Why doesn't medium format have high ISOs?

[Billx08]

I repeat, you seem to be trying to make points about... making points. Arguing for the sake of arguing. You're new to dpreview forums, and yet you've written 335 posts in the last 3 weeks.

You must have a lot to say. Your login name is classy (not!).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34723970

[Iliah Borg replying to Bob Elkind]

Warning: only 7 more posts to hit the 150 per thread limit.

Then we'll be looking forward to a new thread?

Out of curiosity, have you tried switching "B" and "Sh" in the nickname of this "anonymous" graduate?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34751336

In other words, he "got the joke".

As did I, possibly before the above was originally posted. Yes, sort of a "joke", but I find nothing amusing in the latest ID, "Tyrone Wellhung", which is the kind of "joke" that only a racist would really find amusing. I've found you to get bent out of shape by milder "jokes" so I'd be surprised or disappointed if this one had you chuckling.

Getting back to your S.P. definition of a "second ID someone uses to either support their own position", that's what it looked like when Crocodile Gena and Shull Bitter did their tag-team thing,

They are definitely two different people.

Probably. I did notice a few minor differences, but they worked in concert and as I mentioned, the former appeared not long after Joe Mama was banned. It may be a coincidence but it's still unusual when a "newbie" suddenly appears, with an intensity that surprised Bob Elkind.

Croc was the first of these puppies

Once you add a new, insulting nickname, I'm quite unlikely to make an effort to follow your arguments.

"Croc" is just a shortening of "Crocodile". Do you really find it insulting? Oops. Only after I wrote this last sentence did I realize that you might have been thinking "Crock", which as I say was never considered until just now. You can either believe me or not, but the latter wouldn't surprise me at all, as you seem to live by and apply the "all's fair in love and war" principle to forum arguments.

to appear, and this occurred not long after Joe Mama (Joseph James) was permanently banned, whose website URLs were often shown at the bottom of their replies.

Joseph James also maintains a list of his dpReview aliases on his website.

I've never seen that list but assume that Croc (without a "k") isn't on it but that Shull is and Tyrone should be but may be too new to have been added. But I don't share your great interest in this topic or in ferreting out all the trolls and Master Trolls that you find so interesting so I don't intend to look for that list.

This is going to come as a complete shock to you, but Joseph James is correct in nearly everything he says. I was teaching what he calls "equivalence" 15 years ago, with examples from 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5. Including the use of different film speeds on the different formats to demonstrate the same concept as we have with different sensor ISO ratings.

No, if anyone is going to be shocked (or should be) it would be you . You too often make unwarranted assumptions, and this time it's that I disagreed with anything that he ever wrote. While he was still posting I only read a very small number of his replies (shortly before he was banned), saw that he was a controversial figure, but hadn't read enough of his replies to form any opinion of him. Based on what I've already written in this thread (that I don't really disagree with the substance of what Croc, Shull and Tyrone have written), Joe Mama would also be included in this group and should be since it seems that there's one person behind more than one of these four.

(continued - only one more part to go)

 

[Billx08]

If anything, he's the "victim" of socks.

Who is this "he"? Wellhung?

Yes.

The unidentified Bob?

Again, yes.

Who you obstinately refuse to identify, although you're quite willing to refer to him ad nauseum. I realize that it's just an attempt to annoy.

As far as I'm concerned, he's much more "identified" than you are, Mr. X.

Good. But you're confusing an identification with other DPR IDs and the non-disclosure of personal identification information. I share my email address with only a very small number of people that I respect, like, or both. What concerns you is of no concern to me. The DPR ID you see here is what I use. I never used another before this one and unlike the puppies won't create another if I'm ever permanently banned. I'll just stop posting here for good, using DPReview occasionally for its reviews, assuming that the trend to simplification and brevity doesn't continue.

And who would the socks be. Links could be useful.

Actually, there have been a couple of threads that linked them.

Writing about them without providing them is another attempt to annoy, but when your replies are agenda fueled, it's what you can't seem to avoid doing. Not admirable.

