Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

Snit:
Well, recently the "substance" I have been offering is just to show Harry to
be lying... and it is fun for me.

Now here I am being trolled by you.
And his own link, STILL showing 5 of the 10 top cameras are on iPhones:

But, sure, the point that all he can do is run has been proved a dozen+
times over.

So how many times do you have to snap at his troll bait before you give
it up? You're obsessed, drawn like a moth to a flame, and whether you
know it or not you get burned every time. The burn comes when he
privately laughs at you while you stew over his trolls. Classic
troll-feeder symbiosis.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 01:40:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I don't know about phones, but for cameras, DXO thinks changing the sensor causes the LENS to change sharpness. A *******ization of test results that plays into the hands of fools.

But it does.

How sharp would be a lens with sensels as big as floor tiles?

How sharp would be the same lens with atomic sized sensels?

There is more to it than mere lines/mm.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I don't know about phones, but for cameras, DXO thinks changing the sensor
causes the LENS to change sharpness. A *******ization of test results that
plays into the hands of fools.

But it does.

it doesn't.

the lens is unaffected by whatever is behind it. it's the same lens.

where you're confused is the performance of the *entire* *system* can
change when any one part changes, but each components other than the
one that changes will not.

How sharp would be a lens with sensels as big as floor tiles?

How sharp would be the same lens with atomic sized sensels?

exactly the same.

There is more to it than mere lines/mm.

that part is true.

On 10/5/17, 3:25 PM, in article , "Davoud"
wrote:

Snit:
Well, recently the "substance" I have been offering is just to show Harry to
be lying... and it is fun for me.

Now here I am being trolled by you.
And his own link, STILL showing 5 of the 10 top cameras are on iPhones:

But, sure, the point that all he can do is run has been proved a dozen+
times over.

So how many times do you have to snap at his troll bait before you give
it up? You're obsessed, drawn like a moth to a flame, and whether you
know it or not you get burned every time. The burn comes when he
privately laughs at you while you stew over his trolls. Classic
troll-feeder symbiosis.

I admit... I feed the trolls. Got him to leave for a while, but I will back
him for a bit. The horse is dead.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

Davoud:
So how many times do you have to snap at his troll bait before you give
it up? You're obsessed, drawn like a moth to a flame, and whether you
know it or not you get burned every time. The burn comes when he
privately laughs at you while you stew over his trolls. Classic
troll-feeder symbiosis.

Snit:
I admit... I feed the trolls. Got him to leave for a while, but I will back
him for a bit.

You're delusional. You don't "have" him doing anything; he has you.

The horse is dead.

Indeed. It might seem like you have me, but I'm outta here.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

He who is Rod Speed said on Fri, 6 Oct 2017 11:06:13 +1100:

"Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings"

Until the Pixel 2 ships, how can one make
evaluations of its production unit capabilities?

By getting a pre ship copy to test from the manufacturer
who wants to make it look good before it ships, stupid.

Hi Rod,
Do you or anyone here actually have any facts on this point?
Or is it all just made up (again)?

We all certainly know that gaming the testing-and-reporting system is
possible, and we all know that many such systems have been gamed before
(e.g., radio performance, motorcycle performance, etc.) but ...

Are the iOS apologists just making this up on Google gaming the system?
Or is there some evidence somewhere that iOS apologists can point to?

Note I'm not saying Google didn't game the system because I don't know. I
wouldn't put it past anyone - but that doesn't mean it happened.

I'm just asking if people are just making this Google gaming-the-system
stuff up on the recent results simply because they don't like the facts as
reported.

HINT: It wouldn't be the first nor the ten thousandths time that the
blatant Apple iOS apologists just make up their entire argument out of thin
air ... hence my question of fact.

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 01:40:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I don't know about phones, but for cameras, DXO thinks changing the sensor
causes the LENS to change sharpness. A *******ization of test results that
plays into the hands of fools.

But it does.

How sharp would be a lens with sensels as big as floor tiles?

How sharp would be the same lens with atomic sized sensels?

There is more to it than mere lines/mm.

Well... The sensor is the second part of an optical system with wells
and micro lenses and sometimes anti anliasing filters. One would say
that the thickness of that stack changes the properties of the lens with
ii the lens sensor system and that the nodal point of the lense is the
determining factor on the lense part. The closer the NP is to the sensor
the more optical artifacts... The higher density of pixels and thinner
the stack ("back side" illuminated sensor and dumping of the AA filter)
the more like film with the fixed in camera part of the optical system
resemble and the nodal point can without penalty be moved closer to the
sensor. The latter gives designers better options to make more compact
lenses with less distortion.
--
teleportation kills

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 18:46:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I don't know about phones, but for cameras, DXO thinks changing the sensor
causes the LENS to change sharpness. A *******ization of test results that
plays into the hands of fools.

But it does.

it doesn't.

the lens is unaffected by whatever is behind it. it's the same lens.

That's correct.

where you're confused is the performance of the *entire* *system* can
change when any one part changes, but each components other than the
one that changes will not.

Now you are getting it. DxO is discovering how well a lens functions
within a particular imaging system.

How sharp would be a lens with sensels as big as floor tiles?

How sharp would be the same lens with atomic sized sensels?

exactly the same.

There is more to it than mere lines/mm.

that part is true.

You do seem to understand what I am saying while at the same time not
understanding what DxO is doing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 06:10:27 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 01:40:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I don't know about phones, but for cameras, DXO thinks changing the sensor
causes the LENS to change sharpness. A *******ization of test results that
plays into the hands of fools.

But it does.

How sharp would be a lens with sensels as big as floor tiles?

How sharp would be the same lens with atomic sized sensels?

There is more to it than mere lines/mm.

Well... The sensor is the second part of an optical system with wells
and micro lenses and sometimes anti anliasing filters. One would say
that the thickness of that stack changes the properties of the lens with
ii the lens sensor system and that the nodal point of the lense is the
determining factor on the lense part. The closer the NP is to the sensor
the more optical artifacts... The higher density of pixels and thinner
the stack ("back side" illuminated sensor and dumping of the AA filter)
the more like film with the fixed in camera part of the optical system
resemble and the nodal point can without penalty be moved closer to the
sensor. The latter gives designers better options to make more compact
lenses with less distortion.

Yes.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I don't know about phones, but for cameras, DXO thinks changing the sensor
causes the LENS to change sharpness. A *******ization of test results
that
plays into the hands of fools.

But it does.

it doesn't.

the lens is unaffected by whatever is behind it. it's the same lens.

That's correct.

you just contradicted yourself

where you're confused is the performance of the *entire* *system* can
change when any one part changes, but each components other than the
one that changes will not.

Now you are getting it.

no, i've gotten it all along.

*you* are the one who is now getting it.

DxO is discovering how well a lens functions
within a particular imaging system.

which is entirely different than the lens changing sharpness, what rich
originally said and what you agreed with.

How sharp would be a lens with sensels as big as floor tiles?

How sharp would be the same lens with atomic sized sensels?

exactly the same.

There is more to it than mere lines/mm.

that part is true.

You do seem to understand what I am saying

yep, and it was wrong.

while at the same time not
understanding what DxO is doing.

oh, i understand what dxo is doing, which isn't what they appear to be
doing.

their tests are complete rubbish. some of their results defy the laws
of physics. they are nothing more than shills for companies who pay
them off to obtain good results.