http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital Digital cameras, scanners, printers, software, PhotoCD. 2008-09-06T23:01:14Z Google Groups Wolfgang Weisselberg ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com 2008-09-06T22:59:06Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/7f98b6fd2b90c871?show_docid=7f98b6fd2b90c871

Because it's a really easy format to completely support? <br> -Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com 2008-09-06T23:01:14Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/706c09a42099867b?show_docid=706c09a42099867b

Yes, they collect light into exactly one pixel, not spreading it <br> over more than one. <br> -Wolfgang

Alan Browne alan.bro...@freelunchvideotron.ca 2008-09-06T22:55:49Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/0b1988c90adaee22?show_docid=0b1988c90adaee22

I have no qualms with DNG, though I'm not sure that your statement, <br> Paul, will prove to be perfectly true. <br> It is well known that Adobe are licensing DNG free of charge to all <br> comers. Further, they have started an ISO standards process for it with <br> industry participation. Should take a year or two to get in place.

Alan Browne alan.bro...@freelunchvideotron.ca 2008-09-06T22:50:38Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/e5304a6caf7b0bb5?show_docid=e5304a6caf7b0bb5

You've been defending AA as not causing loss of sharpness, that being <br> true, then the statement I said above is a reasonable assumption. If <br> wrong it makes me bad at assumptions, but not a liar. <br> Cool yer jets. Any more of this and you'll have a nosebleed.

Paul Furman pa...@-edgehill.net 2008-09-06T22:05:12Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/6953a1936a1285df?show_docid=6953a1936a1285df

No, dng should be the first format that other converters keep up to date.

ray r...@zianet.com 2008-09-06T22:01:42Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/4f2dfdfa4b1e2052/1485709899c55d8a?show_docid=1485709899c55d8a

Ron - if you'll read some of the other posts in the thread, you'll find <br> that the printer is not hooked up to a computer - that's the crux of the <br> OP's problem.

James Silverton not.jim.silver...@verizon.not 2008-09-06T21:44:34Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/6bb69917940cb04c/7b86c158ecae4413?show_docid=7b86c158ecae4413

Shawn wrote on Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:38:27 -0400: <br> I don't intend to be sarcastic but &quot;hybrid&quot; is a new term for me if it <br> describes a non-mirror digital slr. Has it been generally accepted? <br> There is a not very active r.p.d.zlr group that seems to cover them but <br> I would have thought that the existing r.p.d.slr-systems would be

prk60091 prk60...@gmail.com 2008-09-06T21:34:58Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b198f081e2ce8469/5a3e56e5ebced87e?show_docid=5a3e56e5ebced87e

<a target="_blank" rel=nofollow href="http://snipurl.com/3nqaf">[link]</a>

Ray Fischer rfisc...@sonic.net 2008-09-06T20:43:24Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/c5134f6b95775667?show_docid=c5134f6b95775667

The proof is above, asshole. You made a claim about me that is <br> transparently untrue. That makes you a liar.

Shawn Hirn s...@comcast.net 2008-09-06T20:38:27Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/6bb69917940cb04c/3ec9093802be35ad?show_docid=3ec9093802be35ad

In article &lt;h4v4c45b9bf1an417rv50js6n2beg 8i...@4ax.com&gt;, <br> Sure. Check out the camera reviews on <a target="_blank" rel=nofollow href="http://www.dpreview.com">[link]</a>

Alan Browne alan.bro...@freelunchvideotron.ca 2008-09-06T19:37:19Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/5f64b9007633ad50?show_docid=5f64b9007633ad50

I certainly am not. <br> OTOH you snip out what is damaging to your case because it shows you for <br> what you are. Half informed and half ignorant. Nasty combination that.

Ray Fischer rfisc...@sonic.net 2008-09-06T19:05:11Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/e0029017706fba0d?show_docid=e0029017706fba0d

I did. You're a liar.

Ray Fischer rfisc...@sonic.net 2008-09-06T19:04:43Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/8f812dd94da747be?show_docid=8f812dd94da747be

Is there some reason why microlenses don't do anti-aliasing? <br> Yep.

Ray Fischer rfisc...@sonic.net 2008-09-06T19:03:21Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/ecde927ba487695e/04b745bc85373fb8?show_docid=04b745bc85373fb8

That wouldn't be an anti-aliasing operation. <br> Here's a visual example. The 'X' marks a sensor and a '.' is a <br> non-sensor area of the chip. Remeber that a tiny image falls upon <br> each one of the areas represented by the characters. <br> ............ <br> .X..X..X..X. <br> ............ <br> Any image falling on a '.' is lost. So what? If you have a pattern

Allodoxaphobia bit-buc...@config.com 2008-09-06T17:14:08Z http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/db82050aa92a50cd/ca51332217a030cd?show_docid=ca51332217a030cd

One might have, if one was pretending to offer useful help, be <br> constructive, concise, and complete.