Yes...taking a quote out of context with the intention of changing its meaning to something other than it meant in the original context is a quote mine, and it is horribly dishonest.
See, that is a personal attack - horrible dishonest. You must prove I have such intention before start personal accusation that has one result in certainty - disarray otherwise a healthy debate.
It's based on what you said, which was extracted from what he said. The way you cut it, it no longer had the originally-intended meaning. That's a quote mine, and very few things are more dishonest than a quote mine.
I said nothing wrong even with that statement. Moreover I did address GB's rest sentences. Nevertheless GB or anyone should remain in pure technical debates, not resort to namecalling (he start calling me Peter...Peter in post's title...), accusation (dishonest as I intentionally to do it that need to prove beyond reasonable doubt). Then what's next in the levels of personal accusation and attacking? Is there a limit in DPR posting?
OK, here's how it went down:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53729170
The question is if FF has enough of an advantage at base ISO to make a noticeable difference in the IQ at the size people display their photos.
Absolutely especially in large size. Most top landscape photographers are using FF or even MF cameras.
Then again, all FF really offers over crop is convenience. For static scenes, it's a simple matter to merge and stitch photos -- there's even automated software for it. So, you just take a few more photos with crop than you would have taken with FF.
You then quote only the first sentence of my paragraph WHICH COMPLETELY CHANGES THE MEANING OF WHAT I SAID.
There are only two possibilities here:
- Gross dishonesty.
- Gross lack of cognitive capacity.
You choose.
Then again, all FF really offers over crop is convenience.
Absolutely not, is absolute better IQ.
Can you elaborate above what exactly is a "horrible dishonest"?
He expanded on what he meant by "convenience". It was in the context of comparing against stitching and stacking. By leaving that crucial context out...
Yeah, but I also addressed in his other sentences, right?
What you did, Peter, is misrepresent what I said by quoting only the fist sentence of my reply and then saying:
Absolutely not, is absolute better IQ.
When, in the case of merging and stitching photos of static scenes, which is what I was talking about with regards to landscape photography, as the exchange clearly shows, no, Peter, all FF has over crop is convenience, exactly as I said, in that FF would require fewer exposures than crop for a given IQ.
I said he is wrong in my first sentence...
But I was not wrong. You quote mined me, and said I was wrong because of your quote mine. That was *extremely* dishonest or reflects a *severe* lack of cognitive capacity.
...and then gave explanation why I said his "convenience" is wrong. Where is my 'dishonest' as I intentionally want to cheat something? That's a personal accusation without prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Dishonesty or cognitively capacitated -- you choose.
That blanket statement...
...you made it sound like a blanket statement, which it wasn't.
It's. But that is subjective to debate rather thru emotion and personal accusation that only disarray otherwise a pure and healthy debate as GB did.
You see, Peter, I did not make a blanket statement -- that was your quote mine. My statement was in the context of stitching and merging photos of static scenes, such as landscapes. So, the emotion came from when you misrepresented what I said, which I attributed to dishonesty, as it did not occur to me that your cognitive facilities might be lacking to such an extreme degree.
And, yes, stitching images from, say, a 1/2.3" sensor compact can result in better image quality than you can achieve from a single frame from a full frame camera.
No way, can you give a sample?
Compare the far-right column.
I have seen this picture a few times in the past, very old one must many years ago. I have no idea how original those photos were taken.
Which is back to the same level of "inconvenience".
But then FF also can do stitching, right? But that is only for one aspect of entire IQ - resolution. There are many others in the spectrum of image quality.
Yes, Peter, yes -- FF can also do stitching, which is why I said all FF had over crop, for that circumstance of landscape photography of static scenes by stitching and merging multiple exposures what that FF was more convenient.
FF wins not only just in resolution but in sharpness, color tonality and fine details (SNR).
For single-shots, at comparable exposures, of course it does. That's why I have one.
Stitching will not improve color tonality, sharpness (at pixel level) and fine details/shadow noises when you view at large size.
Yeah, but merging (stacking) will improve color tonality and DR (shadow noise / highlights) in addition to the resolution improvement from stitching, and I mentioned both techniques in my post, which you left out with your quote mine.
Now why would that be, Peter? Why?
Stitching can increase resolution but never can increase sharpness, color tonality and shadow details.
Stitching can certainly increase sharpness by increasing resolution.
Resolution and sharpness are different things. Stitching can make photos look very big but will not increasing sharpness, color tonality and fine details (view at full size).
Stacking can dramatically improve color tonality, and shadow detail. Single image on the right, stacked on the left:
Now you're talking stacking that is different from stitching which usually only over 1/3 of overlapping areas to make photos wider and taller.
Except I talked about *both* stitching and stacking, but your quote mine left it all out.
Moreover this photo (like moon surface as typical sample pixel density is a decisive factor) doesn't have much fine details anyway. Can you give a landscape photo for example?
All your photos are too small to explain anything. Please provide samples of 1/2.3" stitching to compare to A7R or D800E for example at 36mp or close size.
Oh dear.
P.S.: You have full permission to repost our PM exchange -- just don't quote mine it like you did with my post that began this "entertainment". Post the whole exchange, if you wish, but only the whole exchange.
