Dynamic Range

[bobn2]

I'm surprised that someone who burst on DPR with material from their PhD results is happy treating evidence in such a cavalier way. .

Haha, that thing you are talking about has nothing to do with my speciality regarding my degree. You have no idea what my degree was in. I don't think I have ever talked about that on DPR.

Oh yes, you were talking when you first came here on DPR a couple of years back about your PhD and ensemble statistics, of course finding the post from your many is a fruitless task, but I remember it well. Trying google to locate it reveals a number of discussions about your PhD on a number of forums. i rather like this one from the LL forums:

Too bad I don't have any friends who could attest to my expertise. A long time ago I tried to endear myself to Emil Martinec, but he hates me. A couple more have been added on this thread - Joofa

I would have to say that it's largely because

1. You have refused over and over again to answer simple direct questions from others who have tried very hard to understand what you are trying to say, and

2. You have repeatedly insulted a great number of serious and highly knowledgeable experts who have very patiently tried to engage you in rational discourse, and

3. You have steadfastly refused to explain how you arrive at the claims you seem to be making.

I find it hard to understand how you obtained a Ph.D. in engineering (according to Google) when you don't seem to understand the necessity of labeling the axis and units on a graph. For that error alone you would have failed any of the hundreds of college freshman-level math courses I have taught. - Eric
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49940.600

Nice to see you are at least consistent (and before you say it, I would also fail according to the same criteria)

Had you put such a remark in your PhD thesis it would have been called by the examiners.

I think they were as clueless as I was.

hardly a thing to brag about. In a time when many people have PhDs, their value is enhanced by the reputation of the examiners. If what you say is true, your tutors at UT, Austin did you no favours by choosing clueless examiners to ease your PhD through.
--
Bob

 

[bobn2]

The scaling model is one I bounced off Eric Fossum some time ago, and he agreed it is a sensible a-priori assumption if you must have the discussion. He doesn't really like the discussion much, I get the impression.

So who am I going to believe? Eric Fossum,with proven credentials to his claims. Or a certain Bobn2 who is a random citizen on the Internet?

It isn't a matter of 'belief'. It's not even a matter of Eric's beliefs, it is a matter of people's misrepresentation of his beliefs, and using that as some kind of corroboration for their bogus theories. As for Eric, he doesn't go around these forums bragging about his achievements and qualifications, and neither do I. Just because someone doesn't brag about their CV, there's no reason to assume that it isn't there.

Yeah, but then you make many mistakes on DPR that shakes confidence in your abilities.

A variance from your idea of 'correct' is not the same thing as a mistake. Still, I make many a silly mistake, and have never been too vain to admit it.

Like the one in this thread where you were incorrectly attributing a continuous range of values in reply to ItsRKM.

Your problem with evidence again. I have made no reply to ItsRKM in this thread. I replied to Joe replying to Its RKM, but that reply contained no 'incorrect' attribution of 'a continuous range of values'. Its maybe that your thinking that read noise really comes in photon quantum increments, in which case that rather shakes confidence in your abilities (not that there was a great confidence in the first place).

I'm beginning to believe your assessment of your PhD examiners as 'clueless', if they passed by that quality of argument.
--
Bob

 

[Great Bustard]

I am not claiming that read noise scales with pixel area for sensors with different tech! I talk about scaling simply as an example of how smaller pixels deliver higher IQ

Interesting to note that you are now drifting towards higher IQ. I thought we were talking scaling read noise with pixel area in purely electronic terms. Keep drifting.

It's not "interesting" or "drifting" at all. I've always been talking about IQ. You simply lack the cognitive capacity to understand.

if read noise and saturation limits scale with area and QE does not fare the worse, and have cited that there have been instances (20D, [30D], 40D, and 50D) where scaling was the rule, undoubtedly because Canon was simply scaling the same tech.

Note the "if" there. So you have been just speculating so far.

FFS -- it's absolutely pathetic that you can't understand what I've said over and over and over.

you are either simply trolling, or just plain stupid, given the number of times I've spelled it out to you, as well as others in this thread.

Wow, you are so smart.

It's a relative thing, as in compared to who I'm talking to. Best of luck to you.

 

[John Sheehy]

I don't know how can you claim that Eric Fossum is on "your side" when has consistently said that read noise / area is just "silly"?

Perhaps these are mainly semantic differences. Perhaps he has never found a need to look at it that way, but then again, maybe he doesn't get involved talking to a lot of people who don't understand that a greater quantity of worse pixels can give better imaging than a smaller quantity of better pixels.

It is not up to him whether area-based qualities are useful, he can merely state his opinion. When you're talking to people who assume that inferior pixels always give inferior images, however, you need to use such a metric to get the truth across. We do it with film; any type of film has the same quality per unit of area regardless of what size it is, and a film with lower quality per unit of area can give a better image at 8x10 than a much better film at 110 instamatic size.

--
John

 

[Joofa]

I'm surprised that someone who burst on DPR with material from their PhD results is happy treating evidence in such a cavalier way. .

Haha, that thing you are talking about has nothing to do with my speciality regarding my degree. You have no idea what my degree was in. I don't think I have ever talked about that on DPR.

Oh yes, you were talking when you first came here on DPR a couple of years back about your PhD and ensemble statistics, of course finding the post from your many is a fruitless task, but I remember it well.

Haha, you are so dead wrong that you don't even know it. Firstly, I don't talk about my educational qualification on online forums, secondly I have to repeat, you have no idea what was my area of expertise during my degree. I have never talked about it at DPR.

your tutors at UT, Austin did you no favours by choosing clueless examiners to ease your PhD through.

Do you think that global warming or the state of economy has anything to do with it?

--
Dj Joofa

 

[Joofa]

a greater quantity of worse pixels can give better imaging than a smaller quantity of better pixels.

Hi John,

You are right about this statement, within certain assumptions. As I have pointed out to Steen Bay, that the issue is not about transitioning from per-pixel statistics to image-level statistics (which, BTW, I have talked about extensively on this forum, over the several years on how to do properly with the correct interpretation). The issue rather is that in the process to access the collective statistics of a group of smaller pixels vis-a-vis a larger pixel, what is the starting value of per-pixel statistics, say read noise- does it have a linear relationship to the read noise on a larger pixel based upon their area ratios. In fact, I'm not even taking any sides or saying it has or does not have a relationship. I have merely asked Great Bustard to substantiate his assertions that the relationship is linear, instead of speculation.

Sincerely,

Joofa
--
Dj Joofa

 

[Volksgti81]

This compares film with a D7000 pretty neat enjoy. I do think for what they charge for some of these digital beasts they should be closer in dynamic range then what they are with film but oh well. They're are amazing and you do save a lot of dough not buying film.

http://www.120studio.com/dynamic-range.htm

 

[Great Bustard]

a greater quantity of worse pixels can give better imaging than a smaller quantity of better pixels.

Hi John,

You are right about this statement, within certain assumptions.

Assumptions like read noise and saturation scale with area (or better), and that the QE is unaffected (or better)? Hmm?

 

[Joofa]

Assumptions like read noise and saturation scale with area (or better), and that the QE is unaffected (or better)? Hmm?

I think you are presenting contradictory evidence again, as I pointed out before. See below where in one post say that a larger pixel will have noise advantage and in another post you say that smaller pixels would have noise advantage. Please make up your mind which version you want to stick to?

Great Bustard wrote:

What I meant was that read noise per area would be a useful metric in that if each of the four 1x1 pixels had the same read noise as a single 2x2 pixel, then there would be a noise advantage for the single 2x2 pixel. Thus, the question becomes, why would the read noise not scale with area?

( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=38724734 )

Great Bustard wrote:

if the read noise / pixel for two sensors is proportional to the area of the pixel, then four 1x1 pixels, for example, would have less read noise than a single 2x2 pixel , and, assuming the same fill factor, would also collect the same total amount of light.

( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40481465 )

Are you still speculating?

Sincerely,

Joofa

--
Dj Joofa

 

[Joofa]

FFS -- it's absolutely pathetic that you can't understand what I've said over and over and over.

You mean like presenting contradictory cases for read noise. See below link to decide which version you want to adhere to?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40491229

Sincerely,

Joofa

--
Dj Joofa