm

The size of a print depends on the resolution of the original image,
and there are plenty of 10mp P&S cameras that can supply data to a
large print. So what is the resolution of the camera you used?


Wrong-o, simpleton moron beginner gear-head ( = not a photographer). The
printable size of the image depends solely on the content and subject
matter. It has very little to nothing to do with the resolution of the
camera's image. You'll figure it out, someday. Maybe. Probably not.

Tell me, just how large can you print an eye-catchingly beautiful
mist-shrouded water-scene from a 5 megapixel camera when using adequate
upsampling interpolation, before the viewer will ever notice?

Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron.


How large can you upsample and print a strong composition of bold
geometrics from a 1 megapixel camera before the viewer ever notices?

Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron.


How large can you upsample and print a tight-shot of the assassination of
some world-loved political leader when taken with a 3 megapixel camera?

Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron.


Content means EVERYTHING.

Your personal attacks indicate that you know you are wrong, and don't
have a cogent thought on the subject.
IF the content is all important (and it IS a factor, but only one
factor), then I should be able to make such a large print from even a
1.3 mp P&S, right? No? Proves who is wrong here, doesn't it? BTW, your
repetition of the phrase doesn't improve your argument, only makes you
look like a petulant child.

I think what he's trying to say Ron is that an image with 3 vertical
colour bars in it that is 1 Mp in size could be enlarged to massive size
where a same size an image with wispy hair and lots of detail (content)
might show it's jaggies at as little as a 5x7 inch print and wouldn't
enlarge (upsize) very far at all.