A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 10th 17, 04:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

put simply, the dynamic range in stops can't ever be more than the
number of bits in the adc.

Only if you code one stop per bit. There is no requirement that it be
a simple linear scale. If you have (say) a dynamic range of 16 stops
it is still possible to code it with 14 bits: i.e. 1.14 stops per bit.
This can be variously ignored or tidied up by the raw decoder.

that's true, except that sensors are linear devices and therefore that
does not apply.

Dynamic range is being compressed all along the way. A classic example
is HDR.


hdr is done with multiple exposures.


So?


so it doesn't count.

you're so lost.

With a wide range source it is compressed to enable it to be viewed on
a scren or monitor.


displays are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

With almost any source it is compressed when it is printed.


printers are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

So?


you're so lost.

Why on earth should it not be compressed (a little or a lot) when it
is encoded in a raw file?


because sensors are linear devices.


And linear devices can't be compressed?


you're so lost.

i explained this already.

feel free to design a non-linear sensor. until that time, they remain
linear.

i've said this several times. why do you ignore it?

Because it is not binding.


math and physics are as binding as it gets.


Only as binding as the axioms which lie behind them. And no axiom is
binding.


you're so lost.
  #62  
Old October 10th 17, 10:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:46:45 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

put simply, the dynamic range in stops can't ever be more than the
number of bits in the adc.

Only if you code one stop per bit. There is no requirement that it be
a simple linear scale. If you have (say) a dynamic range of 16 stops
it is still possible to code it with 14 bits: i.e. 1.14 stops per bit.
This can be variously ignored or tidied up by the raw decoder.

that's true, except that sensors are linear devices and therefore that
does not apply.

Dynamic range is being compressed all along the way. A classic example
is HDR.

hdr is done with multiple exposures.


So?


so it doesn't count.


Of course it counts. When the subject is dynamic range compression you
can't go around excluding the product of some techniques while
excluding the product of others. The point is that any wide dynamic
range has to be compressed if the full image is to be viewed by either
screen or print. Otherwise you get burned out highs and plugged solid
shadows.

you're so lost.


I'm not lost. I'm ahead of you. :-)

With a wide range source it is compressed to enable it to be viewed on
a scren or monitor.

displays are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

With almost any source it is compressed when it is printed.

printers are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

So?


you're so lost.


Please explain why.

Why on earth should it not be compressed (a little or a lot) when it
is encoded in a raw file?

because sensors are linear devices.


And linear devices can't be compressed?


you're so lost.


No. It's just that I am not stuck with one particular way of looking
at things.

i explained this already.

feel free to design a non-linear sensor. until that time, they remain
linear.

i've said this several times. why do you ignore it?

Because it is not binding.

math and physics are as binding as it gets.


Only as binding as the axioms which lie behind them. And no axiom is
binding.


you're so lost.


And you are in a rut.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #63  
Old October 10th 17, 10:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

put simply, the dynamic range in stops can't ever be more than the
number of bits in the adc.

Only if you code one stop per bit. There is no requirement that it be
a simple linear scale. If you have (say) a dynamic range of 16 stops
it is still possible to code it with 14 bits: i.e. 1.14 stops per
bit.
This can be variously ignored or tidied up by the raw decoder.

that's true, except that sensors are linear devices and therefore that
does not apply.

Dynamic range is being compressed all along the way. A classic example
is HDR.

hdr is done with multiple exposures.

So?


so it doesn't count.


Of course it counts.


nope. it does not count. full stop.

an adc can only encode *one* image from *one* sensor at a time.

what you do with multiple images at a later time is *irrelevant*.

When the subject is dynamic range compression you
can't go around excluding the product of some techniques while
excluding the product of others. The point is that any wide dynamic
range has to be compressed if the full image is to be viewed by either
screen or print. Otherwise you get burned out highs and plugged solid
shadows.


that's all wonderful, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with a sensor
and an adc.

you're so lost.


I'm not lost. I'm ahead of you. :-)


in an alternate universe, perhaps.

here on earth, no.

With a wide range source it is compressed to enable it to be viewed on
a scren or monitor.

displays are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

With almost any source it is compressed when it is printed.

printers are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

So?


you're so lost.


Please explain why.


i did explain why, multiple times.