None of which is occurring here that I'm aware of, and I haven't hit the "Complain" button.

And if you had, would you admit it?

Yes. In a few other threads I volunteered that information. If any moderators read this thread (unlikely) they'd be able to know that I haven't hit the 'Complain' button, but highly doubt that they'd share that information with you. That's a disgraceful question to ask, though. It's like saying that some people lie to win forum debates and arguments and then asking you, "if you had, would you admit it?". It makes it easy to imply something without having information to demonstrate it or even suspect it, other than to think "I don't like you very much so I can assume the worst".

Actually, a lot of people know who he really is, and we don't really mind.

Why be so inscrutable? Are you referring to the person behind Mr. Wellhung?

The context made that perfectly obvious. You have repeated the question so many times that it's gone past "rhetorical" into simply "annoying".

I'm not sharing his "real life" identity with an "X".

Surely you can understand the inanity of saying that you won't share information that you just said should be perfectly obvious. You also just made another invalid assumption. I have no interest in knowing the "real life" identities of anyone mentioned in this thread. Standard DPR IDs would be sufficient, even if they don't provide email addresses. I wasn't asking for "Bob"'s email address, home addres or telephone number, but his DPR ID might be useful to be able to read his replies. If you're not willing to share that little bit, you had no good reason to even mention his name, except (as I already wrote) to annoy, which you seem to enjoy doing to an unhealthy degree.

BTW, about your "Socks need at least pairs". Wrong. You're thinking of the socks that are worn on feet, and going so far as to assume that all people have two feet. Sock puppets are another matter entirely. The term (whether using your definition or mine) had little to do with just socks. It borrowed directly from the already existing term "sock puppet" that had nothing to do with pairs of anything but about something controlled by an unseen presence :

A sock puppet is a puppet made from a sock (or similar garment). When the manipulator fits a hand into the closed end of the sock, the puppet can be seemingly made to "talk".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet

 

[Billx08]

I think everyone has got the point that you're not my greatest fan, but I'm cool with that.

Cool.

BTW, is that picture on your gravatar your natural colour? I'd seek medical help if its a realistic likeness.

It's not even close to a realistic likeness, what do you expect from a tiny, low-res gravatar? But be careful. Be very careful when talking about my appearance. You don't want to make me mad. It might make me want to get up and start smashing things. Do I need to repeat myself?

 

[sandy b]

His type just can't help being kicked

 

[Billx08]

His type just can't help being kicked

Probably, but then another just like him, differing only by the DPR login ID is bound to follow. If he is as obsessed with spreading his 'gospel' as he seems to be, it's strange that he doesn't realize that his presentation and antics greatly hinder its acceptance. Something else is driving him/them.

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

His type just can't help being kicked

Maybe so, if there are some who want to kick those who try to impart information, clear up misunderstandings and correct misinformation.
Luckily for the ill- and mis-informed, my shins don't feel pain.

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

 I've never seen that list but assume that Croc (without a "k") isn't on it but that Shull is and Tyrone should be but may be too new to have been added.

Based on what I've already written in this thread (that I don't really disagree with the substance of what Croc, Shull and Tyrone have written), Joe Mama would also be included in this group and should be since it seems that there's one person behind more than one of these four.

I am not joe mama. Joseph and I have exchanged emails, so he knows exactly what is my real-world ID, as he said.

Here's a deal, I hereby authorise Joseph to pass you my email addy should you communicate to him enough of your own details to satisfy him that you are a real-world person. Then you could communicate your issues person to person. Or just pm me if that's too hard. In any case, the sight of you pursuing your vendetta is none too edifying or interesting for the average DPR member.

 

[Billx08]

 I've never seen that list but assume that Croc (without a "k") isn't on it but that Shull is and Tyrone should be but may be too new to have been added.

Based on what I've already written in this thread (that I don't really disagree with the substance of what Croc, Shull and Tyrone have written), Joe Mama would also be included in this group and should be since it seems that there's one person behind more than one of these four.

