Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)

In article , David B.
wrote:

On 08/01/2019 19:18, Savageduck wrote:
If you have a Usenet client with the appropriate tools, any NG, thread, or
poster can be cleaned up with judicious ignoring, flagging, deleting,
filtering, and kill filing.

Is Hogwasher working satisfactorily with macOS Mojave?

stop hijacking threads, especially since you've already asked that and
it has been answered, multiple times.

No, it has NOT been answered satisfactorily.

yes it has, many times. you're once again lying and trolling.

*IS* Hogwasher working satisfactorily with macOS Mojave?

go test it yourself and stop hijacking threads.

On 08/01/2019 23:37, nospam trolled some more!
In article , David B.
wrote:

On 08/01/2019 19:18, Savageduck wrote:
If you have a Usenet client with the appropriate tools, any NG, thread, or
poster can be cleaned up with judicious ignoring, flagging, deleting,
filtering, and kill filing.

Is Hogwasher working satisfactorily with macOS Mojave?

stop hijacking threads, especially since you've already asked that and
it has been answered, multiple times.

No, it has NOT been answered satisfactorily.

yes it has, many times. you're once again lying and trolling.

'Tis YOU who is lying 'nospam'. Cite MIDs of supposedly satisfactory
answers or FOAD!

*IS* Hogwasher working satisfactorily with macOS Mojave?

go test it yourself and stop hijacking threads.

It doesn't 'work' on MY machine! The website stipulates ...

requirements/
Mac OS X.9

https://www.asar.com/hogwasher.html

Hogwasher 5
Ultimate newsgroup reading for OS X. (*NOT* macOS)

--
David B.

In article , David B.
wrote:

It doesn't 'work' on MY machine! The website stipulates ...

excellent. the less stuff that works the better off we all will be.

requirements/
Mac OS X.9

there is no such thing as 'mac os x.9'

Ultimate newsgroup reading for OS X. (*NOT* macOS)

yep, you really are that stupid.

On 2019-01-08 13:58, PeterN wrote:
On 1/8/2019 8:31 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-08 03:54, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 23:42:07 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But a moot point IMO.Â* I doubt the sensor mentioned has
14 bits of DR in the first place.Â* Esp. once you account for noise.

Well, DxO measure 14.3 but what exactly that means is unknown. But if
they made that specific statement then I would expect they must have
grounds.

it means their test methodology is worthless or they're intentionally
lying.

Or that you have failed to understand what they are doing.

Your other post ends with a statement to the effect that DxO don't say
what their algorithms are doing, so nospam certainly didn't fail
anything.

In the end physics is physics and there is no way they are getting
more DR than the sensor offers.Â* Not even the bit depth of it.


HDR?

That implies 2 or more separate exposures with different speed settings,
so sure, get all the DR you want. (Theoretically any exposure variable
(aperture, lighting (such as strobe bracketing)), ISO, etc. but usually
speed).

But the discussion is about a single exposure.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On 2019-01-08 16:35, PeterN wrote:
On 1/8/2019 2:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 8, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/7/2019 4:57 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-07 16:19, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 10:13:09 -0500, Alan Browne
Â* wrote:

On 2019-01-04 18:58, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 16:16:05 -0500, Alan Browne
Â* wrote:

On 2019-01-02 04:16, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 07:48:13 +0000, Â* wrote:

On 02/01/2019 01:38, nospam wrote:
In , Eric
Stevens
Â* wrote:

You are obviously wedded to 1 stop per bit. Why is that?

math.

Why for example can you not have 2 stops per bit, or pi stops
per bit?
As long as you scale the entire brightness range with the
available 14
stops.

because it doesn't work that way.

think about what a stop means.

FWIW, I don't follow the linearity - in fact I've often
wondered why
aperture, ISO and shutter speed aren't infinitely variable,
especially
with digital. This article takes me closer to understanding:

https://expertphotography.com/unders...s-in-photograp

hy-exposure/

The author of that article is using 'stop' when he should be using
'exposure value'. But lets not get into that in this thread. It's
confused enough already. :-)

There is no difference at all between an EV and a stop of any of
the
three independent variables of ISO, exposure period and aperture.

It may be hair-splitting but none of my lenses are calibrated in
EVs.

They most definitely are, and probably 1/2 or 1/3 steps of EV as
well,
or possibly very fine steps in speed priority or auto modes.

I bow to your superior knowledge of my equipment.

Do your lenses have stops?

I wish this NG had stops.

If you have a Usenet client with the appropriate tools, any NG,
thread, or
poster can be cleaned up with judicious ignoring, flagging, deleting,
filtering, and kill filing.


That pun went right over your head. ;-)

1) No.
2) His reply flew right over yours...


--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On 2019-01-07 22:22, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 16:09:23 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-03 17:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 19:19:36 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Peter Irwin
wrote:

nope. it's *not* *possible* to resolve 37 stops with a 14 bit adc.

How about an IRL wager to resolve this disagreement? I can offer
Welch-proof terms.

Nospam's statement as written is trivially true:
x stops of resolution requires x bits.
That is a fact of mathematics,

yep

but not a useful statement of what
is needed for making images to be seen by humans.

the issue was that dxo claimed that several cameras which have a 14 bit
adc could produce nearly 15 stops of dynamic range.

that's not possible.

as i said before, an 14 bit adc limits the dynamic range to a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops.

You keep saying that but you never say why.

Does he have to say "math"?

IAC, 14 bits can't even give you a true 14 stops because of noise. More
like 12.5, maybe 13 on a cold, cold, cold day (if the camera works).

Its amazing what Google can produce. This is DxO's own account of the
situation at:
https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-came...ol-and-scores/

"Dynamic range corresponds to the ratio between the highest
brightness a camera can capture (saturation) and the lowest
brightness it can capture (which is typically when noise becomes
more important than the signal — that is, a signal-to-noise ratio
below 0 dB). A value of 12 EV is excellent, with differences below
0.5 EV usually not noticeable. Dynamic range is an open scale."

This appears to confirm that the situation is as I deduced: they are
not testing the dynamic range as recorded in a raw file. They are
testing the range that a camera can capture. i.e. it is the dynmaic
range of the sensor. It is not the dynamic range of the raw file.

It doesn't actually say that, however.

How, specifically, are they bypassing the raw file to get the data?


--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On 1/8/2019 8:01 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-08 13:58, PeterN wrote:
On 1/8/2019 8:31 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-08 03:54, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 23:42:07 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But a moot point IMO.Â* I doubt the sensor mentioned has
14 bits of DR in the first place.Â* Esp. once you account for noise.

Well, DxO measure 14.3 but what exactly that means is unknown. But if
they made that specific statement then I would expect they must have
grounds.

it means their test methodology is worthless or they're intentionally
lying.

Or that you have failed to understand what they are doing.

Your other post ends with a statement to the effect that DxO don't
say what their algorithms are doing, so nospam certainly didn't fail
anything.

In the end physics is physics and there is no way they are getting
more DR than the sensor offers.Â* Not even the bit depth of it.


HDR?

That implies 2 or more separate exposures with different speed settings,
so sure, get all the DR you want.Â* (Theoretically any exposure variable
(aperture, lighting (such as strobe bracketing)), ISO, etc. but usually
speed).

But the discussion is about a single exposure.


I know. But I have has a lot of success using one exposure, copying the
file twice, then using LR to underexpose one of them 2.5 - 4 stops, and
overexposing another the same. I vary the amount of the under/over
exposure based upon what I think the image needs. i then process them in
Aurora, previously I used the HDR program built into Bridge.) Of course
not all images can be helped in this manner. I will be the first to
admit that I have not measured the extent of the DR extension, or
whether the DR is really extended. I just know, and care whether the
image looks better.

--
PeterN

On Jan 9, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/8/2019 8:01 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-08 13:58, PeterN wrote:
On 1/8/2019 8:31 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-08 03:54, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 23:42:07 -0500,
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But a moot point IMO. I doubt the sensor mentioned has
14 bits of DR in the first place. Esp. once you account for noise.

Well, DxO measure 14.3 but what exactly that means is unknown. But if
they made that specific statement then I would expect they must have
grounds.

it means their test methodology is worthless or they're intentionally
lying.

Or that you have failed to understand what they are doing.

Your other post ends with a statement to the effect that DxO don't
say what their algorithms are doing, so nospam certainly didn't fail
anything.

In the end physics is physics and there is no way they are getting
more DR than the sensor offers. Not even the bit depth of it.

HDR?

That implies 2 or more separate exposures with different speed settings,
so sure, get all the DR you want. (Theoretically any exposure variable
(aperture, lighting (such as strobe bracketing)), ISO, etc. but usually
speed).

