Olympus E-400 released....

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by David J Taylor, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. David J Taylor, Sep 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. David J Taylor

    Pete D Guest

    Probably too conventional for some Oly lovers, looks cute though, would be
    good for travelling I guess but will need to be priced low to compete with
    other new 10MP offerings.
    Pete D, Sep 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. David J Taylor

    Mark B. Guest

    No North America release apparently. That's interesting.

    Mark B., Sep 14, 2006
  4. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    Perhaps the intent of the press release was just to say that the
    E400 has an extremely low noise amplifier circuit. That's easy to
    miss if one is preoccupied with other concerns, such as photon noise
    and fishy(P.I.) statistics.
    ASAAR, Sep 14, 2006
  5. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    Wrong! It can only mean *one* thing if you insist on wearing
    photon filters to channel your thoughts, just as race horses
    sometimes are given blinders to focus their attention on one thing
    only. Photon noise aside, it would be useful to know how noisy the
    amplifiers are in all DSLRs, as well as whether any are sufficiently
    more noisy than the E400's circuit to make an observable difference
    in their image quality.
    ASAAR, Sep 15, 2006
  6. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    You have a severe inability to comprehend. The "Wrong" refers
    only to *one* thing that appeared in *one* message of yours. It has
    absolutely nothing to do with anything that you or anyone else said
    in prior messages. It's probably futile trying to point it out to
    you, but it's only about your saying "can only mean". It did NOT
    say that what you're focusing on is wrong, just that when Olympus
    made reference to their amplifier's "extremely low noise amplifier
    circuit", they were probably talking about the noise contributed by
    the amplifier circuit, NOT by the photon noise that is your
    obsession and which you can't seem to escape.

    You're embarrassing yourself since whatever claim you're referring
    to is a figment of your imagination. I hope that I've given you
    enough to work with to understand what my claim really was.

    Hint: It was not about photon noise or even sensors. Is this so
    hard to understand? At this point, though, if you do understand
    I'll be quite surprised, although it would be a pleasant surprise.
    ASAAR, Sep 15, 2006
  7. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    That pretty much settles it. The word "total" applies here, and
    it's that you're unable to read with comprehension and as a result
    end up resembling a total fool. This discussion has been about my
    attempt to explain that you misunderstood Olympus's statement, one
    which had nothing to do with total system performance. It was ONLY
    about trying to get you to see that Olympus was only hyping their
    amplifier's low noise performance. You're unable to see that they
    weren't referring to the sensor and photon noise because that's
    practically the only thing that you ever want to consider. Whether
    the low noise amplifier does or doesn't provide any true benefit is
    beside the point, but I did ask the useful question about whether
    any other cameras have noisier amplification circuits and whether it
    would make any noticeable difference. You're quite stubborn in
    trying to steer almost every discussion or argument into your pet
    topic of photon noise, not minding that it makes you look foolish.
    People reading your "papers" that lack the technical background to
    completely understand the math and physics contained in them can
    still take from this thread your inability to think and write
    logically, even if they are unable to recognize the poor quality and
    lack of clarity in the papers contained on your "vanity" website.
    ASAAR, Sep 16, 2006
  8. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    Pure rubbish. An accurate description of your M.O. and how it
    must appear to many others is not a personal attack. You're like a
    politician, that when asked a question is determined to avoid
    providing the proper answer, but rambles on, repeating well
    rehearsed lines intended to change a dialog into a safe, protective
    monologue. I understand you all too well.
    ASAAR, Sep 16, 2006
  9. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    That's amusing, to discover that having initiated specious insults
    (some of which I've mentioned) you have a skin so thin that you're
    offended accurate descriptions of yourself:

    True. No matter what the topic is, you almost invariably respond
    as if photon noise was being discussed.

    True again. I've pointed out several examples where you've
    completely misunderstood a point I've made. If it's not true that
    you "can't" understand, then I should have said that you "won't"

    And this isn't also true? This isn't a personal attack, it's a
    description that fits you like a glove. If you feel that it is
    insulting, then get a clue, it describes only you!