I am not joe mama. Joseph and I have exchanged emails, so he knows exactly what is my real-world ID, as he said.

Here's a deal, I hereby authorise Joseph to pass you my email addy should you communicate to him enough of your own details to satisfy him that you are a real-world person. Then you could communicate your issues person to person. Or just pm me if that's too hard. In any case, the sight of you pursuing your vendetta is none too edifying or interesting for the average DPR member.

How is it that you, who by engaging in so many intricate, technical debates presume to be more intelligent than the average bear can't seem to understand much simpler stuff? Well, maybe your excuse is that you when you typed the above reply you hadn't gotten to the next, concluding part of my reply. Still, you had many hours to read it and correct your mis-assumption. I'll do it here for you. In that last part I wrote :

have no interest in knowing the "real life" identities of anyone mentioned in this thread. Standard DPR IDs would be sufficient, even if they don't provide email addresses. I wasn't asking for "Bob"'s email address, home addres (sic) or telephone number, but his DPR ID might be useful to be able to read his replies.

I have no interest in knowing your "email addy" or Joseph's, and wouldn't use email or pm to communicate with either of you. This forum is more than sufficient for that purpose. It's also quite presumptuous to think that Joseph would be a reasonable choice as an arbiter or go-between, since he has already chosen sides, jumping head long into this fray backing one side and attacking the other. If you doubt this say so and I'll provide quotes proving this assertion.

I also wrote "I share my email address with only a very small number of people that I respect, like, or both.", and while you never were in consideration to be one that I'd share my email address with, your insult above ("just pm me" if communication would be too hard) and the false characterization of a vendetta only further cements that decision. If anything, the preponderance of comments made to or about you, Shull, et al. show that if the average DPR member doesn't find these exchanges interesting or edifying, you have yet to grasp the reasons for it.

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

two posters sponsored by MF makers taking up half the thread...

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

is pursuing your public vendetta. I can quite understand why you think that a public conversation would be in your interests, as it gives you the opportunity to carry on with defamation in the guise of seeking the facts. I can't say I have any enthusiasm for playing your game any further. Meanwhile, this might help you along in your campaign against sock puppets:

http://www.menwithfoilhats.com/2010/02/on-the-effectiveness-of-aluminium-foil-helmets/

 I've never seen that list but assume that Croc (without a "k") isn't on it but that Shull is and Tyrone should be but may be too new to have been added.

Based on what I've already written in this thread (that I don't really disagree with the substance of what Croc, Shull and Tyrone have written), Joe Mama would also be included in this group and should be since it seems that there's one person behind more than one of these four.

I am not joe mama. Joseph and I have exchanged emails, so he knows exactly what is my real-world ID, as he said.

Here's a deal, I hereby authorise Joseph to pass you my email addy should you communicate to him enough of your own details to satisfy him that you are a real-world person. Then you could communicate your issues person to person. Or just pm me if that's too hard. In any case, the sight of you pursuing your vendetta is none too edifying or interesting for the average DPR member.

 How is it that you, who by engaging in so many intricate, technical debates presume to be more intelligent than the average bear can't seem to understand much simpler stuff? Well, maybe your excuse is that you when you typed the above reply you hadn't gotten to the next, concluding part of my reply. Still, you had many hours to read it and correct your mis-assumption. I'll do it here for you. In that last part I wrote :

have no interest in knowing the "real life" identities of anyone mentioned in this thread. Standard DPR IDs would be sufficient, even if they don't provide email addresses. I wasn't asking for "Bob"'s email address, home addres (sic) or telephone number, but his DPR ID might be useful to be able to read his replies.

 I have no interest in knowing your "email addy" or Joseph's, and wouldn't use email or pm to communicate with either of you. This forum is more than sufficient for that purpose. It's also quite presumptuous to think that Joseph would be a reasonable choice as an arbiter or go-between, since he has already chosen sides, jumping head long into this fray backing one side and attacking the other. If you doubt this say so and I'll provide quotes proving this assertion.

 I also wrote "I share my email address with only a very small number of people that I respect, like, or both.", and while you never were in consideration to be one that I'd share my email address with, your insult above ("just pm me" if communication would be too hard) and the false characterization of a vendetta only further cements that decision. If anything, the preponderance of comments made to or about you, Shull, et al. show that if the average DPR member doesn't find these exchanges interesting or edifying, you have yet to grasp the reasons for it.
Â

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

then I could put the MF camera they give me on ebay and get something useful instead.

two posters sponsored by MF makers taking up half the thread...

 

[Billx08]

is pursuing your public vendetta. I can quite understand why you think that a public conversation would be in your interests, as it gives you the opportunity to carry on with defamation in the guise of seeking the facts. I can't say I have any enthusiasm for playing your game any further. Meanwhile, this might help you along in your campaign against sock puppets:

http://www.menwithfoilhats.com/2010/02/on-the-effectiveness-of-aluminium-foil-helmets/

You can repeat "vendetta" a hundred times but that doesn't make it so. In my opinion you're a thoroughly odious person and you must be very foolish to think that I or most other people would want to waste any extra time communicating with the likes of you outside of DPR's forums. Do you really think that your link should be taken as anything other than as the insult that you intended it to be? Very strange. You want to make it seem as if you're a reasonable person that would love to discuss things off-DPR. Yet every reply of yours is contradicted by the insults and venom that is part of your nature. "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" may not be on the "Wisdom of the Ages" top ten list, but it's familiar to most people and clearly what you've yet to learn.


"Time flies like an arrow but, fruit flies like a banana."

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

is pursuing your public vendetta. I can quite understand why you think that a public conversation would be in your interests, as it gives you the opportunity to carry on with defamation in the guise of seeking the facts. I can't say I have any enthusiasm for playing your game any further. Meanwhile, this might help you along in your campaign against sock puppets:

http://www.menwithfoilhats.com/2010/02/on-the-effectiveness-of-aluminium-foil-helmets/

 You can repeat "vendetta" a hundred times but that doesn't make it so.

On the other hand, your continued return to the subject and the tone of what you write certainly makes it appear so.

In my opinion you're a thoroughly odious person

You are entitled to your opinion, but since you have no knowledge of who I am or what I do, it is not based on very much good information. Perhaps you would like to know a little secret, based only on your interactions on DPR, the evidence is that 'odious' would be a good match for you, but in real life you might be different - I don't know.

and you must be very foolish to think that I or most other people would want to waste any extra time communicating with the likes of you outside of DPR's forums.

I just though that since the identity and motivation thing seems so important to you, you might welcome the chance to clear it up - I hadn't exactly envisaged a social engagement. But the point is, you're not really interested in getting the information that you purport to want, you're really interested in playing to the gallery.

Do you really think that your link should be taken as anything other than as the insult that you intended it to be? Very strange.

I was just giving back a little in kind. Go back through this thread and your hijacking of it towards your paranoid agenda, and you'll find that the bulk of the insults have come from you. get one little one back and you whinge about it. Fairly typical, I would say

You want to make it seem as if you're a reasonable person that would love to discuss things off-DPR. Yet every reply of yours is contradicted by the insults and venom that is part of your nature.

As I said, if you think I am unreasonable and venomous, then you are off the scale. I have to remind you, only one of us rejoined this thread with the express intent of hijacking it with 'insults and venom', and it wasn't me.

"You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" may not be on the "Wisdom of the Ages" top ten list, but it's familiar to most people and clearly what you've yet to learn.

I rather like 'why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?' Â That one probably is in the "Wisdom of the Ages" top ten list.

 

[Pradipta Dutta]

I'm going to take a wild stab at this :

It is amazing how people feel compelled to respond even though they may not have a clue on the topic.

