George is winning.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Georgette Preddy, Jun 1, 2004.

  1. wrote in message news:<>...
    > In message <>,
    > (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    >
    > >The Sigma DSLRs are 13.72MP, but without Bayer color interpolation artifacts.

    >
    > They're 3.43MP, and they have far worse artifacts unique to themselves.


    The Sigma SD's both output 13.72MP images (4036 x 3024) when color
    interpolated to the same degree as all Bayer DSLR do by default (25%
    optical info per pixel).

    Since all Bayers are incapable of producing 100% optical resolutions,
    the SD's optional 100% optical 3.43MP photographic resolution is a
    non-issue when comparing, since no other digital camera in the world
    is advanced enough to output a true optical photograph (using
    non-interpolated colors in every pixel).
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Georgette Preddy

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (Georgette Preddy) wrote:

    > wrote in message news:<>...
    >> In message <>,
    >> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    >>
    >> >The Sigma DSLRs are 13.72MP, but without Bayer color interpolation artifacts.

    >>
    >> They're 3.43MP, and they have far worse artifacts unique to themselves.

    >
    >The Sigma SD's


    "SDs", not "SD's". Apostrophes are not for plurals.

    >both output 13.72MP images (4036 x 3024) when color
    >interpolated to the same degree as all Bayer DSLR do by default (25%
    >optical info per pixel).


    You have honed your statement so that it is almost true. Color is
    interpolated with the Bayer cameras, but it is only done because the
    luminance exists at a higher resolution. The Bayers, therefor actually
    have a reason to interpolate color spatially; they need full RGB bitmaps
    for display. The SDs only have 3.43MP of luminance information, the
    same resolution as the color, so they are really only 3.43MP any way you
    look at them.

    >Since all Bayers are incapable of producing 100% optical resolutions,


    This is your own terminology, poorly thought out, only to support your
    nonsense.

    >the SD's optional 100% optical 3.43MP photographic resolution is a
    >non-issue when comparing, since no other digital camera in the world
    >is advanced enough to output a true optical photograph (using
    >non-interpolated colors in every pixel).


    Nonsense. See my second paragraph again.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jun 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote in message news:<>...
    > In message <>,
    > (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    >
    > > wrote in message news:<>...
    > >> In message <>,
    > >> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >The Sigma DSLRs are 13.72MP, but without Bayer color interpolation artifacts.
    > >>
    > >> They're 3.43MP, and they have far worse artifacts unique to themselves.

    > >
    > >The Sigma SD's

    >
    > "SDs", not "SD's". Apostrophes are not for plurals.


    It's colloquial, so it's just fine.

    > >both output 13.72MP images (4036 x 3024) when color
    > >interpolated to the same degree as all Bayer DSLR do by default (25%
    > >optical info per pixel).

    >
    > You have honed your statement so that it is almost true. Color is
    > interpolated with the Bayer cameras, but it is only done because the
    > luminance exists at a higher resolution. The Bayers, therefor actually
    > have a reason to interpolate color spatially; they need full RGB bitmaps
    > for display. The SDs only have 3.43MP of luminance information, the
    > same resolution as the color, so they are really only 3.43MP any way you
    > look at them.


    Bayers have MPs/3 worth of luminance data, before 25% is thrown out.
    So the same MPs/4 applies in both luminance and color--opbiously,
    since you can never have more of one than the other.

    > >Since all Bayers are incapable of producing 100% optical resolutions,

    >
    > This is your own terminology, poorly thought out, only to support your
    > nonsense.


    It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    water in them?
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 2, 2004
    #3
  4. On 1 Jun 2004 21:14:57 -0700, (Georgette
    Preddy) wrote:

    > wrote in message news:<>...
    >> In message <>,
    >> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    >>
    >> > wrote in message news:<>...
    >> >> In message <>,
    >> >> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >The Sigma DSLRs are 13.72MP, but without Bayer color interpolation artifacts.
    >> >>
    >> >> They're 3.43MP, and they have far worse artifacts unique to themselves.
    >> >
    >> >The Sigma SD's

    >>
    >> "SDs", not "SD's". Apostrophes are not for plurals.

    >
    >It's colloquial, so it's just fine.
    >
    >> >both output 13.72MP images (4036 x 3024) when color
    >> >interpolated to the same degree as all Bayer DSLR do by default (25%
    >> >optical info per pixel).

    >>
    >> You have honed your statement so that it is almost true. Color is
    >> interpolated with the Bayer cameras, but it is only done because the
    >> luminance exists at a higher resolution. The Bayers, therefor actually
    >> have a reason to interpolate color spatially; they need full RGB bitmaps
    >> for display. The SDs only have 3.43MP of luminance information, the
    >> same resolution as the color, so they are really only 3.43MP any way you
    >> look at them.

    >
    >Bayers have MPs/3 worth of luminance data, before 25% is thrown out.
    >So the same MPs/4 applies in both luminance and color--opbiously,
    >since you can never have more of one than the other.
    >
    >> >Since all Bayers are incapable of producing 100% optical resolutions,

    >>
    >> This is your own terminology, poorly thought out, only to support your
    >> nonsense.

    >
    >It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    >resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    >water in them?


    Pixel count is the defining factor of resolution.

    You are a clown.

    GK
    grant kinsley, Jun 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Georgette Preddy

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Uhhhh .. what is the prize? Whatever it is it cannot be worth all the
    typing he does.

    Georgette Preddy wrote:

    > wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >>In message <>,
    >> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> wrote in message news:<>...
    >>>
    >>>>In message <>,
    >>>> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>The Sigma DSLRs are 13.72MP, but without Bayer color interpolation artifacts.
    >>>>
    >>>>They're 3.43MP, and they have far worse artifacts unique to themselves.
    >>>
    >>>The Sigma SD's

    >>
    >>"SDs", not "SD's". Apostrophes are not for plurals.

    >
    >
    > It's colloquial, so it's just fine.
    >
    >
    >>>both output 13.72MP images (4036 x 3024) when color
    >>>interpolated to the same degree as all Bayer DSLR do by default (25%
    >>>optical info per pixel).

    >>
    >>You have honed your statement so that it is almost true. Color is
    >>interpolated with the Bayer cameras, but it is only done because the
    >>luminance exists at a higher resolution. The Bayers, therefor actually
    >>have a reason to interpolate color spatially; they need full RGB bitmaps
    >>for display. The SDs only have 3.43MP of luminance information, the
    >>same resolution as the color, so they are really only 3.43MP any way you
    >>look at them.

    >
    >
    > Bayers have MPs/3 worth of luminance data, before 25% is thrown out.
    > So the same MPs/4 applies in both luminance and color--opbiously,
    > since you can never have more of one than the other.
    >
    >
    >>>Since all Bayers are incapable of producing 100% optical resolutions,

    >>
    >>This is your own terminology, poorly thought out, only to support your
    >>nonsense.

    >
    >
    > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    > water in them?
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Grammar and logic lessons

    Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >
    > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    > water in them?


    That'd be 8 oz. of water, although in a narrative it's better to spell
    out ounces.

    And yes, all 8 oz. glasses are *capable* of holding 8 oz. water.

    Colloquially yours,

    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Georgette Preddy

    Crownfield Guest

    grant kinsley wrote:
    >
    > On 1 Jun 2004 21:14:57 -0700, (Georgette
    > Preddy) wrote:
    >
    > > wrote in message news:<>...
    > >> In message <>,
    > >> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > wrote in message news:<>...
    > >> >> In message <>,
    > >> >> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >The Sigma DSLRs are 13.72MP, but without Bayer color interpolation artifacts.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> They're 3.43MP, and they have far worse artifacts unique to themselves.
    > >> >
    > >> >The Sigma SD's
    > >>
    > >> "SDs", not "SD's". Apostrophes are not for plurals.

    > >
    > >It's colloquial, so it's just fine.
    > >
    > >> >both output 13.72MP images (4036 x 3024) when color
    > >> >interpolated to the same degree as all Bayer DSLR do by default (25%
    > >> >optical info per pixel).
    > >>
    > >> You have honed your statement so that it is almost true. Color is
    > >> interpolated with the Bayer cameras, but it is only done because the
    > >> luminance exists at a higher resolution. The Bayers, therefor actually
    > >> have a reason to interpolate color spatially; they need full RGB bitmaps
    > >> for display. The SDs only have 3.43MP of luminance information, the
    > >> same resolution as the color, so they are really only 3.43MP any way you
    > >> look at them.

    > >
    > >Bayers have MPs/3 worth of luminance data, before 25% is thrown out.
    > >So the same MPs/4 applies in both luminance and color--opbiously,
    > >since you can never have more of one than the other.
    > >
    > >> >Since all Bayers are incapable of producing 100% optical resolutions,
    > >>
    > >> This is your own terminology, poorly thought out, only to support your
    > >> nonsense.

    > >
    > >Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical resolution.


    right.
    so a one pixel camera has all the resolution of a 22 mp digital back.

    >
    > Pixel count is the defining factor of resolution.
    >
    > You are a clown.
    >
    > GK
    Crownfield, Jun 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Georgette Preddy

    Alan D-W Guest

    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    > water in them?


    Patronising little turd.
    Alan D-W, Jun 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Crownfield <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > grant kinsley wrote:
    > >
    > > On 1 Jun 2004 21:14:57 -0700, (Georgette
    > > Preddy) wrote:
    > > >Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical resolution.

    >
    > right.
    > so a one pixel camera has all the resolution of a 22 mp digital back.
    >
    > >
    > > Pixel count is the defining factor of resolution.


    Great, than all cameras have infinite optical resolution since any
    image can be interpolated to any number of pixels.

    Output pixels have absolutely nothing tho do with optical resolution.
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #9
  10. "Alan D-W" <> wrote in message news:<40be4689$0$25318$>...
    > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    > > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    > > water in them?

    >
    > Patronising little turd.


    Apparently you don't like learning.
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #10
  11. Georgette Preddy

    Mark M Guest

    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Alan D-W" <> wrote in message

    news:<40be4689$0$25318$>...
    > > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > >
    > > > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    > > > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    > > > water in them?

    > >
    > > Patronising little turd.

    >
    > Apparently you don't like learning.


    It would be adviseable, George, that before you try and teach anyone you
    need to pull your head out of your ... and learn a bit yourself.

    Either this has NEVER occurred to you, or you simply have no ability to see
    your own ignorance.

    Or... You're an intelligent guy who intentionally makes an ass of himself
    for sport.

    I hope--for your sake--that it's this last one.
    Mark M, Jun 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Re: Grammar and logic lessons

    John McWilliams <> wrote in message news:<eWlvc.32029$IB.3993@attbi_s04>...
    > Georgette Preddy wrote:
    > >
    > > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    > > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    > > water in them?

    >
    > That'd be 8 oz. of water, although in a narrative it's better to spell
    > out ounces.
    >
    > And yes, all 8 oz. glasses are *capable* of holding 8 oz. water.


    Wonderful, you are about to "get it."

    Yes, all 3000x2000 pixel images are "capable" of holding 6M pixels
    worth of 100% optically determined color information (which would
    require at least 18M individual RGB sensors in a 3 layer design, or
    24M in a 1 layer design). Unfortunately, a 25%-optical Bayer
    3000x2000 image only carries a maximum of 1.5M pixels worth of
    optically determined information within it, which is then
    interpolatively upscaled to 3000x2000 recorded output pixels.

    At last you understand that pixels are the medium, not the message.
    Just as 8oz glasses are the water carriers, not the water.
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #12
  13. On 2 Jun 2004 21:36:20 -0700, (Georgette
    Preddy) wrote:

    >Crownfield <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >> grant kinsley wrote:
    >> >
    >> > On 1 Jun 2004 21:14:57 -0700, (Georgette
    >> > Preddy) wrote:
    >> > >Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical resolution.

    >>
    >> right.
    >> so a one pixel camera has all the resolution of a 22 mp digital back.
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Pixel count is the defining factor of resolution.

    >
    >Great, than all cameras have infinite optical resolution since any
    >image can be interpolated to any number of pixels.
    >


    No, interpolation has limits, but you fail to understand even the
    basics of math, so I won't try and explain that to you

    >Output pixels have absolutely nothing tho do with optical resolution.


    Anything over the number of pixels on the sensor is simply upscaling.
    Watch a VHS tape upscaled to 1080i or 720p and you will understand
    that upscaling adds no new information, it just repeats information to
    smooth the picture.

    GK
    grant kinsley, Jun 3, 2004
    #13
  14. Re: Grammar and logic lessons

    On 2 Jun 2004 22:34:31 -0700, (Georgette
    Preddy) wrote:

    >John McWilliams <> wrote in message news:<eWlvc.32029$IB.3993@attbi_s04>...
    >> Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >> >
    >> > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    >> > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    >> > water in them?

    >>
    >> That'd be 8 oz. of water, although in a narrative it's better to spell
    >> out ounces.
    >>
    >> And yes, all 8 oz. glasses are *capable* of holding 8 oz. water.

    >
    >Wonderful, you are about to "get it."


    unlike you who has never got it.

    a pixel is a spatial definition, how a pixel utilizes data, and the
    data it contains does not change the definition of a pixel
    >
    >Yes, all 3000x2000 pixel images are "capable" of holding 6M pixels
    >worth of 100% optically determined color information (which would
    >require at least 18M individual RGB sensors in a 3 layer design, or
    >24M in a 1 layer design). Unfortunately, a 25%-optical Bayer
    >3000x2000 image only carries a maximum of 1.5M pixels worth of
    >optically determined information within it, which is then
    >interpolatively upscaled to 3000x2000 recorded output pixels.


    interpolation, and upscaling are two different things, please learn
    the difference.
    >
    >At last you understand that pixels are the medium, not the message.
    >Just as 8oz glasses are the water carriers, not the water.


    So you finally understand that a pixel is defined as the glass, and
    data is defined as the water. unfortunatly you have been trying to
    define the water as the glass on this newsgroup by your claims that
    sigma's cameras are 13.72MP when they are, in fact, 3.43MP

    GK
    grant kinsley, Jun 3, 2004
    #14
  15. Re: Grammar and logic lessons

    grant kinsley <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > On 2 Jun 2004 22:34:31 -0700, (Georgette
    > Preddy) wrote:
    >
    > >John McWilliams <> wrote in message news:<eWlvc.32029$IB.3993@attbi_s04>...
    > >> Georgette Preddy wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    > >> > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    > >> > water in them?
    > >>
    > >> That'd be 8 oz. of water, although in a narrative it's better to spell
    > >> out ounces.
    > >>
    > >> And yes, all 8 oz. glasses are *capable* of holding 8 oz. water.

    > >
    > >Wonderful, you are about to "get it."

    >
    > unlike you who has never got it.
    >
    > a pixel is a spatial definition, how a pixel utilizes data, and the
    > data it contains does not change the definition of a pixel


    Good job!

    > >Yes, all 3000x2000 pixel images are "capable" of holding 6M pixels
    > >worth of 100% optically determined color information (which would
    > >require at least 18M individual RGB sensors in a 3 layer design, or
    > >24M in a 1 layer design). Unfortunately, a 25%-optical Bayer
    > >3000x2000 image only carries a maximum of 1.5M pixels worth of
    > >optically determined information within it, which is then
    > >interpolatively upscaled to 3000x2000 recorded output pixels.

    >
    > interpolation, and upscaling are two different things, please learn
    > the difference.


    Interpolation is how all images are upscaled, not just Bayer images.

    > >At last you understand that pixels are the medium, not the message.
    > >Just as 8oz glasses are the water carriers, not the water.

    >
    > So you finally understand that a pixel is defined as the glass, and
    > data is defined as the water. unfortunatly you have been trying to
    > define the water as the glass on this newsgroup by your claims that
    > sigma's cameras are 13.72MP when they are, in fact, 3.43MP


    The SD9 is a 13.72MP interpolated, 3.43MP optical DSLR.

    Bayer DLSRs are (rated-MPs) interpolated, (rated-MPs)/4 optical.

    Congratualtions, you graduated!
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #15
  16. grant kinsley <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > On 2 Jun 2004 21:36:20 -0700, (Georgette
    > Preddy) wrote:


    > >Output pixels have absolutely nothing tho do with optical resolution.

    >
    > Anything over the number of pixels on the sensor


    Divided by 3 (4 in the case of an old 1 layer Bayer design)

    > is simply upscaling.


    Obviously, since it takes an R, G (2G/2 in the case of a 1-layer
    Bayer), and B sensor to produce 1 optical full color pixel.
    Georgette Preddy, Jun 3, 2004
    #16
  17. Georgette Preddy

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:15:47 -0700, Crownfield <>
    wrote:

    >grant kinsley wrote:
    >>
    >> On 1 Jun 2004 21:14:57 -0700, (Georgette
    >> Preddy) wrote:
    >>
    >> > wrote in message news:<>...
    >> >> In message <>,
    >> >> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > wrote in message news:<>...
    >> >> >> In message <>,
    >> >> >> (Georgette Preddy) wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >The Sigma DSLRs are 13.72MP, but without Bayer color interpolation artifacts.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> They're 3.43MP, and they have far worse artifacts unique to themselves.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >The Sigma SD's
    >> >>
    >> >> "SDs", not "SD's". Apostrophes are not for plurals.
    >> >
    >> >It's colloquial, so it's just fine.
    >> >
    >> >> >both output 13.72MP images (4036 x 3024) when color
    >> >> >interpolated to the same degree as all Bayer DSLR do by default (25%
    >> >> >optical info per pixel).
    >> >>
    >> >> You have honed your statement so that it is almost true. Color is
    >> >> interpolated with the Bayer cameras, but it is only done because the
    >> >> luminance exists at a higher resolution. The Bayers, therefor actually
    >> >> have a reason to interpolate color spatially; they need full RGB bitmaps
    >> >> for display. The SDs only have 3.43MP of luminance information, the
    >> >> same resolution as the color, so they are really only 3.43MP any way you
    >> >> look at them.
    >> >
    >> >Bayers have MPs/3 worth of luminance data, before 25% is thrown out.
    >> >So the same MPs/4 applies in both luminance and color--opbiously,
    >> >since you can never have more of one than the other.
    >> >
    >> >> >Since all Bayers are incapable of producing 100% optical resolutions,
    >> >>
    >> >> This is your own terminology, poorly thought out, only to support your
    >> >> nonsense.
    >> >
    >> >Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical resolution.

    >
    >right.
    >so a one pixel camera has all the resolution of a 22 mp digital back.


    For that one pixel, yes. :)
    >
    >>
    >> Pixel count is the defining factor of resolution.
    >>
    >> You are a clown.
    >>
    >> GK


    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Jun 3, 2004
    #17
  18. Georgette Preddy

    Bill Funk Guest

    Re: Grammar and logic lessons

    On 3 Jun 2004 05:31:40 -0700, (Georgette
    Preddy) wrote:

    >grant kinsley <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >> On 2 Jun 2004 22:34:31 -0700, (Georgette
    >> Preddy) wrote:
    >>
    >> >John McWilliams <> wrote in message news:<eWlvc.32029$IB.3993@attbi_s04>...
    >> >> Georgette Preddy wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    >> >> > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    >> >> > water in them?
    >> >>
    >> >> That'd be 8 oz. of water, although in a narrative it's better to spell
    >> >> out ounces.
    >> >>
    >> >> And yes, all 8 oz. glasses are *capable* of holding 8 oz. water.
    >> >
    >> >Wonderful, you are about to "get it."

    >>
    >> unlike you who has never got it.
    >>
    >> a pixel is a spatial definition, how a pixel utilizes data, and the
    >> data it contains does not change the definition of a pixel

    >
    >Good job!
    >
    >> >Yes, all 3000x2000 pixel images are "capable" of holding 6M pixels
    >> >worth of 100% optically determined color information (which would
    >> >require at least 18M individual RGB sensors in a 3 layer design, or
    >> >24M in a 1 layer design). Unfortunately, a 25%-optical Bayer
    >> >3000x2000 image only carries a maximum of 1.5M pixels worth of
    >> >optically determined information within it, which is then
    >> >interpolatively upscaled to 3000x2000 recorded output pixels.

    >>
    >> interpolation, and upscaling are two different things, please learn
    >> the difference.

    >
    >Interpolation is how all images are upscaled, not just Bayer images.


    Your reading comprehension problem is displayed yet again.
    WHat he said is plainly quoted above; that interpolation and upscaling
    are not the same things.
    Interpolation is *not* upscaling. Upscaling is *not* interpolation.
    >
    >> >At last you understand that pixels are the medium, not the message.
    >> >Just as 8oz glasses are the water carriers, not the water.

    >>
    >> So you finally understand that a pixel is defined as the glass, and
    >> data is defined as the water. unfortunatly you have been trying to
    >> define the water as the glass on this newsgroup by your claims that
    >> sigma's cameras are 13.72MP when they are, in fact, 3.43MP

    >
    >The SD9 is a 13.72MP interpolated, 3.43MP optical DSLR.


    So far, so good. This is, BTW, what I'be veen saying all along; I'm
    gratified to see that you now believe the same thing.
    >
    >Bayer DLSRs are (rated-MPs) interpolated, (rated-MPs)/4 optical.


    No, you still have this wrong; you are failing to understand that each
    seperate spatial sensor site is, in a Bayer sensor, a pixel. Just
    like, in an X3 sensor, each spacially distinct sensor position is a
    pixel. Different sensors in the X3 which are in the same spatial
    position, but on different layers, are not pixels.
    >
    >Congratualtions, you graduated!


    Given the inability of the teacher (yourself) to understand the
    course, this doesn't mean much.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Jun 3, 2004
    #18
  19. Georgette Preddy

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 2 Jun 2004 21:37:03 -0700, (Georgette
    Preddy) wrote:

    >"Alan D-W" <> wrote in message news:<40be4689$0$25318$>...
    >> "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >
    >> > It's common sense. Pixel count is completely unrelated to optical
    >> > resolution. Do you think all 8 oz glasses have 8 oz's (colloquial) of
    >> > water in them?

    >>
    >> Patronising little turd.

    >
    >Apparently you don't like learning.


    If you are likening yourself to a teacher, you should first ensure
    that you know the course material.
    You obviously don't.
    Teachers also don't just make the course material up as they go along.
    Teachers also should demonstrate good reading comprehension, which you
    obviously don't.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Jun 3, 2004
    #19
  20. Georgette Preddy

    Alan D-W Guest

    Re: Grammar and logic lessons

    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Congratualtions, you graduated!


    You patronising little dog turd
    Alan D-W, Jun 3, 2004
    #20
    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. zipding

    Idiots - winning the browser wars

    zipding, Mar 12, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    416
  2. loosttt1982

    Winning 11

    loosttt1982, Nov 21, 2005, in forum: Gaming
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    4,020
    unholy
    Dec 1, 2005
  3. 9xray

    George is winning.

    9xray, May 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    886
    m Ransley
    Jun 6, 2004
  4. Georgette Preddy

    George is winning.

    Georgette Preddy, May 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    1,338
    Phil Wheeler
    Jun 7, 2004
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    890
Loading...

Share This Page