Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 19 Jul 2008 04:55 GMT
The direct comparison of what? I am getting the sense that most of the
critics here have no viable working model in their heads of what a sensor
is, and what it does, yet they feel obliged to make all kinds of comments
assuming some kind of magic.
Of course you have yet to respond to any of my posts, including
where I point out errors including the equations you use and
the reasons you come up with the erroneous conclusions you do.
And where is your counter-evidence? There is none. There is no evidence
that higher pixel density lowers DR or increases noise.
I already proved you were using incorrectly different equations
for high and low end to come up with the erroneous conclusions.
Every shred of
so-called evidence assumes a 100% pixel view, uses JPEGs, or unequal
conversions (No commercial RAW converter converts different cameras the
same way; Brands that have a history of high RAW noise get extra NR by
default, just like the manufacturer's JPEGs do).
No it does not. It is fundamental physics, which you seem to ignore.
I've also put out what is probably to most complete model of
sensor performance one can find on the net, which counters what
you say. You have no actual model. You incorrectly process images
to make your case. I've pointed that out several times and you
will not even acknowledge it.
Guess you're out of the loop, but there's a big showdown going on at
DPReview right now, because the intelligesia there have challenged Phil
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
engaged in such a discussion, and when asked for proof of his viewpoint,
he became mute. Hopefully, he's doing a lot of thinking about this.
Do you see the irony in your statement. I show you your errors
and you become mute.
Many things that people find clear are actually false, under the hood.
People like simplicity, more than they are interested in truth.
More irony?
There are three layers to this onion. There is the hypothetical blind
consumer who thinks that more MPs are always better in every way. Then
below that there are people who think that more MPsruins images in a
given sensor size.
And your 4th layer seems to think that the more pixel density is better.
It seems most people here realize that there is an optimum pixel
density that trades focal plane resolution with S/N, dynamic range,
and real resolution. That is also what the scientific models
say.
Roger
