A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #421  
Old May 21st 12, 02:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
TheRealSteve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 325
Default The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.


On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

TheRealSteve wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:35:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:


But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.


So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
against that.


As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
unobtainium.


And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
means you're wrong.


OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.


It figures you think that.


It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
*very* *own* *logic*.


First you have to say something logical. To you, if I want to see
which is the better car, I can compare a tire iron to a pinto because
they're both made of steel, so they're equal. You haven't yet figured
out what has to be made equal in order to compare sensor resolution.

You probably know it's wrong to compare a
24MP Foveon using Sigma's MP definition to a 24MP Bayer or 24MP 3
sensor system using a different MP definition. But it's the only way
you can make your invalid argument look like it makes sense to an
uninformed observer.


OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
advance.


More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
in order to compare sensor resolution. You really are lost in the
world if scientific evaluation.

That's sophistry at it's finest.


You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.


You should look it up in an English dictionary. You might learn
something.
  #422  
Old May 22nd 12, 06:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

TheRealSteve wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:35:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:


But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.


So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
against that.


As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
unobtainium.


And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
means you're wrong.


OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.


It figures you think that.


It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
*very* *own* *logic*.


First you have to say something logical.


Non sequitur. Your logic ("if A then B") doesn't need to be
logical to be logic. Please use a dictionary.


You probably know it's wrong to compare a
24MP Foveon using Sigma's MP definition to a 24MP Bayer or 24MP 3
sensor system using a different MP definition. But it's the only way
you can make your invalid argument look like it makes sense to an
uninformed observer.


OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
advance.


More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
in order to compare sensor resolution.


Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.


That's sophistry at it's finest.


You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.


You should look it up in an English dictionary. You might learn
something.


Yep, that you don't even grasp standard English.

-Wolfgang
  #423  
Old May 25th 12, 05:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
TheRealSteve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 325
Default The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.


On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

TheRealSteve wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:35:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:


But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.


So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
against that.


As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
unobtainium.


And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
means you're wrong.


OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.


It figures you think that.


It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
*very* *own* *logic*.


First you have to say something logical.


Non sequitur. Your logic ("if A then B") doesn't need to be
logical to be logic. Please use a dictionary.


You need to look up what non-sequitur means. You're not using it
correctly.

You probably know it's wrong to compare a
24MP Foveon using Sigma's MP definition to a 24MP Bayer or 24MP 3
sensor system using a different MP definition. But it's the only way
you can make your invalid argument look like it makes sense to an
uninformed observer.


OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
advance.


More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
in order to compare sensor resolution.


Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.


I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.

That's sophistry at it's finest.


You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.


You should look it up in an English dictionary. You might learn
something.


Yep, that you don't even grasp standard English


First you have to demonstrate that you grasp standard English before
you can judge whenter someone else does. So far, you haven't.
  #424  
Old May 25th 12, 10:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

TheRealSteve wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
*very* *own* *logic*.


First you have to say something logical.


Non sequitur. Your logic ("if A then B") doesn't need to be
logical to be logic. Please use a dictionary.


You need to look up what non-sequitur means. You're not using it
correctly.


I am using it correctly.


OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
advance.


More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
in order to compare sensor resolution.


Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.


I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.


more handwaving, and proof you're not comptent to discuss Foveon.


That's sophistry at it's finest.


You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.


You should look it up in an English dictionary. You might learn
something.


Yep, that you don't even grasp standard English


First you have to demonstrate that you grasp standard English before
you can judge whenter someone else does. So far, you haven't.


Steve, you judging my understanding of English is a blind man
waxing on about the colours of nature he's standing in front of.

-Wolfgang
  #425  
Old May 27th 12, 03:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
TheRealSteve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 325
Default The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.


On Fri, 25 May 2012 23:40:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

TheRealSteve wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
advance.


More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
in order to compare sensor resolution.


Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.


I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.


more handwaving, and proof you're not comptent to discuss Foveon.


See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
sensor. So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!
  #426  
Old May 27th 12, 09:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

TheRealSteve wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2012 23:40:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
advance.


More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
in order to compare sensor resolution.


Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.


I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.


more handwaving, and proof you're not comptent to discuss Foveon.