--
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

 

[Billx08]

is pursuing your public vendetta. I can quite understand why you think that a public conversation would be in your interests, as it gives you the opportunity to carry on with defamation in the guise of seeking the facts. I can't say I have any enthusiasm for playing your game any further. Meanwhile, this might help you along in your campaign against sock puppets:

http://www.menwithfoilhats.com/2010/02/on-the-effectiveness-of-aluminium-foil-helmets/

 You can repeat "vendetta" a hundred times but that doesn't make it so.

On the other hand, your continued return to the subject and the tone of what you write certainly makes it appear so.

Anyone counting our replies to each other can see that they are pretty evenly interleaved, and they're not returning to a "subject" but are in response to the contents of each of your replies, as I'm doing here. You can whine all you want about vendettas but what it comes down to is your not having a good answer to my criticism, so you level spurious charges, hurl insults and cry "vendetta" instead. i'll leave it to others reading our diversions to decide whose tone is better and whose is worse.

But the point is, you're not really interested in getting the information that you purport to want, you're really interested in playing to the gallery.

Despite being repeatedly told what I was interested in seeing, you still have no clue as to what I want or don't want. I'll try to explain it again. I'm not interested in learning anyone's identity or email address. If that's what I wanted, private communication might well be the way to go. What I asked for amounts to no more than a link to any OP or reply ever posted by the mysterious "Bob" that Joseph kept referring to, a public post that anyone could have seen, whether they registered with DPR or not, but of course he had no intention of ever doing that. If he did, it wouldn't require going to email or pm now, would it? Your repeated failure to understand this continues to underscore the reasons why I wouldn't want to communicate privately with you about this or any other topic. I'm replying directly to you here, with what you actually wrote, whereas you're putting words in my mouth repeatedly, ignoring every correction I've made. That is playing to the gallery.

Go back through this thread and your hijacking of it towards your paranoid agenda

The place where the hijacking of this thread started was here and it is nearly indistinguishable in tone and topic from the way Croc and Shull used to hijack threads into oblivion :

Well, we get another lecture in sensor theology here.

Simply science and engineering, not theology.

By that reasoning, with read noise at, say 1/8^=2^-3 electron, we only need 32=2^5 electrons to achieve 8 stops DR! emoticon - wink

I think you've just discovered that little thing about noise being scale dependent. Talking about noise on the basis of a single observation makes no sense. Over a number of observations, the DR is indeed 8 stops. And since the shot noise SNR of the whites will be only 5.7, it'll be nicely dithered so it'll look smoothly gradated.

Well, noise in a single pixel (one observation) means nothing, so you'll have to define the range of observation over which the noise is observed

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=35814241

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

It's also quite presumptuous to think that Joseph would be a reasonable choice as an arbiter or go-between, since he has already chosen sides, jumping head long into this fray backing one side and attacking the other.

I simply pointed out to you that you are operating from a position of greater anonymity than the other "side."

Apparently, that bothers you, for some reason.

I didn't jump headlong into anything, your replies got longer and longer, until it hit the TL;DR point.

(actually, I'm an excellent arbitrator, including training in international protocols,

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Billx08]

It's also quite presumptuous to think that Joseph would be a reasonable choice as an arbiter or go-between, since he has already chosen sides, jumping head long into this fray backing one side and attacking the other.

I simply pointed out to you that you are operating from a position of greater anonymity than the other "side."

Apparently, that bothers you, for some reason.

Because you weren't sufficiently subtle, but apparently irritated enough create a lengthy critical reply, not using overt insults, just innuendo. I choose to not provide my email address so you were critical of that, comparing me to the mysterious "Bob" that you insist on keeping as anonymous as possible :

His first account was actually more open and transparent than yours, he had his real last name in the email address he used.

You could have written the same about "Tyrone Wellhung" but didn't. That's telling. You apparently don't mind that the name is based on a racist pun or if you do, kept it to yourself for your own reasons. You went out of your way to "correct" my usage of "sock puppet" even though it was correct, and you still haven't admitted your error or been gracious enough to acknowledge the validity of my usage. You apparently think that the juvenile names chosen by these sock puppets are amusing :

Out of curiosity, have you tried switching "B" and "Sh" in the nickname of this "anonymous" graduate?

http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34751336

In other words, he "got the joke".

and assume that Iliah "got the joke" when it's at least as likely that he shared Bob's distaste for it.

