From: Paul Furman on
John Sheehy wrote:
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in
> news:Ze6fk.14817$mh5.10460(a)nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Of course, the DSLR image is enlarged [approx] 3x!
>>
>> 7.18 x 5.32 mm
>> 24 x 18 mm
>
> That's the point, or at least part of it.

For stacked astronomy data capture that may be useful, I'm not sure
about normal daylight hand held still photos though. Or high contrast
scenes needing dynamic range.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: Ray Fischer on
John P Sheehy <jps(a)no.kom> wrote:
>I've made a direct comparison of RAW data per unit of area in the deep

"per unit area"

In other words, if you know what results you want to get then you can
adjust your measurement to get those results.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Blinky the Shark on
John Sheehy wrote:

> Scott W <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:fbef99b9-2adc-429e-96bc-9f46ec665b7f(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Do we really need more cross posting?
>
> I generally don't mind relevant cross-posting, but that comes from using
> Agent. I am using XNews now, and the method of cross-post management in
> XNews seems a bit inferior and dangerous, so I wind up seeing a lot of
> things twice.

Then you don't know how to use Xnews.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

From: Floyd L. Davidson on
John Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote:
>floyd(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
>news:87vdz6zora.fld(a)apaflo.com:
>
>> That is just false.
>
>> The two different sensors, mounted behind the same lense
>> and getting identical processing (in camera as well as
>> post camera) would be the way to make "all other things
>> being equal" a valid statement.
>
>Pay attention, Floyd. I clearly stated that the optics were unequal.
>However, I also stated why it doesn't affect the comparison very much.

Pay attention John, it *does* affect the comparison.

>Even an aliased image of B&W edges from a 5.7 micron pixel pitch is going
>to be softer than the 1.97 micron pixel-pitch, with 289% upsampling. How
>much clearer about that could I have been?
>
>> If you think Nikon, Canon, Sony, et al are not doing exactly
>> that, I've got a bridge for sale that you'll enjoy testing.
>
>What is "that"?

Paying attention, John.

>> And if you cannot do that, then you simply cannot expect
>> your tests to be considered seriously.
>
>Tell me how a 5.7 micron PP is going to competehere, with even the
>sharpest lens? Anyway, my main point here is the noise. The higher
>pixel density sensor clearly has far less noise per unit of area.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Jufi on

"John Sheehy" <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote in message
news:Xns9ADCEBDB1EE43jpsnokomm(a)199.45.49.11...
> Juf´┐Ż <b0wser(a)h0me.c0m> wrote in news:Zhbfk.265$av4.11(a)trnddc04:
>
>> John, nothing you've posted here is correct. If you want, I'll shoot
>> pix using my G9 and 5D at ISO 1600, and post the 100% crops.
>> Resolution of the sensors is very close, only the size of the pixels
>> is very different. It will shot that smaller pixels simply cannot
>> compete with larger pixels. Unless I'm totally missing your point
>> here...
>
> Yes, you are totally missing the point here. The demonstration is of
> PIXEL
> DENSITY; not SENSOR SIZE; not PIXEL SIZE.

Uh, OK. So why not compare cameras with the same size sensors but different
numbers of pixels?