Why on earth should it not be compressed (a little or a lot) when it
is encoded in a raw file?

because sensors are linear devices.

And linear devices can't be compressed?


you're so lost.


No. It's just that I am not stuck with one particular way of looking
at things.


looking at things the wrong way do not count.

i explained this already.

feel free to design a non-linear sensor. until that time, they remain
linear.

i've said this several times. why do you ignore it?

Because it is not binding.

math and physics are as binding as it gets.

Only as binding as the axioms which lie behind them. And no axiom is
binding.


you're so lost.


And you are in a rut.


it ain't me who is in a rut.
  #64  
Old October 21st 17, 01:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
harry newton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

He who is Snit said on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:12:06 -0700:

But you just lie and lie and lie. It is what you do. Here is another
example, when you claimed that there was no way to record Wi-Fi signals in
real time in iOS, and when you insisted there was nothing one can do with
iOS that cannot be done on Android:

https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Where is your video? I keep asking and you keep running. And you always
will. Face it -- you were busted lying.


Someone explain why these iOS apologists incessantly and continually troll
wholly fabricated *imaginary iOS functionality*.

Anyone with a working brain immediately noticed that the iOS apologists
Snit, nospam, Jolly Roger, and others, didn't know the difference between a
speedtest (Mbps) and a signal strength measurement (decibels).

And yet, the iOS apologists, desperate to show iOS functionality
(anything), resorted to a complete and utter fabrication, which only worked
on the clueless iOS gullibles.

I only speak fact.

This is Android: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/2wifianalyzer.jpg
This is iOS: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg

--
*It's a fact Apple iOS devices can't graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ

  #65  
Old October 21st 17, 01:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
harry newton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

He who is Snit said on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 08:36:22 -0700:

This is a claim you made but never supported -- in fact your own links
refuted this claim

But you lie a lot.

https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Where is your video? I keep asking and you keep running. And you always
will. Face it -- you were busted lying.


Why do iOS apologists incessantly claim *imaginary* iOS functionality?

Does anyone else find it odd that the iOS apologists lie and then accuse
everyone else of lying when it comes to their claims of iOS functionality?

Snit brazenly *fabricated* completely *imaginary* iOS functionality in that
video he incessantly trolls on a half dozen newsgroups in about two-score
posts. https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Anyone with a working brain *immediately* saw what the Y axis indicated.
Android: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/2wifianalyzer.jpg
iOS: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg

My videos of *actual Android functionality*:
WiFi Analyzer: http://www.filedropper.com/wifianalyzersignalstrength
Fritz: https://www.sendspace.com/file/gvckbe
Snit's brazen fabrication of *imaginary iOS functionality*:
Sweetspot: http://www.filedropper.com/iosshowingwi-fiovertime-7qaaba6dfio

The question is *why* do the iOS apologists not only brazenly lie, but
openly doublespeak that obvious, open, and proven, facts are a lie?

Why do such iOS apologists incessantly claim *imaginary* iOS functionality?

--
*It's a fact Apple iOS devices can't graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ
  #66  
Old October 21st 17, 01:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
harry newton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

He who is Davoud said on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:27:17 -0400:

The troll has a serious case of Apple envy.


Hi Davoud,

You claim that I "troll" and yet, you state that someone with facts has
"Apple envy".

I don't claim that you are an iOS apologist, but your statement calling
anyone with actual facts a "troll" must be pointed out as a serious case of
"fact envy".

I *always* speak facts.
You consider facts "trolls".

Are you simply yet another of the iOS gullibles?
  #67  
Old October 21st 17, 01:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
harry newton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

He who is Snit said on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:30:05 -0700:

Well, recently the "substance" I have been offering is just to show Harry to
be lying... and it is fun for me.

https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

And his own link, STILL showing 5 of the 10 top cameras are on iPhones:

https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews

But, sure, the point that all he can do is run has been proved a dozen+
times over.


It's interesting to note that you say it's "fun" for you to show people
armed with facts to be "lying" ...
Android: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/2wifianalyzer.jpg
iOS: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/...sweetspots.jpg

When the facts prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you *fabricated* that
iOS *imaginary* functionality, which anyone with a working brain noticed
the very first few seconds of watching your ridiculous video.
https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Of course, the iOS apologists, Jolly Roger, Savageduck, nospam, Lewis,
etc., never noticed as facts are anathema to iOS apologists.