(actually, I'm an excellent arbitrator, including training in international protocols,

Good arbitrators should be like good judges and know when it's appropriate to recuse themselves. You'd probably be an excellent arbitrator if limited to dealing with technical or legal issues. That's not the case here, and you (as the usual "they" say) have too many dogs in the hunt, know and apparently have at least casual relationships with some of the people involved . . . another reason why recusal would be warranted, and if I ever really needed an arbitrator, I think it would be good to choose one that's more mild mannered than volatile.

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

no text

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

And this helps your argument how? You've agreed that most (actually all) current DSLRs are full-frame transfer, just like medium format. Where is your fill factor advantage now?

(with the unfortunate coincidence of sharing the same first name as Joseph, I'm sure you'll call me a sock puppet of his. Maybe I should open a real sock puppet account with a different name to answer this one...)

"D1X, D70, D40, etc. did nothing, at all different at speeds above or below 1/250, or any other arbitrary threshold. They all clear the sensor before the first curtain opens, start the exposure by clearing again after the first curtain is fully open, do the transfer to shielded storage at the end of the exposure time, and only then do they close the second curtain. That's as true at 30 seconds as it is at 1/4000 sec."

In other words, the D1x employs an electronic shutter to determine the length of exposure, which cannot be done with a full-frame transfer type of sensor. That's precisely what I said, with one exception. The D1x varies the shutter speed below 1/250 second, using the mechanical shutter to control the exposure. The exposure is truncated electronically above 1/250 second. This according to Nikon technical support.

There are several ways to "mask" memory, including interline transfer sensors. It should not be necessary to "clear the sensor" with a separate action just prior to the shot, unless the sensor is employed in a live-view mode, as in a P&S camera. It is sufficient to keep it in an idle state.

Most current DSLRs and all MFD cameras control the exposure with the mechanical shutter only. The back is armed before the shutter is opened, then disarmed and the data read into memory after the shutter is closed.

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

Dyes in color film and Bayer arrays are rightfully designed to cover the visible spectrum reasonably evenly. The human eye is a poor model, since the dyes which impart color vision are unevenly distributed (emphasis on red/green)

The human eye is a poor model, since the dyes which impart color vision are unevenly distributed (emphasis on red/green)

That's the quantity of elements, and has nothing to do with spectral responses.

I refer to the dyes which the human eye uses to respond to color, not the relative quantity of sensitive cells (



). The properties of the dyes which permit color vision is a matter of chemistry, not perception.

Actually, it would be correct to say that a digital camera's dyes cover a significantly larger-than-visible spectrum evenly. But when you multiply them by the sensor response curve (the black line) and, more importantly, the hot mirror IR-UV blocking filter (purple curve), you are back to a pretty close match for the human RGB spectral response. (the red curve would have a much lower peak when multiplied with the the hot mirror response curve, while green remains largely unaffected. When you scale the red curve back up to a height higher than green, the crossover point would move much further to the left, much like the human green-red response crossover.

http://surrealcolor.110mb.com/IR_explained_web/IR_explained.htm

Dyes in color sensors, when taking overall sensor and hot mirror response into account , are "rightfully designed" to cover the visible spectrum in pretty much the same way the human eye covers it , because doing it any other way would cause the sensor to see differences in color between two objects when the human eye doesn't, and sameness in color when humans see differently (ie failure of observer metamerism).

Taking the simplest example, one object has monochromatic spectral response at the crossover point of the human red and green response curves, while another object has two spectral peaks at the red and green human response peaks respectively. The human eye would see the two objects as the same shade of yellow. If the overall red-green crossover point of a digital sensor were any different from that of the humans, it would show the monochromatic object as a greener or redder shade of yellow than the duo-spectral-peak object.

Simple really.