See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
sensor.


And the Pope is the right person to discuss the finer points of
practical sexuality between 2 or more women and which sex toys
work for them.

So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!


Nope, you really need to look up the term.

-Wolfgang
  #427  
Old May 29th 12, 03:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
TheRealSteve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 325
Default The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.


On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:44:15 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

TheRealSteve wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2012 23:40:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in
advance.


More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
in order to compare sensor resolution.


Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.


I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.


more handwaving, and proof you're not comptent to discuss Foveon.


See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
sensor.


And the Pope is the right person to discuss the finer points of
practical sexuality between 2 or more women and which sex toys
work for them.


Yet another non-sequitur. You're really getting good at this.


So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!


Nope, you really need to look up the term.


Lol. You mean you're not even trying to reply with non-sequiturs and
you actually think you are making sense? That's sad.
  #428  
Old May 29th 12, 03:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

TheRealSteve wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:44:15 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:


See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
sensor.


And the Pope is the right person to discuss the finer points of
practical sexuality between 2 or more women and which sex toys
work for them.


Yet another non-sequitur. You're really getting good at this.


In fact, that isn't a non sequitur. It would be one if I claimed
that therefore you're the Pope. You're not even that.


So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!


Nope, you really need to look up the term.


Lol. You mean you're not even trying to reply with non-sequiturs and
you actually think you are making sense? That's sad.


Sad is that you don't have any of
- knowledge
- arguments
- charm
- intelligence
nor are you
- fun to read
- useful as a study object of dementia
- useful as a study object of obstinacy of old age
- asking intelligent questions

You're just obnoxious, hiding behind your stupid pseudonym,
hoping nobody knows who you are.

You're not worth reading. I tried really hard (I am quite
stubborn, I know), but I won't read you for the next half
year. Have fun, grow up.

-Wolfgang
  #429  
Old June 1st 12, 02:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
TheRealSteve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 325
Default The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.


On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:42:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

TheRealSteve wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:44:15 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
TheRealSteve wrote:


See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
sensor.


And the Pope is the right person to discuss the finer points of
practical sexuality between 2 or more women and which sex toys
work for them.


Yet another non-sequitur. You're really getting good at this.


In fact, that isn't a non sequitur. It would be one if I claimed
that therefore you're the Pope. You're not even that.


Ok, so you really don't know what a non-seqitur is. I'll give you a
hint... It doesn't follow that "the Pope is the right person to
discuss the finer points of practical sexuality between 2 or more
women and which sex toys work for them" from "someone who doesn't know
or care what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearing on
their competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the
Foveon sensor. Plenty of other analogies apply perfectly well. The
Pope one doesn't. Here's one that does: An aeronautical engineer can
be highly skilled and competent to discuss the finer points of fluid
flow over a surface even if he doesn't have an opinion or know or care
what the "best" airliner in the world is.

So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!


Nope, you really need to look up the term.


Lol. You mean you're not even trying to reply with non-sequiturs and
you actually think you are making sense? That's sad.


Sad is that you don't have any of
- knowledge
- arguments
- charm
- intelligence
nor are you
- fun to read
- useful as a study object of dementia
- useful as a study object of obstinacy of old age
- asking intelligent questions


Coming from you, those are all compliments. Sad is that that's the
best argument you can come up with. All the ones you actually tried to
proffer just don't make sense. Like the Pope one above.

You're just obnoxious, hiding behind your stupid pseudonym,
hoping nobody knows who you are.

You're not worth reading. I tried really hard (I am quite
stubborn, I know), but I won't read you for the next half
year. Have fun, grow up.


sarcasmA dignified exit if I ever saw one./sarcasm
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bayer Filter obsolescence? Eric Miller Digital SLR Cameras 14 June 20th 07 06:38 PM
Bayer Filter Obsolescence? Eric Miller Digital Photography 12 June 19th 07 06:26 AM
Bayer Filter obsolescence? RichA Digital Photography 0 June 14th 07 06:50 PM
Bayer Filter obsolescence? RichA Digital Photography 0 June 14th 07 06:49 PM
Bayer filter removal David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 43 April 30th 07 05:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.