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 |
#421
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |