Olympus and others. Greater mega pixel capacity expected soon? Skinnyon E-3

frederick wrote:
frederick wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
frederick wrote:

But s/n ratio should be looked at from the POV of an entire image,
not a fixed number of pixels.

Most certainly not.
[...]

Lol - that wasn't what I meant - and I suspect that you probably knew that.

I am curious. What *did* you mean but not write?

Sorry - perhaps that deserved more explanation.
Downsample a 10mp image to 6mp, and if the s/n ratio "comparing pixels"
^^
If. If my bank account had a couple of additional zeroes,
I'd be rich, too.

is no worse than a "native" 6mp image, then there's arguably nothing
"lost" by having the extra pixels,

If you can argue that the additional time and space needed to
transfer and store that blown-up image ...

but something is potentially gained
through having the extra pixels.

So why not go for 200MPix? After all, we can interpolate
many of those, and bambozzle the customers into thinking they
might gain something, potentionally ...

If true, then 4/3 performance could be improved.

I understand that 4/3rds does not use backlit sensors yet, so,
yes, it can be improved. (Don't ask how much backlit sensors cost:
if you need to ask, you certainly don't have the money!)

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
frederick wrote:
frederick wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
frederick wrote:

But s/n ratio should be looked at from the POV of an entire image,
not a fixed number of pixels.

Most certainly not.
[...]

Lol - that wasn't what I meant - and I suspect that you probably knew that.

I am curious. What *did* you mean but not write?

Sorry - perhaps that deserved more explanation.
Downsample a 10mp image to 6mp, and if the s/n ratio "comparing pixels"
^^
If. If my bank account had a couple of additional zeroes,
I'd be rich, too.

is no worse than a "native" 6mp image, then there's arguably nothing
"lost" by having the extra pixels,

If you can argue that the additional time and space needed to
transfer and store that blown-up image ...

but something is potentially gained
through having the extra pixels.

So why not go for 200MPix? After all, we can interpolate
many of those, and bambozzle the customers into thinking they
might gain something, potentionally ...

If true, then 4/3 performance could be improved.

I understand that 4/3rds does not use backlit sensors yet, so,
yes, it can be improved. (Don't ask how much backlit sensors cost:
if you need to ask, you certainly don't have the money!)

What are you waffling on about?
Is there something that you don't understand? It's quite basic.
4/3 could be better if Olympus used more efficient sensors.
If pixel size mattered, then what's the "best" pixel size? A 1 pixel
sensor has no shot noise - is that the best?

frederick wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
frederick wrote:

[Lots of stuff "frederick" declined to answer, so he could
waffle better]

What are you waffling on about?

You know perfectly well why *you* declined to answer any
questions.

Is there something that you don't understand?

I don't understand your reasoning processes.

It's quite basic.

So you say.
I'd find less kind words for it.

4/3 could be better if Olympus used more efficient sensors.

APS sensor size cameras could be better with more efficient
sensors, as well.

Full frame cameras could be better with more efficient
sensors, as well.

Even 10"x10" backends, if they exist, could be better with
more efficient sensors.


It seems *you* don't understand that any more efficient sensor
Olympus can come up with, surely Canon, Kodak, Nikon, Sony,
et. al. can come up with as well.



If pixel size mattered, then what's the "best" pixel size? A 1 pixel
sensor has no shot noise - is that the best?

Did you stop beating your wife?
Or is she forcing you to ask these inane, stupid, misguided,
brainless questions?

-Wolfgang

JG wrote:

Do not listen to the crap on here about 4/3, noise and other so called
limitations, a camera is just a tool and it is the glass that matters
really.

That must be why you never, ever, choose an ISO setting
above the lowest one.
And also why tools never have any limitations.

-Wolfgang

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
| frederick wrote:
| Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
| frederick wrote:

|
|
| It seems *you* don't understand that any more efficient sensor
| Olympus can come up with, surely Canon, Kodak, Nikon, Sony,
| et. al. can come up with as well.
|
|
|
| -Wolfgang

It appears you don't have much of a clue either Wolfgang. Olympus use
Panasonic Sensors. Before that they used Kodak sensors. So without any
sensor development or production facilities... Tell us how Olympus can
come up with *ANY* sort of sensor, much less and efficient one.

Why is it you have to engage in personal insults in every post you make?
Have you no social skills?
- --

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFIClPOhuxzk5D6V14RAlY9AKCSL+kSxW141Er+J+93ZU Hh30ykbwCdFM5V
N4jPM/CCFXh9Xk7gAzNWlsY=
=yhiU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:59:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

JG wrote:

Do not listen to the crap on here about 4/3, noise and other so called
limitations, a camera is just a tool and it is the glass that matters
really.

That must be why you never, ever, choose an ISO setting
above the lowest one.

Yes I do. Stop talking ****.

And also why tools never have any limitations.

-Wolfgang

The only limitation I am seeing is your IQ, which does not match even
the lowest ISO setting.

Email replies remove REMOVE
Powered by Agent 4.2 Mail/News
http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php

JG wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:59:05 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
JG wrote:

Do not listen to the crap on here about 4/3, noise and other so called
limitations, a camera is just a tool and it is the glass that matters
really.

That must be why you never, ever, choose an ISO setting
above the lowest one.

Yes I do. Stop talking ****.

And *I* though "it is the glass that matters really" ...
Really!

And also why tools never have any limitations.

The only limitation I am seeing is your IQ, which does not match even
the lowest ISO setting.

The Nikons start at ISO 200, IIRC. I doubt my IQ matches 200.

BTW: Your irony meter is broken, or you are one of the people
who think irony is the same as silvery or coppery. Get that
fixed.

-Wolfgang

In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

The Nikons start at ISO 200, IIRC. I doubt my IQ matches 200.

Careful! The D200 ISO starts at 100. That's forty points lower than I
want my IQ to be.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

In article
, ____
wrote:

In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

The Nikons start at ISO 200, IIRC. I doubt my IQ matches 200.

Careful! The D200 ISO starts at 100. That's forty points lower than I
want my IQ to be.

some nikon cameras start at iso 50...

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:34:45 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article
, ____
wrote:

In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

The Nikons start at ISO 200, IIRC. I doubt my IQ matches 200.

Careful! The D200 ISO starts at 100. That's forty points lower than I
want my IQ to be.

some nikon cameras start at iso 50...

Poor old Wolfie....he could not have known that.....

Email replies remove REMOVE
Powered by Agent 4.2 Mail/News
http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php