From: DRS on 9 Oct 2009 08:48
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message
> "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>> "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>>> According to you. Not according to everybody else. You maintain
>>>> you're the only one here who understands what's going on but that's
>>>> not supported by the evidence so I'm quite happy to let you drift
>>>> off in your fantasy world.
>>> The evidence is rather extensive, and nothing I'm saying
>>> is unique. Everyone who does understand it says
>>> basically the same things...
>> Except you. Go read your own tutorials. I already have.
> Do it again. The point is to understand. You don't.
So you say. Whatever. Get a life.
From: Hilarity Ensues on 9 Oct 2009 17:05
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:44:52 -0800, floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>And do note that later today I'll post an extensive analysis
>of each, showing exactly what can be understood from them.
Oh, this is going to be good. Let me go get some popcorn, and a milkshake.
So when I laugh real hard the milkshake will come streaming out of my nose.
From: Porte Rouge on 9 Oct 2009 18:02
On Oct 8, 3:04 pm Floyd L. Davidson wrote
"which is ridiculous!"
It is. My apologies. I miss aligned the thread and saw the other link.
Also, I could not see that all the messages in the thread were being
forwarded. Google Groups hides them in the posts.
From: Charles on 9 Oct 2009 18:06
A link for your enjoyment.
From: John McWilliams on 9 Oct 2009 18:07
Kyle D. wrote:
> (To enlighten the ignorant: There is zero difference in the amount of noise
> in a 2 minute exposure in low light and a 1/2000s exposure in bright light.
> Photons are photons. If you collect enough to get over the base
> noise-threshold then all those parts of the image that are properly exposed
> will be noise-free in any image, no matter the initial light levels.)
Flat out wrong.