Convergence, what an ugly word. But it's here....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 22, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    otter Guest

    Re: Convergence, what an ugly word. But it's here....

    On Aug 22, 12:15 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/vg10.shtml


    Well, on the surface I have to say that it looks like a really cool
    camcorder. But once you start digging into the details, yuck! The
    mike looks neat, though.
     
    otter, Aug 23, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    Bowser, Aug 23, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    "ron_tom" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >
    >>"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/vg10.shtml
    >>>

    >>
    >>And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
    >>device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
    >>Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

    >
    > Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able
    > to
    > do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide such
    > good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
    > superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
    > the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
    > becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera
    > that
    > does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.


    I can also spot a troll a mile away...

    You're either a troll or someone with no clue when it comes to shooting and
    processing raw files.

    >
    > If only all those DSLRs would do a proper RAW to JPG conversion, we
    > wouldn't have fools like you consistently and wrongly waving the
    > unnecessary RAW banner. But wait, you'd still do it. Why? Because, you
    > don't know how to use any camera properly to get the right exposure and
    > white-balance in the first place. Yes, you're just that lame. Keep
    > admitting it by screaming the non-existent virtues of RAW.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Bowser, Aug 23, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    "Doug McDonald" <> wrote in message
    news:i4tq8i$p8h$...
    > On 8/23/2010 6:51 AM, ron_tom wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able
    >> to
    >> do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide
    >> such
    >> good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
    >> superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
    >> the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
    >> becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera
    >> that
    >> does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Such things really exist? How does the camera know what dodging and
    > burning in to do
    > on the 14 bit image before the JPEG conversion?


    the guy is either a troll or just horribly uninformed. My money's on troll.
     
    Bowser, Aug 23, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:57:51 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >"ron_tom" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/vg10.shtml
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
    >>>device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
    >>>Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

    >>
    >> Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able
    >> to
    >> do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide such
    >> good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
    >> superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
    >> the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
    >> becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera
    >> that
    >> does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.

    >
    >I can also spot a troll a mile away...
    >
    >You're either a troll or someone with no clue when it comes to shooting and
    >processing raw files.


    It's the infamous "P&S Troll". It's been hanging around here for quite
    a while. It changes names a lot, and probably also uses sock puppets
    via Google groups, etc. Its primary objective is to promote P&S
    cameras over DSLRs and anything else clearly superior. It frequently
    calls the regular on-topic posters "trolls" or "resident trolls" but
    sometimes switches voices or even posts semi-coherent googled info to
    fish in the unwary and uninitiated.
     
    John A., Aug 23, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    John A." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:57:51 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>"ron_tom" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/vg10.shtml
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect.
    >>>>A
    >>>>device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
    >>>>Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?
    >>>
    >>> Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able
    >>> to
    >>> do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide
    >>> such
    >>> good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
    >>> superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
    >>> the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
    >>> becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera
    >>> that
    >>> does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.

    >>
    >>I can also spot a troll a mile away...
    >>
    >>You're either a troll or someone with no clue when it comes to shooting
    >>and
    >>processing raw files.

    >
    > It's the infamous "P&S Troll". It's been hanging around here for quite
    > a while. It changes names a lot, and probably also uses sock puppets
    > via Google groups, etc. Its primary objective is to promote P&S
    > cameras over DSLRs and anything else clearly superior. It frequently
    > calls the regular on-topic posters "trolls" or "resident trolls" but
    > sometimes switches voices or even posts semi-coherent googled info to
    > fish in the unwary and uninitiated.


    the vision of "comic book guy" comes to mind when it shows up here. Fat,
    stupid, never leaves it's parent's basement.
     
    Bowser, Aug 23, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:02:53 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, John A. says...
    >> It's the infamous "P&S Troll".

    >
    >Cannot be. There are P&S cameras with RAW mode.


    You're making the assumption that it actually knows something about
    the topic. It's just getting it's jollies with spin and regurgitated
    googles.
     
    John A., Aug 23, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:19:39 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2010-08-23 12:30:50 -0700, Bowser <> said:
    >
    >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:20:30 +0100, bugbear
    >> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >>
    >>> ron_tom wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/vg10.shtml
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
    >>>>> device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
    >>>>> Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?
    >>>>
    >>>> Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able to
    >>>> do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide such
    >>>> good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
    >>>> superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image from
    >>>> the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
    >>>> becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera that
    >>>> does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.
    >>>>
    >>>> If only all those DSLRs would do a proper RAW to JPG conversion, we
    >>>> wouldn't have fools like you consistently and wrongly waving the
    >>>> unnecessary RAW banner. But wait, you'd still do it. Why? Because, you
    >>>> don't know how to use any camera properly to get the right exposure and
    >>>> white-balance in the first place. Yes, you're just that lame. Keep
    >>>> admitting it by screaming the non-existent virtues of RAW.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://www.creativetechs.com/iq/tip_images/PeopleRemover-1.png
    >>>
    >>> BugBear

    >>
    >> I was thinking:
    >>
    >> http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...9STDQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=44&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

    >
    >Perfect!


    Or maybe this is about him: http://www.27bslash6.com/photography.html
     
    John A., Aug 24, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Re: Convergence, what an ugly word. But it's here....

    On Aug 23, 1:02 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, John A. says...
    >
    > > It's the infamous "P&S Troll".

    >
    > Cannot be. There are P&S cameras with RAW mode.
    > --


    And lot of P&S wouldn't know if they're camera's had RAW or not.
     
    Rich, Aug 24, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Convergence, what an ugly word. But it's here....

    On Aug 23, 7:51 am, ron_tom <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:?
    > >"RichA" <> wrote in message
    > >news:....
    > >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/vg10.shtml

    >
    > >And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
    > >device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
    > >Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?

    >
    > Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were able to
    > do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera.


    The best JPEG output right now is from the Olympus E-PL1. However,
    the images the 4/3rds cameras produce are not as good (no matter what
    criteria you use) as the best APS-C or any FF cameras. Therefore, the
    job of the converter isn't a difficult one. However, no camera that
    is capable of producing truly exceptional images has a RAW file that
    can be translated in-camera into the best JPEG possible. That part is
    still in the hands of humans.
     
    RichA, Aug 24, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Re: Convergence, what an ugly word. But it's here....

    Rich <> wrote:

    >On Aug 23, 1:02 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, John A. says...
    >>
    >> > It's the infamous "P&S Troll".

    >>
    >> Cannot be. There are P&S cameras with RAW mode.
    >> --

    >
    >And lot of P&S wouldn't know if they're camera's had RAW or not.



    Some people seem to have a problem with apostrophe's creeping in where
    they aren't need'ed. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Aug 24, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Re: Convergence, what an ugly word. But it's here....

    RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >The best JPEG output right now is from the Olympus E-PL1. However,
    >the images the 4/3rds cameras produce are not as good (no matter what
    >criteria you use) as the best APS-C or any FF cameras. Therefore, the
    >job of the converter isn't a difficult one. However, no camera that
    >is capable of producing truly exceptional images has a RAW file that
    >can be translated in-camera into the best JPEG possible. That part is
    >still in the hands of humans.



    That part is in the hands of sophisticated image processing software
    which is barely understood by almost all the humans who use it.
     
    Bruce, Aug 24, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:19:39 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2010-08-23 12:30:50 -0700, Bowser <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:20:30 +0100, bugbear
    >>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ron_tom wrote:
    >>>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:40:59 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/vg10.shtml
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files.
    >>>>>> Perfect. A
    >>>>>> device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature.
    >>>>>> Gee.
    >>>>>> Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Unfortunately, you're living in the dSLR camp where they never were
    >>>>> able to
    >>>>> do the RAW to JPG conversion properly in-camera. Many cameras provide
    >>>>> such
    >>>>> good RAW to JPG conversion in-camera that access to RAW becomes a
    >>>>> superfluous and time wasting activity. Trying to get a better image
    >>>>> from
    >>>>> the RAW data than what the camera already provides in its JPG output
    >>>>> becomes a futile activity. You'd know this if you ever bought a camera
    >>>>> that
    >>>>> does the RAW to JPG conversion properly in the first place.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If only all those DSLRs would do a proper RAW to JPG conversion, we
    >>>>> wouldn't have fools like you consistently and wrongly waving the
    >>>>> unnecessary RAW banner. But wait, you'd still do it. Why? Because, you
    >>>>> don't know how to use any camera properly to get the right exposure
    >>>>> and
    >>>>> white-balance in the first place. Yes, you're just that lame. Keep
    >>>>> admitting it by screaming the non-existent virtues of RAW.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.creativetechs.com/iq/tip_images/PeopleRemover-1.png
    >>>>
    >>>> BugBear
    >>>
    >>> I was thinking:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...9STDQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=44&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

    >>
    >>Perfect!

    >
    > How old are you people? 5?
    >



    To you that's old.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 25, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ron_tom wrote:
    >> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:36:38 -0500, ron_tom <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> It also looks like the image you posted was
    >>>from pre-graffiti days (the colors in it hint at being an Instamatic
    >>> snapshot scanned at one time).

    >>
    >> Interesting that the cement coating on the VW had since been
    >> chipped-away,
    >> or fell away (from seasonal heating and cooling cycles) in the image I
    >> took, revealing its original color, and the fact that it is a real VW
    >> Beetle being used in the sculpture. Making it much better in my opinion.
    >> Proving even more the age of the photo you posted a link to (no doubt not
    >> your own, of course, just like every troll does).

    >
    > Tell you what. If you show me where I claimed
    > I took the photo, I'll kiss your arse.
    >
    > Failing which, you can kiss mine.



    Why would you want it to kiss your ass?
    I would not want it anywhere near mine. :)

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 25, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Bowser wrote:
    >
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/vg10.shtml
    > >

    >
    > And, in true Sony brain-dead fashion, it won't save RAW files. Perfect. A
    > device aimed at a fairly high-end user missing a critical feature. Gee.
    > Maybe the VG11 will add RAW?



    Hey, it doesn't take floppy disks, at least! Sony should've stuck with
    its "Mavica" junkers (and left >real< cameras, to the experts).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Aug 30, 2010
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. phil~~
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,039
    Olivier T \(fr\)
    Sep 11, 2004
  2. maher
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    17,579
  3. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    495
    Allan
    May 11, 2005
  4. Wi-Fi and RFID Convergence

    , Jul 23, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    503
  5. Wi-Fi and RFID Convergence

    , Aug 21, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    416
Loading...

Share This Page