Noisy sensors -myth explored

In message ,
Stacey wrote:

wrote:

In message ,
Stacey wrote:

What you have controlled is finding a test subject that "proves" what you
want it to prove. Like shooting a low contrast subject with no shadows of
color dotted paper as a "noise test"?

That wasn't a noise test. That was about the alleged loss of detail at
high ISOs.

So where is the low ISO image to compare it to?

Where's the ISO 1600 of the same thing from another MFR?
--


John P Sheehy

doug wrote:
wrote:
OT - Please ignore this message unless interested in the ongoing saga
of Ryadia's (Douglas MacDonald/TechnoAussie) seedy background.

This is the last response to this infantile ****** without a clue before
I put him in the kill file for good.

The day has yet to dawn when I'll be held accountable to a fool who uses
pathetically obvious tactics to try and hide his identity while getting
stuck into me.

When the jig's up and you are about to be exposed, you all of a sudden
start to claim you never hid your identity in the first place... We'll
see soon enough who you are and what you are up to. We'll see too what
the Education department thinks of you using their computers to slander me.

Seedy background? Yeah right. My wife hold a Queensland Casino guards
license and a she was a licensed body guard until you or some spineless
twit like you started posting totally false obscene messages about her
being an ex prostitute and lap dancer and she her took retirement rather
than face a tribunal. Sound's real seedy, doesn't it? Your posts are
starting to take on a very similar tone to those.

My companies are all legally incorporated. I pay my taxes, I'm on the
Electoral Roll, Get called up for jury duty and am considered a
responsible member of the Redlands (Queensland Australia) business
community I have never impersonated anyone for any purpose. Your
suggestion my factory manager; Graham Hunt is an alias of mine is
preposterous in the extreme.
So we have to ask, why Graham Hunt sometime signs his emails GH and
sometime
he signs them Douglas?

Scott W. (what I always sign my posts)

wrote:

In message ,
Stacey wrote:

wrote:


That wasn't a noise test. That was about the alleged loss of detail at
high ISOs.

So where is the low ISO image to compare it to?

Where's the ISO 1600 of the same thing from another MFR?


I don't have the 2 cameras or even if I did, adapters to use the same lens
on both but you are able to shoot the same thing at ISO 100 and ISO 1600
easily. You're the one claiming there is little to no loss of detail at
ISO1600 and only post an image at 1600 to "prove" it? Then Scott posts hand
held shots which have motion blur to "prove" this? Yea those are much
better tests then the ones you attack someone else for posting! ;-/
--

Stacey

Scott W wrote:
doug wrote:

snipped...

My companies are all legally incorporated. I pay my taxes, I'm on the
Electoral Roll, Get called up for jury duty and am considered a
responsible member of the Redlands (Queensland Australia) business
community I have never impersonated anyone for any purpose. Your
suggestion my factory manager; Graham Hunt is an alias of mine is
preposterous in the extreme.

So we have to ask, why Graham Hunt sometime signs his emails GH and
sometime
he signs them Douglas?

Scott W. (what I always sign my posts)


Any messages from me on Graham's workstation carried my signature but
his identity. Any message from him, carried his name and his identity.
Pretty brain draining stuff to figure that one out, eh Scott?

It doesn't happen any more because his PC no longer has direct Internet
access and I only ever use it to drive the plotter or router.

I have stopped my former habit of posting from whatever PC I was sitting
at thru the day and no longer encourage staff to participate on groups
and forums. Read that as ban them. Since April this year only two
locations in my organisation have Internet access. One at the shop and
one at the Studio's workroom.

There is a server at the studio housing some web sites and our mail
servers. Until yesterday I posted from the shop as Doug and from the
studio as Ryadia. Always signing my posts as Douglas.

(Eh... Who am I today?) Reference to joke in a post made to Ken Chandler
in Aus.photo who also has a problem with the concept of someone moving
around and being constantly on the Internet, using other people's
computers.

Douglas

Ryadia wrote:

Any messages from me on Graham's workstation carried my signature but
his identity. Any message from him, carried his name and his identity.

So you were posting messages from other peoples' computers, under their
identity, and you actually thought that was okay? Amazing. I pity the
people who work for you.

--
Jeremy |

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Ryadia wrote:


Any messages from me on Graham's workstation carried my signature but
his identity. Any message from him, carried his name and his identity.


So you were posting messages from other peoples' computers, under their
identity, and you actually thought that was okay? Amazing. I pity the
people who work for you.

Well of course it's OK Jeremy. I did put my name to the messages. Their
PCs only show as the sender. Think about that for a minute and it might
get through.

Douglas

Ryadia wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

So you were posting messages from other peoples' computers, under their
identity, and you actually thought that was okay? Amazing. I pity the
people who work for you.

Well of course it's OK Jeremy. I did put my name to the messages. Their
PCs only show as the sender. Think about that for a minute and it might
get through.

Okay, I've thought about it, and it's still absolutely in no way okay to
go around posting with someone else's identity in your From line. Regardless
of what you might type at the end of your message, we call that "forgery"
and/or "impersonation".

