Convergence, what an ugly word. But it's here....

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:08:55 -0500, Rich wrote:

Bruce wrote in
:

RichA wrote:

The best JPEG output right now is from the Olympus E-PL1. However,
the images the 4/3rds cameras produce are not as good (no matter what
criteria you use) as the best APS-C or any FF cameras. Therefore, the
job of the converter isn't a difficult one. However, no camera that
is capable of producing truly exceptional images has a RAW file that
can be translated in-camera into the best JPEG possible. That part is
still in the hands of humans.


That part is in the hands of sophisticated image processing software
which is barely understood by almost all the humans who use it.



They don't understand the mechanism behind it, but they can understand what
results they get when they use the controls provided. Provided they don't
indulge in HDR...

RAW editing is not rocket-science, but it must be to something as amazingly
ignorant and stupid as you are.

HDR is simple with JPG burst rate bracketing. Even a tripod is not needed
in most circumstances. Though in the rare rare rare cases when HDR
techniques might be needed (and I stress, HDR is ever so rare, even rarer
is doing it properly so it's not noticeable in the final image), I let the
camera use its own in-camera RAW processing to create HDR images from
sensor captures, via CHDK.

But then you'd know this if you understood the mechanism behind basic
photography in any camera and weren't just a useless piece-of-****
DSLR-TROLL.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:25:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


...and still no proof that he is the actual photographer.
There is every reason to believe he does what he accuses the World of
doing, theft, or perhaps, casual use of images captured by somebody
else.

It amazes me that anything as blatantly ignorant and stupid as you, and as
trollish as you, could have ever worked for any police force.

Oh wait, I take that back. You're a PERFECT example of every police
personnel I have ever met in my life. Thanks for proving, beyond a shadow
of a doubt, that all of you are useless pieces of **** and should have your
own guns turned on you by whomever gets the first chance.

ron_tom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:36:38 -0500, ron_tom wrote:

It also looks like the image you posted was
from pre-graffiti days (the colors in it hint at being an Instamatic
snapshot scanned at one time).

Interesting that the cement coating on the VW had since been chipped-away,
or fell away (from seasonal heating and cooling cycles) in the image I
took, revealing its original color, and the fact that it is a real VW
Beetle being used in the sculpture. Making it much better in my opinion.
Proving even more the age of the photo you posted a link to (no doubt not
your own, of course, just like every troll does).

Tell you what. If you show me where I claimed
I took the photo, I'll kiss your arse.

Failing which, you can kiss mine.

Your arguments for the superiority of your (claimed)
photo are no more than weak assertions, made at your usual volume.

Heavy metal music notwithstanding, loudness does
not indicate merit; normally the contrary.

I bet you don't even know where that sculpture is.
Now tell me again, this has WHAT to do with RAW and JPG file formats? You
lousy useless **** of an off-topic thread-hijacking troll.

It appears the most trivial symbolism is beyond you.

Idiot.

BugBear

"bugbear" wrote in message
o.uk...
ron_tom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:36:38 -0500, ron_tom
wrote:

It also looks like the image you posted was
from pre-graffiti days (the colors in it hint at being an Instamatic
snapshot scanned at one time).

Interesting that the cement coating on the VW had since been
chipped-away,
or fell away (from seasonal heating and cooling cycles) in the image I
took, revealing its original color, and the fact that it is a real VW
Beetle being used in the sculpture. Making it much better in my opinion.
Proving even more the age of the photo you posted a link to (no doubt not
your own, of course, just like every troll does).

Tell you what. If you show me where I claimed
I took the photo, I'll kiss your arse.

Failing which, you can kiss mine.


Why would you want it to kiss your ass?
I would not want it anywhere near mine. :-)

--
Peter

On 8/25/10 3:06 AM, in article
, "bugbear"
wrote:

ron_tom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:36:38 -0500, ron_tom wrote:

It also looks like the image you posted was
from pre-graffiti days (the colors in it hint at being an Instamatic
snapshot scanned at one time).

Interesting that the cement coating on the VW had since been chipped-away,
or fell away (from seasonal heating and cooling cycles) in the image I
took, revealing its original color, and the fact that it is a real VW
Beetle being used in the sculpture. Making it much better in my opinion.
Proving even more the age of the photo you posted a link to (no doubt not
your own, of course, just like every troll does).

Tell you what. If you show me where I claimed
I took the photo, I'll kiss your arse.

Failing which, you can kiss mine.

From what we know about Tonto's history, he would fail that test on purpose.


Your arguments for the superiority of your (claimed)
photo are no more than weak assertions, made at your usual volume.

Heavy metal music notwithstanding, loudness does
not indicate merit; normally the contrary.

I bet you don't even know where that sculpture is.
Now tell me again, this has WHAT to do with RAW and JPG file formats? You
lousy useless **** of an off-topic thread-hijacking troll.

It appears the most trivial symbolism is beyond you.

Idiot.

BugBear

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:06:39 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

ron_tom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:36:38 -0500, ron_tom wrote:

It also looks like the image you posted was
from pre-graffiti days (the colors in it hint at being an Instamatic
snapshot scanned at one time).

Interesting that the cement coating on the VW had since been chipped-away,
or fell away (from seasonal heating and cooling cycles) in the image I
took, revealing its original color, and the fact that it is a real VW
Beetle being used in the sculpture. Making it much better in my opinion.
Proving even more the age of the photo you posted a link to (no doubt not
your own, of course, just like every troll does).

Tell you what. If you show me where I claimed
I took the photo, I'll kiss your arse.

Failing which, you can kiss mine.

Your arguments for the superiority of your (claimed)
photo are no more than weak assertions, made at your usual volume.

Heavy metal music notwithstanding, loudness does
not indicate merit; normally the contrary.

I bet you don't even know where that sculpture is.
Now tell me again, this has WHAT to do with RAW and JPG file formats? You
lousy useless **** of an off-topic thread-hijacking troll.

It appears the most trivial symbolism is beyond you.

Idiot.

BugBear

It appears that you are of such a low IQ for a troll, that my turning your
lamest of the lame off-topic trolling attempts into a photography lesson
(for everyone else) is beyond you.

Idiot.

Backfired on you didn't it, TROLL. All you managed to do is prove to the
world how very little you know about photography. Thanks! Do it again!

On 10-08-23 7:40 , Bowser wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ers/vg10.shtml


And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect.
A device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature.
Gee. Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

It's a video camera first. Except for the professional "Hollywood"
digital types, most amateur video makers use the video as provided from
the camera (MPEG-4/H.264 in this case) - they don't have a "raw" use
culture and probably won't be too upset over lack of raw.

The video spec (1920 x 1080, 30p (29.97p)) is quite generous - and given
the very large sensor (compared to most video cameras) we should expect
some great imagery.

I suppose a firmware update can add raw, or as you say the next version.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

P.S.


On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:06:39 +0100, bugbear the wannabe TROLL
wrote:

ron_tom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:36:38 -0500, ron_tom wrote:

It also looks like the image you posted was
from pre-graffiti days (the colors in it hint at being an Instamatic
snapshot scanned at one time).

Interesting that the cement coating on the VW had since been chipped-away,
or fell away (from seasonal heating and cooling cycles) in the image I
took, revealing its original color, and the fact that it is a real VW
Beetle being used in the sculpture. Making it much better in my opinion.
Proving even more the age of the photo you posted a link to (no doubt not
your own, of course, just like every troll does).

Tell you what. If you show me where I claimed
I took the photo, I'll kiss your arse.


I never claimed you did. Can't you read? I'm just pointing out that none of
you useless trolls EVER seem to be able to post any of your OWN
photography. I wonder why that is? (HAH!) Whereas that's the only kind of
images I post, MY OWN. I have so many of them (near to 1/2 million by now)
there's at least one OF MY OWN PHOTOS related to any topic being discussed.
I have no need to search out anyone else's photography when mine is always
better anyway. Note, I even had my OWN image of that sculpture you posted.
What were the odds of that? Pretty high considering what a prolific
traveler and photographer I have been most my life, with no photography
method nor subject beyond my grasp and capabilities.

One minor correction: when I said there wasn't much one could do about that
sculpture to photograph it in a better way, given the location. One could
return at night and have done some interesting light-painting techniques on
it to make it look more formidable or gruesome. I was only passing through
there on my way to another wilderness location (picking up a few supplies),
and thought the subject mildly amusing, worth a snap, but nothing more.

P.S.


On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:06:39 +0100, bugbear the wannabe TROLL
wrote:

ron_tom wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:36:38 -0500, ron_tom wrote:

It also looks like the image you posted was
from pre-graffiti days (the colors in it hint at being an Instamatic
snapshot scanned at one time).

Interesting that the cement coating on the VW had since been chipped-away,
or fell away (from seasonal heating and cooling cycles) in the image I
took, revealing its original color, and the fact that it is a real VW
Beetle being used in the sculpture. Making it much better in my opinion.
Proving even more the age of the photo you posted a link to (no doubt not
your own, of course, just like every troll does).

Tell you what. If you show me where I claimed
I took the photo, I'll kiss your arse.


I never claimed you did. Can't you read? I'm just pointing out that none of
you useless trolls EVER seem to be able to post any of your OWN
photography. I wonder why that is? (HAH!) Whereas that's the only kind of
images I post, MY OWN. I have so many of them (near to 1/2 million by now)
there's at least one OF MY OWN PHOTOS related to any topic being discussed.
I have no need to search out anyone else's photography when mine is always
better anyway. Note, I even had my OWN image of that sculpture you posted.
What were the odds of that? Pretty high chances (low odds) considering what
a prolific traveler and photographer I have been most my life, with no
photography method nor subject beyond my grasp and capabilities.

One minor correction: when I said there wasn't much one could do about that
sculpture to photograph it in a better way, given the location. One could
return at night and have done some interesting light-painting techniques on
it to make it look more formidable or gruesome. I was only passing through
there on my way to another wilderness location (picking up a few supplies),
and thought the subject mildly amusing, worth a snap, but nothing more.