dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)

On 11 Sep 2017 18:54:22 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
snip

Eric Stevens:
Those pixels in the unit area don't care what
is happening in the neighbouring unit area. All that matters
to them is the amount of light which falls upon them.

Sandman:
They are also not more "sensitive" depending on your
ISO settings. They are fixed. With less total light, the
signal needs to be amplified more to match the brightness of
the film ISO emulation step.

Eric Stevens:
Agreed.

Sandman:
Finally

No, not finally. Not at all while you twist words the way you have
in your reply.

Honesty is the best policy. Yours isn't even the next best.

...said the troll, while still trying to attempt he has anything to put up
against the cold hard facts. Funny stuff

If you had cold hard facts you wouldn't have to twist words.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:23:24 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

And it's also ironic that Eric, in a photography usenet group, seem to
want to claim there is no way to convey something other than text here :-D

Please read my words again. RPD is a text-only news group. If I want
to explain things properly I *have* to use diagrams and mathematical
symbols.

that explains why posts don't include links to photos.

oh wait...

I guess you better wait, seeing as it is your posts which never include
links to photos.
Your photos anyway.

according to eric, it's a text only group and that would be against the
rules.

Attachments are OK.

no they absolutely are *not* ok, as this is *not* a binary newsgroup.

You are right. I should have written URLs are OK.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 11 September 2017 19:56:30 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Same logical errors.

Sandman:
Same hot air from the trolls of rpd

Eric Stevens:
I could explain it but it requires diagrams
which I can't put on rpd and it requires algebra which is
too complicated to be published in a text news group. One
day I might produce it as a PDF, but it's quite a lot of
work.

Sandman:
Like I said - more hot air from the trolls. :-D

And it's also ironic that Eric, in a photography usenet group,
seem to want to claim there is no way to convey something
other than text here :-D

Eric Stevens:
Please read my words again. RPD is a text-only news group.

Sandman:
Yes, rec.PHOTO.digital is text-only, which has been a problem for
all the photographers here that hasn't managed to find a way to
share their photographies in any way, shape or form. We're all
stuck trying to describe our photos using words to get feedback.
:-D

Attachments are OK. Images included in text are not, as I am sure
you know.

Yes, this has - as I said - been a huge problem for this group, where there
has been no way conceivable to relay information other than purely
text-based
to other posters, and all photos we have taken we've had to describe using
only words because there is no way to make another post to view any content
from us other than pure text.

Bummer, why did they even create this group to begin with, since it's
impossible to share anything but text, huh?

Did you forget ASCCI art. :-)

Nock yourself out:

https://asciicam.en.aptoide.com/

Runs fine on my Xperia M4! :-))
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 09:53:57 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Monday, 11 September 2017 19:56:30 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Same logical errors.

Sandman:
Same hot air from the trolls of rpd

Eric Stevens:
I could explain it but it requires diagrams
which I can't put on rpd and it requires algebra which is
too complicated to be published in a text news group. One
day I might produce it as a PDF, but it's quite a lot of
work.

Sandman:
Like I said - more hot air from the trolls. :-D

And it's also ironic that Eric, in a photography usenet group,
seem to want to claim there is no way to convey something
other than text here :-D

Eric Stevens:
Please read my words again. RPD is a text-only news group.

Sandman:
Yes, rec.PHOTO.digital is text-only, which has been a problem for
all the photographers here that hasn't managed to find a way to
share their photographies in any way, shape or form. We're all
stuck trying to describe our photos using words to get feedback.
:-D

Attachments are OK. Images included in text are not, as I am sure
you know.

Yes, this has - as I said - been a huge problem for this group, where
there
has been no way conceivable to relay information other than purely
text-based
to other posters, and all photos we have taken we've had to describe
using
only words because there is no way to make another post to view any
content
from us other than pure text.

Bummer, why did they even create this group to begin with, since it's
impossible to share anything but text, huh?

Did you forget ASCCI art. :-)

Nock yourself out:

https://asciicam.en.aptoide.com/

Runs fine on my Xperia M4! :-))

Not much in fo on it, and no indication it's for IOS.

Who cares?

and you need to go to securoity to turn to allow it to download from unknown
sources.

Nope! Search the Googs store if that makes you feel safer...

https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...tsoftware.asci
icam
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Runs fine on my Xperia M4! :-))

Not much in fo on it, and no indication it's for IOS.

Who cares?

I can't see the point of getting an app that doesn't work on a device I want
it to work on.

It ain't all 'bout you...


and you need to go to security to turn to allow it to download from
unknown
sources.

Nope! Search the Googs store if that makes you feel safer...

It doesn't.

Yet you use their Usenet server...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 14:32:11 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Runs fine on my Xperia M4! :-))

Not much in fo on it, and no indication it's for IOS.

Who cares?

I can't see the point of getting an app that doesn't work on a device I
want
it to work on.

It ain't all 'bout you...

You asked who cares so I told you.
If this is to complicated for you I'll try to explain.
If yuo recomend an app and it's not obvious what it is or what OS it runs
under it might not be of any use to that person you are replying too.
SO you see people do care about such things even if you don't understand it.

This is not an iPhone group... Get a life!

and you need to go to security to turn to allow it to download from
unknown
sources.

Nope! Search the Googs store if that makes you feel safer...

It doesn't.

Yet you use their Usenet server...

Threr's little that can be downloaded from the usenet server unless you go to
a binary group or use one of the links, using a Mac I''m less concenred than
I would be if using a PC.

You use the Goog Usenet server for your postings soo you are fine their
security. The Usenet is created for discussions primarily and if you
chose to download crackware from the binary branch then you should
understand that that could get you in trouble with HMG's authorities..

The server that I use don't do binaries.
--
teleportation kills

On Sep 12, 2017, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 16:45:55 UTC+1, android wrote:

The Usenet is created for discussions primarily and if you
chose to download crackware from the binary branch.

That's why it's a good idea NOT to post binaries to a discussion only group,
that way there's no problems expected.
As you say go to a binaries group and you could download something that
wasn't what it seemed.

....and yet there a
alt.binaries.photos.original
and
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 16:45:55 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 14:32:11 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Runs fine on my Xperia M4! :-))

Not much in fo on it, and no indication it's for IOS.

Who cares?

I can't see the point of getting an app that doesn't work on a device
I
want
it to work on.

It ain't all 'bout you...

You asked who cares so I told you.
If this is to complicated for you I'll try to explain.
If yuo recomend an app and it's not obvious what it is or what OS it runs
under it might not be of any use to that person you are replying too.
SO you see people do care about such things even if you don't understand
it.

This is not an iPhone group... Get a life!

So why post thing app for android is this an andriod group ?

Why not? I'm pretty sure you could dig up an iPhone one... Well, if not
you then your wife...

That said: I have not posted an app but a link to an app that I've used
with good result after it passed both Aptoide.com virus scan as well as
the one installed on my Xperia M4 smartphone...

The TS one that I posted about today is even more fun and I've shared a
sample...

a binary group or use one of the links, using a Mac I''m less concenred
than
I would be if using a PC.

You use the Goog Usenet server for your postings soo you are fine their
security.

Yep not had any security problems or heard of any.

The Usenet is created for discussions primarily and if you
chose to download crackware from the binary branch.

That's why it's a good idea NOT to post binaries to a discussion only group,
that way there's no problems expected.
As you say go to a binaries group and you could download something that
wasn't what it seemed.

then you should
understand that that could get you in trouble with HMG's authorities..

Unlikely.

You most certainly are on their watch list of presumed doers!


The server that I use don't do binaries.

It's not the server that is the problem it's the individual groups you use.
servers can carry both groups

Servers that carry binary groups are most certain to cary and distribute
crackware and other compromised intellectual property for no good reason
whatsoever.
--
teleportation kills

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
snip

Eric Stevens:
Those pixels in the unit area don't care
what is happening in the neighbouring unit area. All
that matters to them is the amount of light which falls
upon them.

Sandman:
They are also not more "sensitive" depending on
your ISO settings. They are fixed. With less total light,
the signal needs to be amplified more to match the
brightness of the film ISO emulation step.

Eric Stevens:
Agreed.

Sandman:
Finally

Eric Stevens:
No, not finally. Not at all while you twist words the way you
have in your reply.

Honesty is the best policy. Yours isn't even the next best.

Sandman:
...said the troll, while still trying to attempt he has anything
to put up against the cold hard facts. Funny stuff

If you had cold hard facts you wouldn't have to twist words.

Which is why I don't. Go figure

--
Sandman

On 12 Sep 2017 19:42:11 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
snip

Eric Stevens:
Those pixels in the unit area don't care
what is happening in the neighbouring unit area. All
that matters to them is the amount of light which falls
upon them.

Sandman:
They are also not more "sensitive" depending on
your ISO settings. They are fixed. With less total light,
the signal needs to be amplified more to match the
brightness of the film ISO emulation step.

Eric Stevens:
Agreed.

Sandman:
Finally

Eric Stevens:
No, not finally. Not at all while you twist words the way you
have in your reply.

Honesty is the best policy. Yours isn't even the next best.

Sandman:
...said the troll, while still trying to attempt he has anything
to put up against the cold hard facts. Funny stuff

If you had cold hard facts you wouldn't have to twist words.

Which is why I don't. Go figure

I worked that out some time ago.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens