Canon Line Offset Noise

Started Oct 20, 2009 | Discussions thread
Mark H
Mark H Veteran Member • Posts: 3,803
Re: Absolutely agree...

John Sheehy wrote:

Mark H wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Fine for whom?

Silly question - fine for them of course.

Who cares? Most folks are fighting to get their cat in focus.

Here you go again - exaggerating and misrepresenting, yet again...

" Most folks" are not   "fighting to get their... in focus" - some may be, but not   " most " .

Absolutely - on the whole I think these corporations do an amazing job.

Then, why do I, a person who hasn't even gone to school for engineering, do a better job with calibrating their RAW data?

I don't see that you have done that at all.

You don't even know whether a calibration is already being applied.

A calibration as such, will not always be repeatable/successful to the degree that it would reduce the issues to the levels you seem to expect.

It's only too easy to look at something after the event and then 'claim' that "I could do better" - but you simply don't actually know what has previously been done, or whether there are any other mitigating or limiting issues.

Perhaps if you had "gone to school for engineering" then you might better appreciate this, rather than just conceitedly pronouncing that "I... do a better job with calibrating their RAW data"

Maybe you should go it alone - make DSLRs better than they do - it should be dead easy with your superior knowledge and abilities.

I could write revolutionary firmware that makes cameras far more usable and customizable than they are now.

I'm sure everyone thinks that they could make their own personal improvements.

It would be interesting to hear some of your "revolutionary" ideas.

They give us cr*p, because they are in lethargic collusion. You need lots of money behind you to compete against the inertial, inefficient monsters.

They don't give use "cr*p" - your distorted and paranoid view is the only "cr*p" around here.

I guess I'm not in a rush to prove that to you, because I know I'm right,..

Right, 'that' sounds really convincing - I will wait.

That was an explanation of why I didn't immediately reply; not my final word or proof. Again, you have chosen to misrepresent me, by cutting out what I referred to, after that, like Roger Clark's measurements, and the DxO screen comparison. Why do you pretend that I didn't offer these? That is pathetic.

There is no pretence - I am poking fun at the initial conceit in your response.. "I guess I'm not in a rush to prove that to you, because I know I'm right,.." .

Who do you think you're fooling with your libelous attacks?

There is no 'libel' in any of my messages - only reasonable criticisms, challenges, and rebukes where warranted.

Now your statements, however, really are frequently quite 'libellous' in nature - some recent 'John Sheehy' examples...

John Sheehy wrote:

"...Canon is full of you know what"

"...they write BS press releases and white-papers about improvements which are not realized"

"...I'll tell you right now; almost everything I've bought from Canon has been junk, in one way or another. "

"...The issue is ethics in manufacturing. Canon apparently has none"

"...They give us cr*p, because they are in lethargic collusion"

"...[Canon are] either stupid, apathetic, or malicious"

"...I tend to think you're a paid Canon shill,.."

...and you wonder why I previously referred to your 'agenda"?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
xxD
tko
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow