like a parading fool you speak to others of their supposed 'ignorance' and yet cant answer one apparently simple question. Wasnt your claim about 'some who were rather confused about what DR is and how it's measured"
GB is guilty of one thing in that he used the same term to describe both you and him, ignorant. While he indeed may have been so, your condition often exceeds ignorance and lands squarely in the realm of stupidity, the difference being that stupidity implies an unwillingness or inability to learn. If you weren't so intent on proving GB wrong or banning him from this forum you'd realize that the knowledge he does have is an asset to this or any forum. When you challenged him on his ignorance, he made an effort to find out that which he didn't know, and made no attempt to hide the fact. When he found out, he made his findings known as well.
Conversely, you recently made blind accusation against a relatively new forum member based on absolutely no scientific evidence at all, claiming the person was a troll. It was pointed out by one of your own associates that you might possibly be acting a little hastily, yet you continued to justify yourself. When you discovered you were WRONG, not just ignorant, you didn't even have the decency to publicly apologize. Yet you insist on posing the question below based on apparently a different set of standards than you hold yourself to, and with an obvious bias toward character assassination rather than any truth or knowledge seeking.
you dont have a clue what you are talking about
if you did you could answer my very simple question
There is a difference between not having a clue and not being able to answer one question. I've had college professors who were not able to answer mine without having to ask someone else, yet they could hardly be described as clueless.
for people pretending to be 'educating' others here b/se they claim 1022 is some sort of special case, they should most certainly know what they are talking about, or they should stxx and peddle their poison somewhere where it is better appreciated
He never claimed 1022 was a special case and you know it. Because you chose to take it that way says more about your foolish pride than it does about GB. Furthermore, to predicate your attacks on him on the assumption that he is responsible for knowing how every entity attempts to measure dynamic range is quite a stretch as he made no claim to that effect.
now this sham, this fraud, this pretence and lie should end. You serve no purpose on these questions as you cannot answer them and do not even possess the wit to defend yourself against them
Wit? such as the wit you possess?
Riley: 5 post user borne yesterday...i think its a setup, thats what i think
CollBaxter: He first post was to ask for help about a do it yourself wedding shoot seem genuine. Hell a wedding shoot I would have run a mile. If he does well lets at least give him a chance.. Maybe we are getting to paranoid. Even myself. Time will tell.
mrhodges2: If he is not a "troll", he's just been accused PUBLICLY of being one by the current THIRD top poster on this forum, on purely subjective and highly circumstantial evidence. That does not represent us very well to say the least, and should hardly be excused or tolerated. Riley has no authority to judge other people's motives and it is clearly contrary to forum rules. Basically, right now HE is the one guilty of trolling. Except he's not bashing equipment, he's bashing a PERSON, which is clearly worse.
Rriley:..well you are you and me is me emoticon - wink
Entirely different standard from the one you'd like to hold GB to.
While the ignorant entertainers posture with nothing but insults,
you speak to me of insults
what exactly are ignorant entertainers, cognitively challenged,
I've been busy working on the discrepency between DxOMark's DR measure and Imatest's. As it turns out, DxOMark measures what DR is defined to be, and what I've said all along, whereas Imatest measures the DR of a processed photo:
you knew NOTHING about it
you had to ask for help on it
you were clueless as to what was going on and this is more pretence
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=39658528
So, just to make it clear to the cognitively challenged, I well understood what DxOMark was all about, but didn't know what Imatest was measuring. But what makes this so classic, is that neither you nor boggis new anything at all, except that they gave different results, and that, in your little minds, automatically made DxOMark's measure of DR "bogus".
i knew enough to ask the question
the 'fool' here didnt even think to ask it
and somehow you think that puts you in front
It certainly does put him in front. You KNEW enough to ASK GB, and it was GB that made an inquiry and found you an answer. What knowledge he does have he attempts to share with those who are interested. You on the other hand would rather denigrate than educate, which only further serves to paint you as the buffoon you choose to be.
Wouldn't that term more adequately describe yourself and a certain cohort? You pass yourself off as an "expert" on who is and isn't a troll with no concrete evidence. A certain someone else describes DXO as "bogus". Yet the source you give credence to as having schooled GB says:
"Yes, that's basically correct, although Imatest
has an additional problem (at least in the versions I have seen) where it does not
properly compensate for the clipping of the negative going noise excursions as the grey patches approach black..."
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Any similarity to a rational, non-biased, trustworthy authority is likewise unintended?
Robert
