Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. Here's where f-stops says he switched the post processing off and fixed
    the problem:

    .... and here is a few posts down where he realised it didn't fix it
    after all:

    The in-camera post processing just exaggerates an underlying problem.
    Switching post processing off removes the exaggeration, but the problem

    There is no user selectable fix to this problem at the moment, but some
    reps indicate Canon are aware of the issue and Chuck Westfall says there
    will be an official announcement soon in his replies to Phil T and JK
    Kennedy McEwen, Dec 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    I very rarely see different fonts on usenet, not in this case. My email
    sees html and asks if I want to reply in plain text (I almost always say
    yes unless a table depends on it).

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Dec 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Please send a screen shot of the HTML you saw, I don't see

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 19, 2008
  4. This subject was dead and buried long ago. If you really want to learn,
    look at the Headers.
    John McWilliams, Dec 20, 2008
  5. Short attention span?
    I looked at the headers.
    Worse, I happen to understand them.

    Alan or you misreading "text/plain" for "text/html" doesn't make
    a posting HTML.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 20, 2008
  6. Like reviving old stuff just to be contentious?
    Not very well.
    By your definition. Look at the Headers again. Closely.

    Now, in case you missed reading all of the thread, there weren't any
    other elements of html in the posting Alan objected to.
    John McWilliams, Dec 20, 2008
  7. Only when someone lashes out for HTML when there is none.
    My employer (who lives and breathes Internet) respectfully
    No HTML there. No HTML-like <tags> there that aren't proscribed
    anyway. No content type saying "text/html" or anything close to
    that in meaning.

    If you think format=flowed is in any way HTML, you really need
    to reread the relevant RFCs, lest you be calling a 5x zoom P&S a
    "medium format camera", since a 5x zoom is in some ways a medium
    range zoom.
    None and not any other still is none.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 20, 2008
  8. You might I didn't lash out, and was explaining why the header might
    have caused someone (in this case Alan) to think it was an html posting.
    No, but said tag causes some news clients to believe it's going to be html.
    No, but said tag causes some clients to believe it's going to be html,
    but I wasn't commenting on standards, or clients that break standards.
    All I said was that the header caused some news clients to freak out.
    Nothing about what was good, bad or indifferent, or within or without
    FRCs etc.
    John McWilliams, Dec 21, 2008
  9. YOU might (notice) I didn't reply to you, but to Alan. Twas you
    who replied first to me. Twas you who called 10 days "long ago".
    If someone had mistaken a camera with a long lens for a hammer
    and had blasted people for not using it as a hammer, would you
    argue that the shape might have caused someone to think it was
    a hammer, tell me to look closely "if I really wanted to
    learn" and condescendingly tell me I didn't understand
    hammers or cameras very well?

    Would you?

    So why *do* you act that way?

    Even Outlook Express, which is as far from a NUA (News User Agent)
    as possible, allows you to look at the plain source of the message.

    Sure, and "give way" causes some car drivers to believe they've
    got right of way. Said header line[1] says plainly: "text/plain",
    not "text/html". How much clearer can one be?
    You are responsible for what your car hits when you drive it,
    You are responsible for what happens if you let your brakes wear out,
    you are responsible for what access you block when you park your car,
    you are responsible for the results if you let drunks drive your car.

    Why again should you not be responsible for any idioticy you
    and your NUA commit?

    So if you choose to use a pile of crap for a NUA, you are excused?
    If you choose to drive an unsave car ...


    [1] And yes, it's a single line, logically, it's just folded.
    Look up the relevant RFCs if you don't believe me.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 21, 2008
  10. Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    as that the header caused some news clients to freak out.
    Your arguments are spurious and shallow. I wasn't commenting on my
    newsreader, which had no problem, nor did I have a problem with the OP
    in any way. It was you blathering on in ignorance and arrogance on a
    dead thread.

    Try to reply to threads that haven't been fully vetted!

    And my car, ironically Germanic in origin, is very safe indeed. And it
    was Saved, also, at a revival meeting down by the Bay just last week.
    John McWilliams, Dec 22, 2008
  11. Thank you for making it clear that you jumped on me because you
    don't believe in personal responsibility for ones actions.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 22, 2008
  12. Now you are way off track. I am critical of your not reading what's been
    written, then posting to a dead thread just to re-start contention.

    What really was your purpose in repeating what had already been covered
    days before?
    John McWilliams, Dec 22, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.