Still, it's odd that even the iOS gullibles such as Davoud, didn't engage
their own brains when they deprecated facts preferring to believe in your
fantasies of wholly imaginary iOS functionality.

WiFi Analyzer: http://www.filedropper.com/wifianalyzersignalstrength
Fritz: https://www.sendspace.com/file/gvckbe

--
*It's a fact Apple iOS devices can't graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp...Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ
  #68  
Old October 21st 17, 01:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
harry newton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

He who is Davoud said on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 18:25:56 -0400:

So how many times do you have to snap at his troll bait before you give
it up? You're obsessed, drawn like a moth to a flame, and whether you
know it or not you get burned every time. The burn comes when he
privately laughs at you


Hi Davoud,

First off, you're dead wrong (as always) since you'll notice that Snit
trolled that fabricated video of imaginary iOS functionality about 40 or 50
times in numerous threads, where I only once responded to him telling him
it was a fabrication - but - since he's an iOS apologist - he didn't get
the obvious hint.

You seem to be not an iOS apologist, but, just an iOS gullible, where you
and the likes of Savageduck merely show an inability to *comprehend* facts,
and not so much the propensity to *fabricate* wholly *imaginary* iOS
functionality as Jolly Roger, nospam, Lewis, JamieJK, and others do.

Please bear in mind that I only speak facts.
You call any fact you don't like, a troll.

That makes *you* the troll, as you are well aware.
  #69  
Old October 21st 17, 01:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
harry newton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

He who is Davoud said on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 20:04:31 -0400:

You're delusional. You don't "have" him doing anything; he has you.


The sorry fact is that these iOS apologigs (e.g., Snit, nospam, Jolly
Roger, etc.) are so utterly wrong that it's child's play to prove that
everything they say is a complete fabrication of imaginary iOS
functionality.

The adult question is *why* the iOS apologists incessantly fabricate
imaginary iOS functionality and why you iOS gullibles actually believe it.

The fact is that not one iOS gullible even *comprehended* what Snit's video
actually showed.

Whereas anyone with a working brain *immediately* knew, on sight!

Android: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/2wifianalyzer.jpg
iOS: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/...sweetspots.jpg
  #70  
Old October 22nd 17, 01:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
harry newton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

He who is Snit said on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:40:12 -0700:

See how you lash out now that I have proved you wrong:

https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

It is not like it is hard.


Notice how the iOS apologists cater to the brainless iOS gullibles when
they incessantly state "it's not like it's hard" to show iOS is functional.

The fact is Snit *fabricated* completely *imaginary* iOS functionality in
that video he incessantly trolls on a half dozen newsgroups in about 30-odd
posts. https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Anyone with a working brain *immediately* saw what the Y axis indicated.
Android: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/2wifianalyzer.jpg
iOS: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg

And yet, the iOS apologists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they
*fabricate* iOS functionality in a desperate bid to show that iOS devices
have some functionality (anything!) that isn't already on Android.

Of course it's "easy" for them, just as it is for Apple Marketing, to
convince iOS gullibles, since Snit's video is a complete fabrication of
imaginary iOS functionality.

My videos of *actual Android functionality*:
WiFi Analyzer: http://www.filedropper.com/wifianalyzersignalstrength
Fritz: https://www.sendspace.com/file/gvckbe
Snit's brazen fabrication of *imaginary iOS functionality*:
Sweetspot: http://www.filedropper.com/iosshowingwi-fiovertime-7qaaba6dfio
--
*It's a fact Apple iOS devices can't graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Samsung selling refurb Galaxy Note 7's Bill W Digital Photography 11 April 1st 17 11:49 PM
You can still buy ticking time-bomb Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Ebay Alfred Molon[_4_] Digital Photography 6 October 16th 16 08:50 AM
You can still buy ticking time-bomb Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on Ebay Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 2 October 12th 16 05:14 PM
Samsung recalling over 1 MILLION Galaxy Note 7 $900 phones over battery instability nospam Digital Photography 4 September 9th 16 11:54 PM
Samsung recalling over 1 MILLION Galaxy Note 7 $900 phones over battery instability Eric Stevens Digital Photography 3 September 5th 16 06:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.