Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Trevor, Dec 8, 2012.

  1. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:40:23 +0100, Alfred Molon
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>, Eric Stevens
    >>says...
    >>> Nikons have measured the pattern of brightness and deduced the nature
    >>> of the subject since the late 1980s. I remember establishing that the
    >>> F801s could determine the correct exposure for snow but we were
    >>> puzzled as to how it did it. We were told that it had a database of
    >>> 45,000 pictures from which it worked.

    >>
    >>Very strange. Can't you just measure the light intensity and adjust the
    >>exposure accordingly? Why would a database be necessary?

    >
    > Because you successfully adjusting the exposure 'accordingly' relies
    > on your personal background of experience. The camera does much the
    > same thing and records it's experience in what was called the
    > 'database'.


    Rubbish, the camera maintained no database, could not learn from experience,
    and had no idea when it was wrong. For those shooting only negative film, it
    was probably good enough for their needs, and usually better than simple
    averaging, but your whole conjecture on how it worked is way off (data)
    base. :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>>> Nikons have measured the pattern of brightness and deduced the nature
    >>>>> of the subject since the late 1980s. I remember establishing that the
    >>>>> F801s could determine the correct exposure for snow but we were
    >>>>> puzzled as to how it did it. We were told that it had a database of
    >>>>> 45,000 pictures from which it worked.
    >>>>
    >>>>Very strange. Can't you just measure the light intensity and adjust the
    >>>>exposure accordingly? Why would a database be necessary?
    >>>
    >>> Because you successfully adjusting the exposure 'accordingly' relies
    >>> on your personal background of experience. The camera does much the
    >>> same thing and records it's experience in what was called the
    >>> 'database'.

    >>
    >>Rubbish, the camera maintained no database, could not learn from
    >>experience,
    >>and had no idea when it was wrong.

    >
    > There are several people like that in this news group. :)


    Would seem to be so.

    >> For those shooting only negative film, it
    >>was probably good enough for their needs, and usually better than simple
    >>averaging, but your whole conjecture on how it worked is way off (data)
    >>base. :)

    >
    > In your search for an argument, you are jumping to conclusions.



    Nope, you are shifting the argument. The camera does NOT maintain a dabase
    as claimed. Whether the designers did or not was not what you claimed.


    > I shouldn't have to specially explain to you that Nikon had had lots
    > of cameras busily taking photographs at different exposures with the
    > results being evaluated by their human operators. We know from what
    > Nikon has said that the images were characterised by the multi-sector
    > exposure sensors and rules were derived to correlate exposure sensor
    > output with the preferred exposure setting for the camera.


    Right, but so what. It still doesn't know what it's pointed at and must
    guess, sometimes incorrectly.
    A person with a brain who knows what he is looking at is far superior.
    Unfortunately too few want to learn it seems.


    > When you push the shutter button in the production camera, the first
    > thing the exposure sensor does is determine the characteristics of the
    > image it is pointed at and then use a look-up table (or similar) to
    > ascertain what the best exposure would be.



    What it THINKS the best exposure might possibly be based on it's guesses and
    assumptions from the matrix sensor data. As others have said, works pretty
    well for negative film where exposure is not too critical anyway, less so
    for slide film.


    >The look up table contains
    > the summary of the experience of the pre-production trials and is the
    > data base referred to.


    Right, there is NO database of 45,000 pictures within the camera. Better to
    say what you mean in the first place than try and shift the argument later.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:50:32 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >>Right, but so what. It still doesn't know what it's pointed at and must
    >>guess, sometimes incorrectly.

    >
    >No argument there. Why are you trying to make one?



    Perhaps because Trevor is only here to argue, and reasoned discussion
    is not something he is interested in?
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 8, 2012
    #3
  4. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:50:32 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >>"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>>>>> Nikons have measured the pattern of brightness and deduced the
    >>>>>>> nature
    >>>>>>> of the subject since the late 1980s. I remember establishing that
    >>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> F801s could determine the correct exposure for snow but we were
    >>>>>>> puzzled as to how it did it. We were told that it had a database of
    >>>>>>> 45,000 pictures from which it worked.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Very strange. Can't you just measure the light intensity and adjust
    >>>>>>the
    >>>>>>exposure accordingly? Why would a database be necessary?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Because you successfully adjusting the exposure 'accordingly' relies
    >>>>> on your personal background of experience. The camera does much the
    >>>>> same thing and records it's experience in what was called the
    >>>>> 'database'.
    >>>>
    >>>>Rubbish, the camera maintained no database, could not learn from
    >>>>experience,
    >>>>and had no idea when it was wrong.
    >>>
    >>> There are several people like that in this news group. :)

    >>
    >>Would seem to be so.
    >>
    >>>> For those shooting only negative film, it
    >>>>was probably good enough for their needs, and usually better than simple
    >>>>averaging, but your whole conjecture on how it worked is way off (data)
    >>>>base. :)
    >>>
    >>> In your search for an argument, you are jumping to conclusions.

    >>
    >>
    >>Nope, you are shifting the argument. The camera does NOT maintain a dabase
    >>as claimed. Whether the designers did or not was not what you claimed.

    >
    > YOU are shifting the argument. Please show me where I said the camera
    > MAINTAINED a database.



    You could try reading what you wrote, it's still there above.
    "We were told that it had a database of 45,000 pictures from which it
    worked"
    And
    "The camera ... records it's experience in what was called the 'database'.

    Which of course is nonesense as I said. It doesn't have a database, and it
    doesn't "record it's experience".
    0 for 2!



    >>> I shouldn't have to specially explain to you that Nikon had had lots
    >>> of cameras busily taking photographs at different exposures with the
    >>> results being evaluated by their human operators. We know from what
    >>> Nikon has said that the images were characterised by the multi-sector
    >>> exposure sensors and rules were derived to correlate exposure sensor
    >>> output with the preferred exposure setting for the camera.

    >>
    >>Right, but so what. It still doesn't know what it's pointed at and must
    >>guess, sometimes incorrectly.

    >
    > No argument there. Why are you trying to make one?
    >
    >>A person with a brain who knows what he is looking at is far superior.
    >>Unfortunately too few want to learn it seems.

    >
    > Unless you are very old or very experienced you can always expect to
    > encounter situations where you don't quite know how to estimate the
    > exposure.


    And unless you are very stupid, you can guess when the camera will be wrong
    better than it can.



    >>> When you push the shutter button in the production camera, the first
    >>> thing the exposure sensor does is determine the characteristics of the
    >>> image it is pointed at and then use a look-up table (or similar) to
    >>> ascertain what the best exposure would be.

    >>
    >>
    >>What it THINKS the best exposure might possibly be based on it's guesses
    >>and
    >>assumptions from the matrix sensor data. As others have said, works pretty
    >>well for negative film where exposure is not too critical anyway, less so
    >>for slide film.
    >>
    >>
    >>>The look up table contains
    >>> the summary of the experience of the pre-production trials and is the
    >>> data base referred to.

    >>
    >>Right, there is NO database of 45,000 pictures within the camera. Better
    >>to
    >>say what you mean in the first place than try and shift the argument
    >>later.

    >
    > I'm not trying to shift the argument. You are in order to conceal the
    > fact that you thought a database of 45,000 images meant something like
    > 45,000 JPGs or GIFs. Well it doesn't and I never implied it.



    I never suggested you said it maintains ANY image of ANY kind, what I said
    was it doesn't "maintain" ANY database either, despite your claims still
    shown above.
    You do know what a "database" is right? If not you could try looking it up
    for yourself.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 9, 2012
    #4
  5. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Anthony Polson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:50:32 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >>>Right, but so what. It still doesn't know what it's pointed at and must
    >>>guess, sometimes incorrectly.

    >>
    >>No argument there. Why are you trying to make one?


    Address the argument I made, and not pretend I'm making one where you
    actually agree for once.

    > Perhaps because Trevor is only here to argue, and reasoned discussion
    > is not something he is interested in?


    So go on tell us where I'm wrong, and why you think Eric is right in his
    "maintains a 45,000 photo database" claim?
    Oh right, you are probably just a troll yourself.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 9, 2012
    #5
  6. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>>>Right, but so what. It still doesn't know what it's pointed at and must
    >>>>>guess, sometimes incorrectly.
    >>>>
    >>>>No argument there. Why are you trying to make one?

    >>
    >>Address the argument I made, and not pretend I'm making one where you
    >>actually agree for once.

    >
    > I'm trying to work out exactly what argument you think you are making
    > but I'm lost.


    No surprise there, you have steadfastly been unable to read or understand
    what is written.


    >>> Perhaps because Trevor is only here to argue, and reasoned discussion
    >>> is not something he is interested in?

    >>
    >>So go on tell us where I'm wrong, and why you think Eric is right in his
    >>"maintains a 45,000 photo database" claim?
    >>Oh right, you are probably just a troll yourself.

    >
    > I'm not sure that its worth while trying to engage in an intelligent
    > discussion with you.


    As if you have shown any abilty to do so. You made stupid claims, and rather
    than admit it, simply play the man instead.
    Try looking up the difference between a database and an algorithm. (which
    may or may not have been developed using a database)
    When you understand the difference, you might get it. I won't hold my
    breathe.
    The idea that "The camera ... records it's experience in what was called the
    'database'" is even more fanciful.
    Too stupid to realise it, or just too stubborn to admit it?

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 9, 2012
    #6
    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. Pat McGroyn

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Pat McGroyn, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    296
    PeterN
    Nov 27, 2012
  2. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    242
    Trevor
    Nov 26, 2012
  3. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    264
    Whisky-dave
    Nov 26, 2012
  4. Mort

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Mort, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    130
    Views:
    1,406
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Dec 25, 2012
  5. RichA

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    RichA, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    208
    Anthony Polson
    Nov 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page