If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:26:04 +0100, Bruce wrote:
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ... ... you're WRONG! There have been some very exciting announcements of new photo equipment in advance of Photokina, and there are probably one or two surprises still to come. There have been new point and shoot digicams, new superzooms, new high quality compact digicams (including three with optical viewfinders), several new SLRs and a selection of mirrorless cameras from Sony, Samsung and Panasonic. But one trend is very clear, and that is that the megapixel race is far from over. Notable announcements include the Leaf 80 MP digital back for medium format cameras, Sigma's 46 MP SD-1 DSLR, Nikon's 16 MP D7000 and the Pentax K-5, also with 16 MP. The pace of increase in MP may have slowed slightly, but there is no sign of it levelling off. There have also been some interesting studies where higher pixel densities offset any effects from increased noise in the smaller photosites. Since the base level noise is averaged throughout many smaller photosites the noise disappears and the content's details become more visible. There *is* a free-lunch that disobeys the laws of troll's-physics. Smaller photosites does not automatically equate to lesser image quality, as is often re-spewed by all the resident pretend-photographer trolls. Some people are cursed with the limits of their learned linear thought processes that they can never unlearn. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
On 9/21/2010 4:58 PM, James Nagler wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:26:04 +0100, wrote: To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ... ... you're WRONG! There have been some very exciting announcements of new photo equipment in advance of Photokina, and there are probably one or two surprises still to come. There have been new point and shoot digicams, new superzooms, new high quality compact digicams (including three with optical viewfinders), several new SLRs and a selection of mirrorless cameras from Sony, Samsung and Panasonic. But one trend is very clear, and that is that the megapixel race is far from over. Notable announcements include the Leaf 80 MP digital back for medium format cameras, Sigma's 46 MP SD-1 DSLR, Nikon's 16 MP D7000 and the Pentax K-5, also with 16 MP. The pace of increase in MP may have slowed slightly, but there is no sign of it levelling off. There have also been some interesting studies where higher pixel densities offset any effects from increased noise in the smaller photosites. Since the base level noise is averaged throughout many smaller photosites the noise disappears and the content's details become more visible. There *is* a free-lunch that disobeys the laws of troll's-physics. Smaller photosites does not automatically equate to lesser image quality, as is often re-spewed by all the resident pretend-photographer trolls. Some people are cursed with the limits of their learned linear thought processes that they can never unlearn. That's interesting. I recently needed to purchase a new inexpensive P&S. My trusty Canon A95 died so I picked up a 12mp A3100 IS. I'm pleasantly surprised at the noise performance, not really a problem as far as I can see for normal amateur type shooting. As far as the 12mp is concerned it's more than I need and slows down processing in a photo editor. I'm curious, who exactly has been claiming the mp war is over, can the op post a link. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
"Dave Cohen" wrote in message
... On 9/21/2010 4:58 PM, James Nagler wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:26:04 +0100, wrote: There have also been some interesting studies where higher pixel densities offset any effects from increased noise in the smaller photosites. Since the base level noise is averaged throughout many smaller photosites the noise disappears and the content's details become more visible. There *is* a free-lunch that disobeys the laws of troll's-physics. Smaller photosites does not automatically equate to lesser image quality, as is often re-spewed by all the resident pretend-photographer trolls. Some people are cursed with the limits of their learned linear thought processes that they can never unlearn. That's interesting. I recently needed to purchase a new inexpensive P&S. My trusty Canon A95 died so I picked up a 12mp A3100 IS. I'm pleasantly surprised at the noise performance, not really a problem as far as I can see for normal amateur type shooting. As far as the 12mp is concerned it's more than I need and slows down processing in a photo editor. I'm curious, who exactly has been claiming the mp war is over, can the op post a link. My guess is that authorities links to the MP war being over and "interesting studies" exist mainly in the minds of the posters. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling -- Peter |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:52:43 -0400, "Peter"
wrote: My guess is that authorities links to the MP war being over and "interesting studies" exist mainly in the minds of the posters. So says the lying **** of a slanderous and libelous TROLL. Tell us all again, exactly which images you claim I stole. This will be most interesting. Your failure to describe them or post evidence of your lying troll's claims automatically makes you a ****ing liar and slanderous libelous TROLL. You lousy ****ing ****. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
"James Nagler" wrote in message
... On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:52:43 -0400, "Peter" wrote: My guess is that authorities links to the MP war being over and "interesting studies" exist mainly in the minds of the posters. So says the lying **** of a slanderous and libelous TROLL. Tell us all again, exactly which images you claim I stole. This will be most interesting. Your failure to describe them or post evidence of your lying troll's claims automatically makes you a ****ing liar and slanderous libelous TROLL. You lousy ****ing ****. Such a well reasoned and on point response needs a reply. Assuming I did accuse you of stealing images, exactly what does that have to do with your inability to furnish reasonable support for your comment about "interesting studies." BTW you have never shown, in context, exactly where I accused you of stealing images. -- Peter |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:23:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote: "James Nagler" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:52:43 -0400, "Peter" wrote: My guess is that authorities links to the MP war being over and "interesting studies" exist mainly in the minds of the posters. So says the lying **** of a slanderous and libelous TROLL. Tell us all again, exactly which images you claim I stole. This will be most interesting. Your failure to describe them or post evidence of your lying troll's claims automatically makes you a ****ing liar and slanderous libelous TROLL. You lousy ****ing ****. Such a well reasoned and on point response needs a reply. Assuming I did accuse you of stealing images, exactly what does that have to do with your inability to furnish reasonable support for your comment about "interesting studies." Now why should I address your questions when you won't address more important ones, like you lies, slander, and libel? You've been evading those questions for over a week now. You deserve ZERO respect and consideration in return. You're not fit to clean out the dirt between the cleats of my boots with your tongue. BTW you have never shown, in context, exactly where I accused you of stealing images. Message-ID: Message-ID: For just 2 of the more recent ones. Now, either you describe exactly what images I have stolen in the past or reveal yourself for the lying **** of a slanderous and libelous troll that you are. Your choice! (Which, by the way, you just did AGAIN. And I just proved it, AGAIN.) Here's the fun part though. As soon as you describe those images and I post 100% resolution crops from those images that you claim I stole, then it also proves you to be a lying mother****er about the theft too! Lose lose! But then that's expected of a total loser like yourself. There's a reason that the other main lying slanderous ****s, like DaffyDuck, et.al., haven't bothered to reply to this challenge too, because the very ones you are agreeing with already KNOW that they are lying slanderous ****s and don't want me to prove it so clearly to everyone. Isn't this fun? You useless mother****ing **** of a TROLL. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:25:02 -0500, James Nagler
wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:52:43 -0400, "Peter" wrote: My guess is that authorities links to the MP war being over and "interesting studies" exist mainly in the minds of the posters. So says the lying **** of a slanderous and libelous TROLL. Tell us all again, exactly which images you claim I stole. This will be most interesting. Your failure to describe them or post evidence of your lying troll's claims automatically makes you a ****ing liar and slanderous libelous TROLL. You lousy ****ing ****. HE never accused you or theft, but I am accusing someone of stealing your brain. When I find them, I'll drop you a line. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
"Bowser" wrote in message
news On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:25:02 -0500, James Nagler wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:52:43 -0400, "Peter" wrote: My guess is that authorities links to the MP war being over and "interesting studies" exist mainly in the minds of the posters. So says the lying **** of a slanderous and libelous TROLL. Tell us all again, exactly which images you claim I stole. This will be most interesting. Your failure to describe them or post evidence of your lying troll's claims automatically makes you a ****ing liar and slanderous libelous TROLL. You lousy ****ing ****. HE never accused you or theft, but I am accusing someone of stealing your brain. When I find them, I'll drop you a line. Don't make assumptions. It may not ever had a functioning brain. -- Peter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
On 21/09/2010 22:58, James Nagler wrote:
There have also been some interesting studies where higher pixel densities offset any effects from increased noise in the smaller photosites. Since the base level noise is averaged throughout many smaller photosites the noise disappears and the content's details become more visible. There *is* a free-lunch that disobeys the laws of troll's-physics. This isn't a free lunch... you have more photosites, but still more or less the same image resolution at the end. You can already do the same by post-processing noisy pictures on a computer. Reducing the noise also reduces sharpness and fine details, but scaling down the image afterward offsets this. Smaller photosites does not automatically equate to lesser image quality, as is often re-spewed by all the resident pretend-photographer trolls. For the same pixel count is does, and so far cameras with small sensors and photosites haven't got more pixels than the larger ones. Some people are cursed with the limits of their learned linear thought processes that they can never unlearn. Look who's talking. -- Bertrand |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:20:59 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote: On 21/09/2010 22:58, James Nagler wrote: There have also been some interesting studies where higher pixel densities offset any effects from increased noise in the smaller photosites. Since the base level noise is averaged throughout many smaller photosites the noise disappears and the content's details become more visible. There *is* a free-lunch that disobeys the laws of troll's-physics. This isn't a free lunch... you have more photosites, but still more or less the same image resolution at the end. You can already do the same by post-processing noisy pictures on a computer. Reducing the noise also reduces sharpness and fine details, but scaling down the image afterward offsets this. It's not at all the same thing as any of those examples, you ****ing moron pretend-photographer TROLL. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Megapixel Race | SimonLW | Digital Photography | 102 | November 1st 06 01:25 AM |
The megapixel race heats up again | Roy Smith | Digital SLR Cameras | 40 | July 1st 06 02:28 AM |
The megapixel race | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 49 | January 6th 05 10:44 AM |
The megapixel race | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 0 | January 3rd 05 09:39 PM |