From: acl on
On Jul 19, 8:58 pm, John Sheehy <J...(a)no.komm> wrote:

>
> What is this obsession with so many posters to make me demonstrate/test
> something else rather than what I set out to do.

A combination of mental inertia and stupidity (the ratio of the two
varying with poster). :)

OK I'm out of here.
From: John Sheehy on
rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:48827f34$0$17178
$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net:

> Who cares? People don't care about "pixel densities". People care
> abut noise per pixel, not noise per sensor area.

Then they are stupid. It's the total image that counts, not the individual
pixel quality, and the total image is the product of per-area quality and
total area.



--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
From: ASAAR on
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:43:33 GMT, John Sheehy, who implies much but
states little, wrote:

>> You admit being familiar with the D40,
>> the D40x and their RAW data, which are very similar contemporary
>> cameras ("from the same era") that have vastly different numbers of
>> pixels on similar sensors and which use the same mount,
>
> Well, they are actually quite different. They have completely different
> types of circuitry,

A convenient statement that makes no effort to show and quantify
the differences. And we must, of course, assume that FZ50 and 5D
circuit differences are negligible, because if not, you'd never have
been tempted to use them to make such a meaningless, unfair
comparison.

From: John Sheehy on
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username(a)qwest.net> wrote in
news:48815D3C.2030803(a)qwest.net:

> John Sheehy wrote:

>> Then again, I'm
>> the guy who got 100% on all his math and most of his science tests,
>> without studying, so maybe I'm expecting too much.

> So what happened? I showed you some of your math and conceptual
> errors but you failed to recognize them.

I haven't read your posts yet, except for a couple. It takes a long time
to reply to one of your longer posts, with all the tangents you go on
acting as if I was implying things that I wasn't.

The things I've seen of yours in other people's quotes have been off the
mark, and your 4 electron read noise does *NOT* exist in DSLR pixels at
base ISO. It's a fantasy. 6 or 8 FZ50-like chips fabbed into a larger
wafer with parallel readout is more imminently possible and realistic.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
From: ASAAR on
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:35:31 -0700 (PDT), acl wrote:

> I haven't posted here for ages, and also won't in the future, but
> ended up reading this thread nevertheless (a good reminder of why I
> decided not to bother!).

Carry on. We all benefit.