--
Jeremy |

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Ryadia wrote:

Jeremy Nixon wrote:


So you were posting messages from other peoples' computers, under their
identity, and you actually thought that was okay? Amazing. I pity the
people who work for you.

Well of course it's OK Jeremy. I did put my name to the messages. Their
PCs only show as the sender. Think about that for a minute and it might
get through.


Okay, I've thought about it, and it's still absolutely in no way okay to
go around posting with someone else's identity in your From line. Regardless
of what you might type at the end of your message, we call that "forgery"
and/or "impersonation".

That's bull**** Jeremy.
If I posted a message "from" someone but clearly identified myself as
the author, it is hardly impersonation or forgery. All it is is
someone's computer acting as the messenger for a message I authored.

I think you're just looking for an excuse to get in on this thread and
do some head kicking - which you have demonstrated in the past, you have
a natural passion for. Grow up, eh?

Douglas

Sorry, all - just more offtopic stuff for the "Douglas File"... but it
will
be *my* last post on this stupid thread. He's been toasted enough -
there is plenty of
evidence posted above for anyone who wants to check.

This is the last response to this infantile ******..

Ad hominem, as usual, noted. And how many more 'last responses' will
*he* make, I
wonder?

..without a clue before I put him in the kill file for good.

'Without a clue', huh? I got you COMPLETELY nailed on the 'Graham Hunt'
episode. Seems I might have quite a bit more 'clue' than you. May I
remind you and the others who have chimed in - YOU wrote the following,
as 'Graham Hunt', in relation to YOUR OWN franchises:

....In Australia, The franchise is "Techno Aussie digital print centres" The
cost of one is around $53k... If you can get one. Word is the Asians
have put in an offer for the whole thing, patents and all. The cost is
about in line with a Xerox copy shop except you get to print photos and
posters too. The technology is changing so fast, you'd need to have a
pretty decent customer base to draw on or buy one already set up and
making a profit....

YOU wrote that Douglas. You just admitted it. You wrote it, about your
OWN franchise. Think about that, folks...

The day has ye';t to dawn when I'll be held accountable
to a fool who uses pathetically obvious tactics to try and
hide his identity while getting stuck into me.

No hiding here - I'm *always* Chrlz.. Not like you,
Douglas/Graham/Joe/Techno/Onemillionpics/Millionpics... and at least
one
other I shan't mention.

When the jig's up and you are about to be exposed, you
all of a sudden start to claim you never hid your identity
in the first place...

I *haven't* hidden anything - all along I have been the same identity.
Sometimes I post from other computers (as you do). You have some
problem
with that? One rule for you, and another for everyone else, hey?

We'll see soon enough who you are and what you are up to.
We'll see too what the Education department thinks of you
using their computers to slander me.

Stop playing with it, it'll drop off.

Seedy background? Yeah right. My wife hold a Queensland
Casino guards license
...she was a licensed body guard until you or some spineless
twit like you started posting totally false obscene messages
about her being an ex prostitute and lap dancer and she her
took retirement rather than face a tribunal. Sound's real seedy,
doesn't it?

(chokes on coffee...) What the hell was THAT???? ?O:
Umm.. errr...., ok. Given that I have no idea WTF you are now on
about, this looks a LOT like a mental breakdown and/or paranoia to me.
And it sounds like you obviously get up the nose of so *many* people,
that just about *everyone* is queuing up to take a poke at you. Gee,
why am I not surprised? You just have to read your many encounters on
the Internet to realise what a total whacko you can be. And that last
paragraph just proved it. I can't believe you would write that in a
usenet post... I'm sure your wife really appreciates it..

Your posts are starting to take on a very similar tone
to those.

Like I said, paranoia has set in. And your posts are now just
off-the-planet. Get help.

My companies are all legally incorporated. I pay my taxes,
I'm on the Electoral Roll, Get called up for jury duty and am
considered a responsible member of the Redlands (Queensland
Australia) business community I have never impersonated
anyone for any purpose.

Gee, whoopee. Talk is cheap. Evidence says otherwise..

Your suggestion my factory manager;
Graham Hunt is an alias of mine is preposterous in the extreme.

Oh, now we are getting somewhere. How come you never mentioned this
*before*?
(Gee, let me guess..) So, you now ADMIT that your factory manager
(smirk) posted a fraudulent attempt to boost your franchise value. Did
you speak to him about this?
Did you authorise it (you being his boss and all)? (Added - I see
below the answer must be yes, as you now claim you *signed for
him*..this is just getting too funny!! - see what happens when you get
all tangled up in your own lies, Dougie?)

Don't you think you are/should be responsible for your employees
behaviour where it directly relates to your business? Is this not a
very serious, and criminal breach of the relevant Acts and Codes, let
alone a breach of ethics? I'm really interested to hear your comments
on the words that 'Graham Hunt' used... I repeat, it's really strange
you haven't mentioned him before..............(O:

Processes I have developed for my company are legally
and correctly promoted by me as being able to enlarge
digital images up to 1000% of their original size without
loss of noticeable detail. In reality they go much larger.

Gee. 10x enlargement.
Wow. Fabulous. Astonishing. Unreal.
That means a 35mm film frame could potentially be enlarged up to.. wait
for
it... 14.2" x 9.4" !!! Goooollly gosh!
(applause)

Sigh... (and see below where Douglas takes a 3Mp file to 1.6m -
that's more
like 120x....).

I have a right to decide who will and will not get access
to the software I use to carry out these enlargements,
not you. Your mathematician mate; Gisle is one who
will never get to see a file or any of my software.

Nobody ever will. Except maybe your ripped-off franchisees. And there
will be even less chance if, like Gisle, they know what they are
talking about..

He will however soon receive a poster size photograph to
verify my claims.

Oh, give it up for Christ's sake. You already did that, remember? And
the reaction was... yeah, nice, ho-hum, nothing better than anyone else
can do.

It's not my problem..

So why are you so upset? Your impeccable logic (O:, plus all these
samples you
toss around, should by now have convinced *anyone*... And yet all you
do is backpedal, pull webpages, hide behind Graham Hunt and friends...
Perhaps you need to get Graham back again to tell us more about those
Asian interests.. I'm sure you'll suck *somebody* in.

if loud mouthed idiots like you can't recognize the difference
between a physical enlargement and a data file when claiming
I incorrectly stating the process.

But you *did* 'incorrectly state the process'. Several times. And in
every
case (strangely) the errors were in your favour. My personal favourite
was
the one where you claimed you were showing the potential enlargement
quality on screen. It was on another of those webpages that have all
mysteriously (conveniently) disappeared, namely
http://users.tpg.com.au/hpc/examples2.htm. (It now redirects to a
generic 'I'm wonderful' page.) Why doncha put that one back up,
Douglas? On that page, apart from the quality being *crap*, every one
of your numbers and even the drawn-in crop area, was *way* off. What
should have at least showed an 'actual pixel' image, in fact showed a
*reduction*! You gotta laugh.

I have never claimed I can alter data or
enlarge it or process it.

BULL****. Apart from the crap you post on usenet, here's what you say
on
*your* site:
"All the digital print shops in the Techno Aussie Franchise chain, soon
to
spread around Australia, will use this technology under license to
enlarge
digital images up to 1600 mm wide from normal (good quality) camera
files of
3 megapixels and larger."

...and how does Dougie do it?:
"..We then use groups of pixels from the remaining bitmap areas to
'guess'
the makeup of adjoining pixels. That information is then added to the
image.
The vector image of the outlines is superimposed over the recalculated
image.."

But you never claimed you "alter data or process it", huh, Doug? Umm,
do
you speak English at all? Do you think everyone you run into is not
only blind, but stupid?

And may I repeat, you say on your page that you will enlarge 3Mp files
to 1.6m wide (over 5 feet). Don't get me wrong, some 3Mp files *will*
look (sort of) ok at that size. But the point has always been that you
have no magic wand, and anytime you are asked to prove the power of
your mythical algorithm, you refuse, saying "I'll send you a sample",
and of course you won't supply the original image file. As I and
others have said, if *we* got to pick the images, we would show *you*
some stunning enlargements too. Why doncha send out a sample that
actually has a lot of detail in it, Douglas, like a shot looking down
on a city from a lookout...? Along with the original file. Everyone
else who makes claims like this is happy to show *real*, *useful*
samples, and offers to use their software on *real* test images. But
not you, Douglas. Why? Because you have nothing. In fact I suspect
you simply use the algorithms built into your printers, and maybe use
GF if you get desperate. (Hint - QImage Pyramid is about the best
currently available..)

Byteheads who think the world starts and stops with a 1 or a 0
seem to have a problem separating magnet particles from pieces
of paper. Photographers do not. By legal definition a Photograph
is a physical object, recorded on various substrates but none the
less, always something you can see. Live with that revelation or
bugger off to some place in cyber space where physical objects
are magnetic particles.

Douglas, when you get mad, you stop making sense... It's funny to
watch,
but frankly, just a bit embarrassing..


Anyway, I'm hogging way too much bandwidth with this crap. I'll call
it a
day with that. All the evidence is posted above, Douglas. You can't
escape
from what you (and your 'employee', (smirk)) have said. It's all
there, incriminating you, for all to see.

PS - I just love the new, lame excuses coming out in the latest posts,
but I shall refrain...

Ryadia wrote:

If I posted a message "from" someone but clearly identified myself as
the author, it is hardly impersonation or forgery.

Yes, it absolutely and unequivocally is. This is not even a gray area.

Or are you saying it would be okay with you if I put your name and email
address in my From lines, as long as I say who I really am in the message
body? I have your permission to do that, then?

All it is is someone's computer acting as the messenger for a message I
authored.

The From line does not identify the computer, it identifies the author.
Just because you're too stupid to change it to identify you does not
change this basic, fundamental fact of how Usenet works.

If I were one of your victims I'd have password-protected my workstation
after the first transgression. I would certainly, at the very least,
remove all traces of a Usenet configuration from my login. I have no
idea how things work "down under", but around here I bet having your
boss forging messages from you on the Internet would be actionable.

--
Jeremy |