    I can understand you not being flattered by this, but it's also
    true. I tried pointing out several examples of ambiguity and lack
    of clarity. As I said before, you curtly acknowledged one example
    of ambiguity and corrected your paper, but didn't deign to agree or
    disagree with any other suggestions, preferring to ignore them. And
    yes, you do have a vanity website. The papers aren't without value,
    but their contents go way beyond the ability of most people in this
    newsgroup (and photographers in general) to understand, yet you
    never make any attempt to determine whether a reader will be able to
    understand anything in the papers before providing the link to them.
    You do it *so* often that one can't help thinking that it's done
    less for clarification and more for self promotion. You may feel
    insulted by my saying this, but it doesn't make it less true.

    And now we can add lying to your resume. I've asked a number of
    questions which you've ignored. Not because they're weren't
    intelligent but because they didn't advance your photon-noise

    I expect that you'll find almost any reply I make to be a personal
    attack. Finding it where it doesn't exist is your problem, not
    mine. But that didn't stop you from once again engaging in the very
    behavior that you're whining about.

    I've read a number of them and don't disagree with this statement
    at all, which you've made a number of times. Far be it for you to
    engage in insulting implications, eh? But you have to realize that
    physics texts contain many more topics than photon noise, and it's
    not the one-size-fits-all answer for every question that you make it
    out to be.
    ASAAR, Sep 16, 2006
  10. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    I'm sure that he is very smart, contributes good information
    (which I've acknowledged several times) and in the right situations
    can be a very nice guy. But he isn't without fault. You're also
    right about there being a number of people here that truly deserve
    the label "fool". This in no way makes him immune from behaving or
    replying foolishly, and he has provided many examples of this.
    What's sad it that if he made a good attempt to explain several of
    his statements here instead of providing a URL to a long, unclear
    overly complex paper, that doesn't directly address the issues
    raised, and if he didn't mischaracterize so many of my own
    statements and ignore pertinent questions, this thread could have
    been much more fruitful, and a good deal shorter.
    ASAAR, Sep 16, 2006
  11. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

    Thanks for pointing out the updated pages - I hadn't seen the updates.
    Indeed the figures on the DoF page do help a lot, although I still think
    that under /typical/ taking circumstances the smaller sensor camera has
    the greater DoF.

    Might I suggest that in:


    figure 7 would be better with a log ISO (horizontal) axis?

    There is something counter-intuitive about figure 3b. The ISO values. If
    I look at a constant exposure in the photon noise-limited region (e.g. "0
    stops"), then for ISO 200 I get a poorer SNR than with ISO 50. Something
    says it should be constant if it's photon-noise limited. Taking a
    lower-light level, e.g. -7 stops, where it is readout limited, you show a
    higher SNR for ISO 100 than for ISO 1600.

    I must be reading this figure incorrectly!

    David J Taylor, Sep 18, 2006
  12. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    OK, so I am mis-interpreting the horizontal axis as "exposure" - thinking
    constant light level for a given "exposure". How should I be thinking of
    the horizontal axis? It seems like maximum "non-clipped" light level (or
    something - perhaps I'm notthinking clearly today!).

    I was comparing the Canon 1D at the two different ISO settings (purple ISO
    100, blue ISO 1600).

    Interesting to see if the "22-bit" ADC in this new Pentax helps a lot. If
    the raw data is still 12-bit that's going to be the limit, I would have
    thought, but perhaps they are compressing the range in the raw data? I've
    not yet read enough to know!

    David J Taylor, Sep 18, 2006
  13. Thanks.

    Yes, it helps a lot, and explains why the X-axis (exposure) stops at +2!
    Perhaps there should be no scale marks past +2?

    Yes, it seems like marketing hype, particularly as I understand the raw
    files are still 12-bit! Why I first saw it, I thought it was misprint for
    "32-bit processing", not "22-bit ADC". I suspect that no ADC working at
    that speed provides 22-bit accuracy. I also look forward to 14-bit and
    higher systems.