But the discussion is about a single exposure.

I know. But I have has a lot of success using one exposure, copying the
file twice, then using LR to underexpose one of them 2.5 - 4 stops, and
overexposing another the same. I vary the amount of the under/over
exposure based upon what I think the image needs. i then process them in
Aurora, previously I used the HDR program built into Bridge.) Of course
not all images can be helped in this manner. I will be the first to
admit that I have not measured the extent of the DR extension, or
whether the DR is really extended. I just know, and care whether the
image looks better.

Yup! Pseudo HDR can work very well especially when using LR as a host, and
either Aurora, or LR ‘merge to HDR’. However, one needs to be selective
when employing this technique.

The other thing to consider is, when using the LR ‘merge to HDR’ for RAW
files you have a DNG produced which now has an LR Exposure slider range of
-100 to +100 vs the standard -5 to +5. If needed that is a massive range for
DR adjustment. This is not what you get with the Aurora produced TIFF.
However, Aurora HDR brings another set of useful tools to the game.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 2019-01-09 14:38, PeterN wrote:
On 1/8/2019 8:01 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-08 13:58, PeterN wrote:
On 1/8/2019 8:31 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-08 03:54, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 23:42:07 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But a moot point IMO.Â* I doubt the sensor mentioned has
14 bits of DR in the first place.Â* Esp. once you account for noise.

Well, DxO measure 14.3 but what exactly that means is unknown.
But if
they made that specific statement then I would expect they must have
grounds.

it means their test methodology is worthless or they're intentionally
lying.

Or that you have failed to understand what they are doing.

Your other post ends with a statement to the effect that DxO don't
say what their algorithms are doing, so nospam certainly didn't fail
anything.

In the end physics is physics and there is no way they are getting
more DR than the sensor offers.Â* Not even the bit depth of it.


HDR?

That implies 2 or more separate exposures with different speed
settings, so sure, get all the DR you want.Â* (Theoretically any
exposure variable (aperture, lighting (such as strobe bracketing)),
ISO, etc. but usually speed).

But the discussion is about a single exposure.


I know. But I have has a lot of success using one exposure, copying the
file twice, then using LR to underexpose one of them 2.5 - 4 stops, and
overexposing another the same. I vary the amount of the under/over
exposure based upon what I think the image needs. i then process them in
Aurora, previously I used the HDR program built into Bridge.) Of course
not all images can be helped in this manner. I will be the first to
admit that I have not measured the extent of the DR extension, or
whether the DR is really extended. I just know, and care whether the
image looks better.

Irrelevant to the sub thread.



--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On Jan 9, 2019, Alan Browne wrote
(in ):

On 2019-01-09 14:38, PeterN wrote:
On 1/8/2019 8:01 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-08 13:58, PeterN wrote:
On 1/8/2019 8:31 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-01-08 03:54, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 23:42:07 -0500,
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But a moot point IMO. I doubt the sensor mentioned has
14 bits of DR in the first place. Esp. once you account for noise.

Well, DxO measure 14.3 but what exactly that means is unknown.
But if
they made that specific statement then I would expect they must have
grounds.

it means their test methodology is worthless or they're intentionally
lying.

Or that you have failed to understand what they are doing.

Your other post ends with a statement to the effect that DxO don't
say what their algorithms are doing, so nospam certainly didn't fail
anything.

In the end physics is physics and there is no way they are getting
more DR than the sensor offers. Not even the bit depth of it.

HDR?

That implies 2 or more separate exposures with different speed
settings, so sure, get all the DR you want. (Theoretically any
exposure variable (aperture, lighting (such as strobe bracketing)),
ISO, etc. but usually speed).

But the discussion is about a single exposure.

I know. But I have has a lot of success using one exposure, copying the
file twice, then using LR to underexpose one of them 2.5 - 4 stops, and
overexposing another the same. I vary the amount of the under/over
exposure based upon what I think the image needs. i then process them in
Aurora, previously I used the HDR program built into Bridge.) Of course
not all images can be helped in this manner. I will be the first to
admit that I have not measured the extent of the DR extension, or
whether the DR is really extended. I just know, and care whether the
image looks better.

Irrelevant to the sub thread.

Could that be a sub-sub-sub-thread? This is Usenet after all, and things
certainly seem to have drifted so far from the OP that to bitch about further
drift is just nitpicking.

--
Regards,
Savageduck