Dillon,
How come you did not point out that Dave Etchells notes that the S3 is a "six" megapixel camera, and that the S- and R-pixels must SHARE a single microlens.....in direct contrast toi your assertion that there are two microlenses,one for eacxh S- and one for each R-pixel....thus, shooting down your recent assertion that there are 12 million microlenses and that thus, the S3 is a 12 MP camera. The S3 is NOT a 12-MP camera, no matter how much smoke you and the others try and blow.
Just wondering why you and Artichoke do not defend the Fuji HyperUtilities software as the best converter for S3 RAW images....wondering why you and Artichoke do not look at the Etchells review of the S3 and admit that,yes, ADOBE actually has figured out how to best decode the wide-DR captures the S3 makes. Also, I am wondering why neither of you two are defending against the assertions that both phil Askey and Dave Etchells make that the S3 is prone to HIGH amouints of noise in certain area, (like skies and other large, even-toned areas)!
Just kind of wondering why neither ytou,nor Artichoke have responded to the AMAZING advantaghe the S3 has when shot in RAW mode and when the files are processed in Adobe Camera RAW? I mean Artichoke keeps insisting that the S3 is a JPEG camera,and that one must "think out of the box" in order to see that the S3 is NOT a raw camera. As Artichoke has said, shooting in RAW mode "disables the S3." Uh....no, shooting the S3 in RAW mode is the only way to get the best out of the camera--I mean, just LOOK, using your eyes, at the Askey Review and the Etchells review of the S3--Adobe Camera RAW simply mops up the FLOOR compareed with the S3's flat, weak-midtoned ouit of camera JPEGS.
All these fundamental fanboy assertions that one must "think outside the box" in order to "understand" a camera that is "disabled when shot in RAW mode" (Arti's quotes, not mine!)....all this is simply fanatical devotion to a camera. And, thje sad part is, the reviews PROVE that ACR is the best converter for recovering blown exposures,AND they PROVE that the Dynamic Range of the S3 is
significantly wider when the S3 is shot in wide-DR RAW mode.
The facts hurt. THe two head S3 boosters, the guys who have whined and complained and ripped on Phil's review of the S3 continue to maintain that there is no "need" for the S3 to be shot in RAW....and YET, the Etchells rtewview shows how lousy the S3 is when shot in JPEG mode, comapred with in RAW mode, where the S3 actually can exhibit good,wide dynamic range,and good tonal representation that is CLEARLY,and easily MUCH better than when the camera is used in JPEG mode. So, despite Arti's constant harping that one needs to "think outside the box" and in doing so throw RAW shooting out the window,the Etchells review that Dillon is so fond of seems to make Arti's "
utside the box" comment slook more and more fallacious. Specious,if you will. A canard,shall we say.
Thinking out of the box,indeed; you guys need to go through the Etchells review and talk about the flaws the S3 is plagued with,and face the fact that all this DR you're talking about isn't even possible to achieve with the RAW converter Fuhi gives away in the USA and charges 200 Euro for. As I said to Artichoke a few months ago, and which he rebuked me for strongly--the Fuhi HyperUtility free/200 Euro softwarer packages is NOT as good as ACR is at converting S3 RAFs into workable images....but look at both Askey and Etchells' proof....Adobe has better softeware than Fuji does. I am soooooo tired of the fanatics distorting the truths about the S3,its softweare,and its capabilities. The Etchells review shows me one thing--that the S3 depends on RAW workflow for its best imaging. And that the Fuji HU software is lame.
