Optical vs. interpolated resolutions, illustrated

In article .com,
wrote:


Randall Ainsworth wrote:
wrote:
There are quite a few "people" in these chat rooms that appear to be
George arguing the other way.

[ ... ]

I am definitely not George. Nor can I think of anything nice to say
about Sigma cameras.

A good start was admitting your posts are dumb. George convinced me
Foveon technology is a cut above other digital cameras. However, maybe
a website would be a better venue instead of making up mindless aliases
to meagerly defend the status quo while tricking real infantiles into
acting foolish and losing their temper.

Hmm ... I decided to throw together a shell script to scan
through the news spool of rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (which is where
I am reading this), and look at the "From: " address of postings from
the same IP ("NNTP-Posting-Host: "). The IP address in this case is:

65.165.84.11

Here is what I found:

From:
From:
From:
From:
From:
From:

So -- both are posting from the same machine, though through
different free ISP accounts.

The contents of the spool cover back through May 26 04:00.

If anyone with access to a news spool cares about duplicating my
results, here is the script, which should be run from within the
newsgroup spool directory.


================================================== ====================
#! /usr/local/bin/zsh
#
IP=$1
foreach i ( `grep $IP * | cut "-d:" -f1 | uniq` )
grep "From: " $i
end
================================================== ====================

This should work with csh or tcsh as well. It will need a slightly
different looping syntax for sh, ksh and some others.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:


Randall Ainsworth wrote:

wrote:

There are quite a few "people" in these chat rooms that appear to be
George arguing the other way.


[ ... ]


I am definitely not George. Nor can I think of anything nice to say
about Sigma cameras.

A good start was admitting your posts are dumb. George convinced me
Foveon technology is a cut above other digital cameras. However, maybe
a website would be a better venue instead of making up mindless aliases
to meagerly defend the status quo while tricking real infantiles into
acting foolish and losing their temper.


Hmm ... I decided to throw together a shell script to scan
through the news spool of rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (which is where
I am reading this), and look at the "From: " address of postings from
the same IP ("NNTP-Posting-Host: "). The IP address in this case is:

65.165.84.11

Here is what I found:

From:
From:
From:
From:
From:
From:

So -- both are posting from the same machine, though through
different free ISP accounts.

The contents of the spool cover back through May 26 04:00.

If anyone with access to a news spool cares about duplicating my
results, here is the script, which should be run from within the
newsgroup spool directory.


================================================== ====================
#! /usr/local/bin/zsh
#
IP=$1
foreach i ( `grep $IP * | cut "-d:" -f1 | uniq` )
grep "From: " $i
end
================================================== ====================

This should work with csh or tcsh as well. It will need a slightly
different looping syntax for sh, ksh and some others.

Enjoy,
DoN.

Hey Don...
Everyone knew about the darling Jennifer. I just threw Alan's and
Randall's name in to stir up a few chickens... Seems like you were one
of unintentional chooks to get caught up in the ruckus. ROTFL!
This is more entertainment than going to the movies.

Douglas

Bill Funk wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 09:27:18 -0700, wrote:



Randall Ainsworth wrote:
wrote:
There are quite a few "people" in these chat rooms that appear to be
George arguing the other way. Some of their posts in favor of other
cameras are so downright dumb that I really doubt they are real people.
They continually make George look too good. It has to be more than a
series of convenient coincidences for the guy, or gal depending on who
you believe.

I am definitely not George. Nor can I think of anything nice to say
about Sigma cameras.

A good start was admitting your posts are dumb. George convinced me
Foveon technology is a cut above other digital cameras. However, maybe
a website would be a better venue instead of making up mindless aliases
to meagerly defend the status quo while tricking real infantiles into
acting foolish and losing their temper.

You've already destroyed your credibility; care to explain why you
think Foveon is a cut above Bayer technology?

Software interpolated imaging represents lower end devices in all walks
of digital life. As George asked, would you buy a scanner for its
software interpolated resolution? Not if you are well educated.

This is like two scanners. The Foveon "scanner" images with 3500 dpi
optical resolution. The Bayer "scanner" uses a 2000 dpi optical imager
but always advertises 8000 dpi. Only reading the small print on a few
obscure web sites will uncover that the 8000 dpi resolution is actually
an interpolated resolution not an optical resolution.

If you have never heard these terms before here is an explanation.
http://desktoppub.about.com/od/scann...qt/optical.htm

In article .com,
wrote:

Software interpolated imaging represents lower end devices in all walks
of digital life. As George asked, would you buy a scanner for its
software interpolated resolution? Not if you are well educated.

This is like two scanners. The Foveon "scanner" images with 3500 dpi
optical resolution. The Bayer "scanner" uses a 2000 dpi optical imager
but always advertises 8000 dpi. Only reading the small print on a few
obscure web sites will uncover that the 8000 dpi resolution is actually
an interpolated resolution not an optical resolution.

Enough techno babble...look at the end result. Sigma loses every time.

wrote in message
oups.com...
SNIP
As George asked, would you buy a scanner for its
software interpolated resolution?

Scanners do not interpolate resolution, unless instructed by the user.
They are RGB sampling devices, for each pixel they produce. The
software can be instructed to resample the raw scan data or a subset
of it.

Bart

Ryadia wrote:

This is more entertainment than going to the movies.

You have a low threshold of amusement.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Ryadia wrote:

This is more entertainment than going to the movies.

You have a low threshold of amusement.



Not necessarily ... the "movies" have gotten rather poor lately ...

On 26 Jun 2005 20:41:29 -0700, wrote:

Software interpolated imaging represents lower end devices in all walks
of digital life.

Obviously not for digital cameras, though...

As George asked, would you buy a scanner for its
software interpolated resolution? Not if you are well educated.

This is like two scanners. The Foveon "scanner" images with 3500 dpi
optical resolution. The Bayer "scanner" uses a 2000 dpi optical imager
but always advertises 8000 dpi. Only reading the small print on a few
obscure web sites will uncover that the 8000 dpi resolution is actually
an interpolated resolution not an optical resolution.

In the most theoretical of theory worlds, yes. In real life, the
actually obtained resolution of the "3500 dpi Foveon scanner" seems to
be just about equal to that of a "1500 Bayer scanner, interpolated to
6000 dpi", most of the times.

I suppose this real life result is because a Bayer sensor isn't a true
equivalent of a scanner with a higher software interpolated
resolution. Its white-light resolution is indeed truly 6000 dpi. Only
its resolution of individual colours is less, the resolution of green
is normally 3000 dpi, and only the resolution of blue and red is 1500.

Make an average of these four resolutions, and you land on a
resolution of 3000 dpi - not far from the "3500 Foveon scanner", in
particular as this scanner really only resolves 3300 dpi.

So the practice actually does make some kind of sense.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

On 24 Jun 2005 23:13:47 -0700, in
.com,
said:

From:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Subject: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT second notification
Organization: http://groups.google.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.165.84.11

badip 65.165.84.11
Looking up 65.165.84.11 in the SORBS database...
Raw listing: 11.84.165.65.dnsbl.sorbs.net has address 127.0.0.2
65.165.84.11 is listed in the SORBS database as an abused HTTP (Web)
proxy.
65.165.84.11 is a verified net-abuse source.

**** off, Preddy/Steve/Orville.

Mandus wrote:

Hmm... I just wonder, as these threads goes on and on.

Maybe this "Bart" and the one with the "SG" initials are one and the
same? At least, both seem to troll equally much...

I am glad I put all my pictures on the internet under Creative Commons
license, or just completely open. It's just crappy pictures anyway. If I
someday, somehow, somewhere are lucky to snap anything that can make me
money, I certainly will not put it up on the 'net. But that's just me.

take care,

Bart Van Der Wolf and George Preddy are undoubtably aliases used by the
same person trying to stir up and continue controversy. He is most
likely a Sigma employee set out to educate the public about the
superiority of the Foveon sensor. He did convince me, although I don't
agree with this method of arguing endlessly with himself.

I seriously doubt anyone endorsing Bayer sensors would have posted that
strange boat image. It was quite noisey and the "3D inversion effect"
or flatness "George" wrote about was evident in the masts.
Interesting. But it seems a little tooooo convenient that George got
the perfect image to illustrate these Bayer problems from someone
supposedly arguing the opposite way. Bart is George. I'm sure of it.

I'm certain that John Sheehy is Geroge too, among several others, he
continues to drive home Georges points endlessly. Too convenient, too
easy for "George."

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

On 26 Jun 2005 04:43:57 -0700, in
om,
said:

From:
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Organization: http://groups.google.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.165.84.11

badip 65.165.84.11
Looking up 65.165.84.11 in the SORBS database...
Raw listing: 11.84.165.65.dnsbl.sorbs.net has address 127.0.0.2
65.165.84.11 is listed in the SORBS database as an abused HTTP (Web)
proxy.
65.165.84.11 is a verified net-abuse source.

**** off, Steve/George/etc.

Ryadia wrote:

Randal Ainsworth and Alan Browne are the real George Preddy. He's been
using halfway valid arguments from these muffets for years to look like
he actually has a clue.

There are quite a few "people" in these chat rooms that appear to be
George arguing the other way. Some of their posts in favor of other
cameras are so downright dumb that I really doubt they are real people.
They continually make George look too good. It has to be more than a
series of convenient coincidences for the guy, or gal depending on who
you believe.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------