On 5/7/2012 9:11 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Do you care how it got there if it works?
You beat me to it. :-)
The proof is in the images.
Somewhere in Terry Pratchett's voluminous output, (The Colour of Magic?), the
protagonist has a camera. Inside is a
small demon. When you take a shot, the demon quickly draws what it sees through
the hole in the front of the box and
slips it out through a slot.
It used to be our demons were in the film. Now they more often are in the
sensor and electronics. It's still what comes
out that matters.
I am moderately interested in how the demon works, it's parentage, which art
school it attended, etc. But only far after
knowing what kind of pictures it draws.
On the logical/scientific side, I think you have made an unsupported
assumption. "From all evidences, this is the same
sensor as is in the G3" What evidence might that be? The makers are certainly
not giving details. And if Oly's engineers
figured out how to use the same, or a different, similar sensor, more
effectively, why should that be treated as some
sort of negative?
> On 5/7/2012 10:59 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> The numbers are stout, but I question how much of that DR is
>> manufacturered in processing and how much is actually real.
What? Real is the output. I've perused samples, and I don't see any negatives
from 'secret processing' in them. And if
there is, perchance, some mystery processing going on that works this well, are
you saying you would rather have a
camera without it? "Purity before IQ!"
>> .... But this goes back to a basic premise that I've preached for years that
>> "Raw Ain't Raw".
You have indeed been on this podium before. And I have generally disagreed with
you, both as to whether there is what
you seem to think of as cheating and as to whether it matters. As I recall,
your first rant was about 'processing' on
Canon sensors. Canon had figured out a way to keep electrons that were about to
'overflow individual pixel buckets'
(clip) and short them to ground, so they wouldn't slop over into adjacent pixel
buckets and change their values. This
improves the images at a pixel level.
I couldn't, and can't, see any way to achieve the same thing after the
exposure, and it improves IQ. So how is that
wrong, in any way at all?
It all smacks a bit of the rants of Gen Jack D. Ripper about "the purity and
essence of our natural... fluids". :-D
Purity of Image Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|