What's the future for Olympus 4/3 users?

Started Oct 16, 2010 | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,095
Like?
Re: Trine
In reply to Rriley, Oct 20, 2010

Rriley wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Rriley wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

The 3 DDC cams are hardly small or cheap in relation to sensor size, they're part of an optical system designed for about 1.5MP resolution, not 12 and the sensors are half the linear dimension which means the prisms have 1/4/4 the surface area and 1/8 the volume - not really a good guide as to the impact of doing this in FT.

actually a reasonable guide, as the manufacturing and assembly problems are just the same

Not at all. Requiring a difference in resolution between 1.5 and 12 MP is like the difference between a webcam lens and an SHG one - or do you think that the SHG lenses should be as cheap as webcam lenses?

since you appear to be in the habit of 15 decimal places

do you think 15 is any more absurd than four?

i think 4 is just right,

when you're working with estimates accurate to a few % - 3 sig fig is more than enough for these discussions.

i also think you do what you can to agitate and you have a habit of fudging the numbers

These are all fudges, I don't add bogus precision to what are guesstimates in the first place.

your
1.941707308680967 is wrong it should be
-1.941747651273010.

That depends on what you think exactly the area ratio between a FT and FF sensor is. I think if the ratio FF/FT must be more than 1 hence its log (base 2 in this case) must be positive, so you might not think my figure is exactly right, but at least it's righter than yours.

you figure is wrong or you lied,

I ' lied ' about a difference of 1 part in 50000? So, do you know the exact size of a FT sensor (to one part in 50000) or which particular FF you are talking about

since you have a habit of fudging figures i'll take the latter, which unfortunately means the rest of your math is questionable.

I got the sign right.

Of course you wont say you lied, that would be playing it straight, and bob doesnt do straight

Straighter than you, it seems, since I say what my assumptions are, and the arguments behind them.

'i mostly chase 3 sensor Trine type patents for Olympus' so you must have the references to hand, must you not. Just the number will do.

yes of course i have them

So how helpful not to cite them. I tracked down one and found out it doesn't say what you think it does (or, of course, it could be that you were misrepresenting what it said deliberately). In either case, I can see why you wouldn't want to make it easy for people to find the original document you're quoting.

if it goes right back to the real source its Gene Windell, any number of people have added to that or corrupted it on various forums all round the world. i definitely figure in conversations after Gene, thats not necessarily all conversations but certainly some

Thought as much

now wait a sec, first you imply most of these discussions circulate back to me, then you agree its Wendell, bob just wont be wrong will he

Not when I'm right. I never said you were the source of the original idea, just that you've been a major source of the discussions that you cite as evidence that Olympus is actually doing it.

(BTW thanks for the patent reference, wouldn't it have been easier just to quote it earlier?)

sure would

We now no why you don't want to, because the text of the patent doesn't support what you say and the diagram is of the filter response of a dye filter not a dichroic beam splitter, it certainly doesn't show what Olympus has achieved with 'trine'.

mption that a bayer filter transmitted 1/3 the total light at each location. That is, as I said an under estimate, since a real filter transmits more than 1/3 the spectrum at each location, even though it doesn't transmit 100% at any wavelength. In the end, the Bayer filter lets through more than 1/3 the light. (BTW, try reading up on what a dichroic filter does)
yet you dont allow that latitude across both sides of the argument

I won't let you count the same photons twice? That's the 'latitude' you want? I don't allow the latitude for you to be completely wrong, especially when you lace your complete wrongness with snide 'strike one' etc. You set this discussion up as a fight, and you've been pwned.

which is so typical of you

Indeed, it is typical of me to debunk bogus arguments. What's sadder, is quite a lot of folk here have actually believed this tripe, and the stuff about 'super' FT. It's one reason they come down to earth with such a bump about what Olympus actually does in the real, non delusional, world.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
NoneNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow