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 SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 22nd 10, 11:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
James Nagler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default 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.
  #12  
Old September 22nd 10, 01:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...

"James Nagler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:23:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


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.


I admit you are superior. You are certainly fit to clean out the dirt
between the cleats of my boots with your tongue.



--
Peter

  #13  
Old September 22nd 10, 01:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...

"James Nagler" wrote in message
...
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.



Show me where I made that claim.



--
Peter

  #14  
Old September 22nd 10, 01:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
James Nagler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:15:52 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"James Nagler" wrote in message
.. .
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.



Show me where I made that claim.


I'm starting to figure it out. You're just too pathetically moronic to know
the difference between facts and your deceiving, lying, slanderous, and
libelous behavior.



  #15  
Old September 22nd 10, 01:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default 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.
  #16  
Old September 22nd 10, 02:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...

"James Nagler" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:15:52 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"James Nagler" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:23:50 -0400, "Peter"

wrote:

"James Nagler" wrote in message
m...
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.



Show me where I made that claim.


I'm starting to figure it out. You're just too pathetically moronic to
know
the difference between facts and your deceiving, lying, slanderous, and
libelous behavior.



Straighten me out.
Show me where I made that claim.
If I thought it worthwhile, I would pursue my legal remedies. Do you really
think I don't have the resources to flush out your real name.



--
Peter

  #17  
Old September 22nd 10, 02:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default 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

  #18  
Old September 23rd 10, 01:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Rich[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,081
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...

charles wrote in
:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:58*pm, James Nagler wrote:
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,


It depends on sensor characteristics and processing but yes, smaller
pixels on the whole means lower image quality. Physics rules.



Would the converse be true, that larger pixels mean better pictures.
One pixel per camera would seem to be the limit then, best possible
picture achievable.


Obviously (does this really have to be stated?) there is a crossover of
lines on a graph where pixel count and pixel size meet at an idealized
point, based on what produces the best combination of resolution and
image quality for a given subject.
  #19  
Old September 23rd 10, 01:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
charles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:19:29 -0500, Rich wrote:

charles wrote in
:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:58*pm, James Nagler wrote:
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,

It depends on sensor characteristics and processing but yes, smaller
pixels on the whole means lower image quality. Physics rules.



Would the converse be true, that larger pixels mean better pictures.
One pixel per camera would seem to be the limit then, best possible
picture achievable.


Obviously (does this really have to be stated?) there is a crossover of
lines on a graph where pixel count and pixel size meet at an idealized
point, based on what produces the best combination of resolution and
image quality for a given subject.



Obviously. Where is the best spot?

An old company called Kodak, maybe some remember them, had a nomograph
for close-up photography, they called it "depth of detail"
  #20  
Old September 23rd 10, 02:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
James Nagler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default To those who believe the megapixel race has ended ...

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:51:15 -0700, charles
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:19:29 -0500, Rich wrote:

charles wrote in
m:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:

On Sep 21, 4:58*pm, James Nagler wrote:
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,

It depends on sensor characteristics and processing but yes, smaller
pixels on the whole means lower image quality. Physics rules.


Would the converse be true, that larger pixels mean better pictures.
One pixel per camera would seem to be the limit then, best possible
picture achievable.


Obviously (does this really have to be stated?) there is a crossover of
lines on a graph where pixel count and pixel size meet at an idealized
point, based on what produces the best combination of resolution and
image quality for a given subject.



Obviously. Where is the best spot?


Not obviously, because there is no sweet-spot. There are far too many
variables. And since this dolt and the equally ignorant
pretend-photographer Numbnuts troll can't grasp how noise is averaged out
with smaller photosites, there will be two areas where images will have
higher quality, given identical sensor technology and glass quality. Those
with less noise, and those where the noise disappears in the smaller
photosites used. This moron (and others) can't grasp that last concept,
trying to equate it to noise-removal techniques or other equally invalid
analogies. They've blinded themselves with their self-induced ignorance
biases for far too long.

Throw in the _FACT_ that CONTENT BEATS IMAGE QUALITY EVERY TIME, then
there's no best solution for any sensor nor camera design.


 




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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Megapixel Race SimonLW Digital Photography 102 November 1st 06 02:25 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 11:44 AM
The megapixel race Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 0 January 3rd 05 10:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 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.