Jump to content

My 'Glitch Report' so far


tashley

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Who I am is of little relevance, the relevant problem at hand is that not only are you a lousy troll, you are an arrogant lousy troll. The combination is far too charming to ignore. I think I'll take you under my wings until you are able to think coherently on your own again.

 

He's not really a troll, since he's usually here. He's more of a mosquito.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I have said before, the pixel density is the same between the M8 and the M9, why would anyone expect there to be significant difference in noise for the M9? I think the marketing is raising the expectation thru the roof.

 

If there's the same in camera noise reduction, and the sensors are identical other than in the number of pixels - and it's possible they're different - then at a _pixel_ level they should be the same. However because the M9 has a higher number of pixels, prints from it - and also resized internet images - will show lower noise levels. This has been discussed on a few threads already.

 

To be more concise, it you're producing prints the pixel density of the two cameras isn't the same for a given print size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start with the fact that your own profile shot shows two headless figures wearing armadillos over their genitals. Now I assume that given the fashionable mildly bondage look of the shot, we should consider the hiding of either faces or genitals in the shot to be not censorship but, rather, art.

 

Not at all. Evolution took a different path in Australia. Kangaroos have pouches, and Australians have armadillos for genitals. It can be a frightening experience on a first date, but you soon get used to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. Evolution took a different path in Australia. Kangaroos have pouches, and Australians have armadillos for genitals. It can be a frightening experience on a first date, but you soon get used to it.

 

It sounds like fun - but what about their brains? Are they also evolved into armadillo brains? It might explain a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not at all. Evolution took a different path in Australia. Kangaroos have pouches, and Australians have armadillos for genitals. It can be a frightening experience on a first date, but you soon get used to it.

Hmm, I just checked. Nope no armadillos.

Please don't characterise all Australians from an unrepresentative sample.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are spot on Steve though somewhere in the evolutionary process some of us dined on faceless tashahyprocituses, spiteful little critters It played havoc on our DNA since that time we have been forced to cover our genitals........... I gather some tashahyprocituses still exist to this day and roam the www paddocks with a deluded sense of superiority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are spot on Steve though somewhere in the evolutionary process some of us dined on faceless tashahyprocituses, spiteful little critters It played havoc on our DNA since that time we have been forced to cover our genitals..

 

When I was in Sydney I was presented with a few 'Balmain bugs' to eat. They tasted rather good - I like sea food - but I couldn't help thinking that they looked like a rather large aquatic wood louse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are spot on Steve though somewhere in the evolutionary process some of us dined on faceless tashahyprocituses, spiteful little critters It played havoc on our DNA since that time we have been forced to cover our genitals........... I gather some tashahyprocituses still exist to this day and roam the www paddocks with a deluded sense of superiority.

 

Imants or Stnami or whatever...

 

Your ability to start a fight from a position of assumed intellectual and moral superiority and and then try to make the person you attack look as if they are the one guilty of that assumption is not only breathtaking, it is also delusional. What it really isn't, is clever.

 

There was a lady on UK Big Brother this year who was rather like you - she baited people into anger and then stood back and implied that there was something wrong with them for being angry. This is exactly what you did with Ulrik higher up this thread and exactly what I have seen you do on previous occasions.

 

This Big Brother lady genuinely believed that she was smarter than and morally superior to everyone else in the house and was horrified, when evicted, to find that no one but her bought it.

 

If you want to accuse people of hypocrisy (or any other middle class thought crimes) then don't hide behind your familiar, Stalinist techniques of 'guilty because Stnami says so'. Explain your point, logically and cogently, or be quiet. Pretty Please.

 

T

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tash or is it Brad babe if you are happy to post strangers on the net and not others but it sure shows a lot about you as a person. I never mentioned middle class

Ulrik stated ...........are you kidding me? now who was this so called" me" so I asked but wasn't interested. Any way what is a ulrikft Brad?

 

Words of a desperate man

STFU. Pretty Please.
:)

 

This sure beats scanning

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tash or is it Brad babe if you are happy to post strangers on the net and not others but it sure shows a lot about you as a person. I never mentioned middle class

Ulrik stated ...........are you kidding me? now who was this so called" me" so I asked but wasn't interested.

 

Words of a desperate man :)

 

You realize that you make no sense at _all_ ? First of all, the difference between photographing someone in a public place, and someone at home, with the different expectancies of privacy that involves, is one thing, another is the use of the word "censorship", which is so misplaced it hurts... Could you try to think before writing? It would improve the level of the discourse quite a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

However because the M9 has a higher number of pixels, prints from it - and also resized internet images - will show lower noise levels.

[...]

 

Not making sense to me ... how could a larger image size contribute to less noise? When you downsize from a larger image, you have more data to improve/guess more accurately in terms of the pixel content. That has nothing to do with noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tash or is it Brad babe if you are happy to post strangers on the net and not others but it sure shows a lot about you as a person. I never mentioned middle class

Ulrik stated ...........are you kidding me? now who was this so called" me" so I asked but wasn't interested.

 

Words of a desperate man :)

 

Sorry dude, that was so incoherent that even I couldn't quite understand it and I've been reading your posts for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not making sense to me ... how could a larger image size contribute to less noise? When you downsize from a larger image, you have more data to improve/guess more accurately in terms of the pixel content. That has nothing to do with noise.

 

This is explained and illustrated in the review. Down-sampling has a large effect on noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...