Velocity Reviews > Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

# Re: The death of the Bayer filter? Maybe not.

Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-22-2012
TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:35:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>>>>> But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
>>>>>>> outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>>>>>>> A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
>>>>>>> system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.

>>>>>>So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
>>>>>>were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
>>>>>>against that.

>>>>>>As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
>>>>>>the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
>>>>>>than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
>>>>>>unobtainium.

>>>>> And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
>>>>> means you're wrong.

>>>>OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.

>>> It figures you think that.

>>It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
>>*very* *own* *logic*.

> First you have to say something logical.

Non sequitur. Your logic ("if A then B") doesn't need to be
logical to be logic. Please use a dictionary.

>>> You probably know it's wrong to compare a
>>> 24MP Foveon using Sigma's MP definition to a 24MP Bayer or 24MP 3
>>> sensor system using a different MP definition. But it's the only way
>>> you can make your invalid argument look like it makes sense to an
>>> uninformed observer.

>>OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
>>tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
>>Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in

> More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
> in order to compare sensor resolution.

Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.

>>> That's sophistry at it's finest.

>>You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
>>problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.

> You should look it up in an English dictionary. You might learn
> something.

Yep, that you don't even grasp standard English.

-Wolfgang

TheRealSteve
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-25-2012

On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 22:35:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:29:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>>>>>> But we're talking about comparing the same thing. A 4.7MP Foveon will
>>>>>>>> outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP Foveon will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.
>>>>>>>> A 4.7MP 3 sensor system will outresolve a 4.7MP Bayer. A 24MP 3 sensor
>>>>>>>> system will outresolve a 24MP Bayer.

>
>>>>>>>So ... you're comparing the same thing. What Bayer sizes
>>>>>>>were typical when Foveon had a "4.7 MPix" sensor? Compare
>>>>>>>against that.

>
>>>>>>>As for the 24 MPix Foveon and 24 MPix 3-sensor system versus
>>>>>>>the 24 MPix Bayer ... imaginary cameras are always better
>>>>>>>than real cameras, however the imaginary cameras need lots of
>>>>>>>unobtainium.

>
>>>>>> And here is your problem. You probably realize that comparing equals
>>>>>> means you're wrong.

>
>>>>>OK, let's finish that. You're comparing equals, so you're wrong.

>
>>>> It figures you think that.

>
>>>It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
>>>*very* *own* *logic*.

>
>> First you have to say something logical.

>
>Non sequitur. Your logic ("if A then B") doesn't need to be
>logical to be logic. Please use a dictionary.

You need to look up what non-sequitur means. You're not using it
correctly.

>>>> You probably know it's wrong to compare a
>>>> 24MP Foveon using Sigma's MP definition to a 24MP Bayer or 24MP 3
>>>> sensor system using a different MP definition. But it's the only way
>>>> you can make your invalid argument look like it makes sense to an
>>>> uninformed observer.

>
>>>OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
>>>tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
>>>Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in

>
>> More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
>> in order to compare sensor resolution.

>
>Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.

I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.

>>>> That's sophistry at it's finest.

>
>>>You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
>>>problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.

>
>> You should look it up in an English dictionary. You might learn
>> something.

>
>Yep, that you don't even grasp standard English

First you have to demonstrate that you grasp standard English before
you can judge whenter someone else does. So far, you haven't.

Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-25-2012
TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>>>>It figures that you don't even notice you're being handed *your*
>>>>*very* *own* *logic*.

>>> First you have to say something logical.

>>Non sequitur. Your logic ("if A then B") doesn't need to be
>>logical to be logic. Please use a dictionary.

> You need to look up what non-sequitur means. You're not using it
> correctly.

I am using it correctly.

>>>>OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
>>>>tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
>>>>Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in

>>> More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
>>> in order to compare sensor resolution.

>>Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.

> I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.

more handwaving, and proof you're not comptent to discuss Foveon.

>>>>> That's sophistry at it's finest.

>>>>You shouldn't use foreign words in English sentences when you've
>>>>problems reading and understanding plain English sentences.

>>> You should look it up in an English dictionary. You might learn
>>> something.

>>Yep, that you don't even grasp standard English

> First you have to demonstrate that you grasp standard English before
> you can judge whenter someone else does. So far, you haven't.

Steve, you judging my understanding of English is a blind man
waxing on about the colours of nature he's standing in front of.

-Wolfgang

TheRealSteve
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-27-2012

On Fri, 25 May 2012 23:40:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>>>>>OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
>>>>>tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
>>>>>Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in

>
>>>> More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
>>>> in order to compare sensor resolution.

>
>>>Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.

>
>> I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.

>
>more handwaving, and proof you're not comptent to discuss Foveon.

See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
sensor. So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!

Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-27-2012
TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 23:40:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>>>>>>OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
>>>>>>tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
>>>>>>Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in

>>>>> More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
>>>>> in order to compare sensor resolution.

>>>>Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.

>>> I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.

>>more handwaving, and proof you're not comptent to discuss Foveon.

> See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
> what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
> competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
> sensor.

And the Pope is the right person to discuss the finer points of
practical sexuality between 2 or more women and which sex toys
work for them.

> So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
> just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!

Nope, you really need to look up the term.

-Wolfgang

TheRealSteve
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-29-2012

On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:44:15 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 23:40:16 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:34:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 04:07:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>
>>>>>>>OK, have it your way! Here's a 5D Mark III, here's a D800, please
>>>>>>>tell me which 24 or 36 MPix (MPics as per *your* definition)
>>>>>>>Foveon camera should be compared against them. Thank you in

>
>>>>>> More proof that you haven't got a clue as to what has to be made equal
>>>>>> in order to compare sensor resolution.

>
>>>>>Please name the best Foveon FF camera. Don't hand wave.

>
>>>> I have no idea nor do I care what the best Foveon FF camera is.

>
>>>more handwaving, and proof you're not comptent to discuss Foveon.

>
>> See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
>> what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
>> competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
>> sensor.

>
>And the Pope is the right person to discuss the finer points of
>practical sexuality between 2 or more women and which sex toys
>work for them.

Yet another non-sequitur. You're really getting good at this.

>
>> So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
>> just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!

>
>Nope, you really need to look up the term.

Lol. You mean you're not even trying to reply with non-sequiturs and
you actually think you are making sense? That's sad.

Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-29-2012
TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:44:15 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>> See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
>>> what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
>>> competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
>>> sensor.

>>And the Pope is the right person to discuss the finer points of
>>practical sexuality between 2 or more women and which sex toys
>>work for them.

> Yet another non-sequitur. You're really getting good at this.

In fact, that isn't a non sequitur. It would be one if I claimed
that therefore you're the Pope. You're not even that.

>>> So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
>>> just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!

>>Nope, you really need to look up the term.

> Lol. You mean you're not even trying to reply with non-sequiturs and
> you actually think you are making sense? That's sad.

Sad is that you don't have any of
- knowledge
- arguments
- charm
- intelligence
nor are you
- useful as a study object of dementia
- useful as a study object of obstinacy of old age

You're just obnoxious, hiding behind your stupid pseudonym,
hoping nobody knows who you are.

You're not worth reading. I tried really hard (I am quite
stubborn, I know), but I won't read you for the next half
year. Have fun, grow up.

-Wolfgang

TheRealSteve
Guest
Posts: n/a

 06-01-2012

On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:42:36 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:44:15 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>> See, there's a non-sequitur. Just because someone doesn't know or care
>>>> what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearinig on their
>>>> competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the Foveon
>>>> sensor.

>
>>>And the Pope is the right person to discuss the finer points of
>>>practical sexuality between 2 or more women and which sex toys
>>>work for them.

>
>> Yet another non-sequitur. You're really getting good at this.

>
>In fact, that isn't a non sequitur. It would be one if I claimed
>that therefore you're the Pope. You're not even that.

Ok, so you really don't know what a non-seqitur is. I'll give you a
hint... It doesn't follow that "the Pope is the right person to
discuss the finer points of practical sexuality between 2 or more
women and which sex toys work for them" from "someone who doesn't know
or care what the best Foveon FF camera is has absolutely no bearing on
their competency to discuss the technology and resolution of the
Foveon sensor. Plenty of other analogies apply perfectly well. The
Pope one doesn't. Here's one that does: An aeronautical engineer can
be highly skilled and competent to discuss the finer points of fluid
flow over a surface even if he doesn't have an opinion or know or care
what the "best" airliner in the world is.

>>>> So without even knowing what the term non-sequitur means, you
>>>> just gave the perfect example of one. Congrats!

>
>>>Nope, you really need to look up the term.

>
>> Lol. You mean you're not even trying to reply with non-sequiturs and
>> you actually think you are making sense? That's sad.

>
>Sad is that you don't have any of
>- knowledge
>- arguments
>- charm
>- intelligence
>nor are you
>- useful as a study object of dementia
>- useful as a study object of obstinacy of old age

Coming from you, those are all compliments. Sad is that that's the
best argument you can come up with. All the ones you actually tried to
proffer just don't make sense. Like the Pope one above.

>You're just obnoxious, hiding behind your stupid pseudonym,
>hoping nobody knows who you are.
>
>You're not worth reading. I tried really hard (I am quite
>stubborn, I know), but I won't read you for the next half
>year. Have fun, grow up.

<sarcasm>A dignified exit if I ever saw one.</sarcasm>