    David J Taylor, Sep 19, 2006
  14. David J Taylor

    Stacey Guest

    The problem with people like him is they assume simple math can explain
    everything. It's like the guy who calculates the power an engine should
    make and is shocked when his calculations doesn't pan out on a dyno. About
    half the time, these guys leave out a very critical variable to the "facts"
    they calculate using "simple physics" to explain everything. The other
    issue is like you said, they become SO focused on one small detail they
    can't see the forrest for the trees. As far as his photography being great,
    it looks just like 99% of the other "calender shooters" who are as
    technically minded as he is. Perfect technically but looks like they were
    shot from the same tripod holes that a dozen other people have used.
    Stacey, Sep 25, 2006
  15. David J Taylor

    Stacey Guest

    Given he said his cameras don't fit the model Roger claims is "fact".

    I also agree that this DOF model he posts as fact has a fatal flaw in it
    somewhere from my testing using 4/3 vs larger sensor cameras..
    Stacey, Sep 25, 2006
  16. David J Taylor

    Stacey Guest

    So only the end result or "total system performance" matters when it fits
    your calculations but the actual end results don't matter when it doesn't?
    You can't change the methodology to fit your calculations..
    Stacey, Sep 25, 2006
  17. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    The biggest problem I have with him is his apparent inability to
    *explain* what he claims to have proved. If someone states
    something that he disagrees with, he could say something like
    "here's where you went wrong, you used X when it should have been Y,
    and the reason why X is inadequate is because . . .". But instead,
    he'll just post a URL to a paper that doesn't directly address the
    topic, or say something like "you don't understand basic math and
    physics". Sheesh. If I said that I'd feel the need to provide the
    necessary math and physics that I was talking about in the reply. I
    can't help but feel that even when dealing with the most complex
    topics, if someone can't provide a reasonable explanation in
    relatively simple, or laymen's terms, they probably don't fully
    understand the problem, and they are much more likely to miss minor,
    but important points, or overlook errors in their calculations that
    coincidently just happen to support what they're trying to prove.

    A lesser problem is his repeated avoidance of answering simple,
    reasonable questions that have a real bearing on what is being
    discussed. It reminds me of how a politician can be asked about
    unemployment, only to hear an answer like "I'm glad you asked that
    question" and then go on to filibuster only about how he's helped to
    improve one minor facet of the economy, one that had nothing to do
    with raising or lowering the employment rate.

    The last, and least of the problems that I'll mention is that when
    it's clear that he said something totally wrong because he failed to
    interpret correctly what he had read, and it's pointed out to him,
    instead of acknowledging that, he simply ignores his mistake.
    That's a *very* bad trait to have if one expects their papers to be
    taken seriously. It's traditional for scientists, physicists and
    mathematicians to have their papers not just criticized, but almost
    be "attacked" by their peers. That only helps to validate their
    results if they're left standing when the dust settles. It may not
    be the most pleasant thing in the world to have others disagree with
    his theories or some of what's contained in his papers, but to take
    criticism so personally that he overreacts and lashes out as he has
    been doing recently is very unfortunate. I think by now he almost
    misses having Ilya to kick around. :)
    ASAAR, Sep 25, 2006
  18. I'd like to know that as well, please.

    David J Taylor, Sep 25, 2006
  19. David J Taylor

    ASAAR Guest

    What a load of uh, something or other. I've asked you many
    specific questions. Several of them even pointed out that they had
    been asked several times, with you repeatedly, apparently
    intentionally ignoring them. What I have most certainly NOT said is
    that you've refused to answer any or all questions that anyone has
    asked. When it suits you, and you are able to answer questions that
    don't require backtracking or an apology, well sure, you'll answer
    *those* questions.

    How convenient. I recall that you complained exactly once about
    something I supposedly attributed to you. Evidently you didn't read
    my reply, which pointed out that you obviously misread my statement,
    which quoted what *someone else* had said, not you! As far as
    attacks go, that's a charge you've repeatedly made, and yet as
    anyone reading these threads can plainly see for themselves, the
    so-called "attacks" I've made have been with the substance of your
    arguments or their lack of logic, which have been numerous. You, on
    the other hand, have engaged in a number of "attacks" which have
    been of a more personal nature, ranging from implied, to explicit
    insults and worse.

    Since this reply of yours was made directly to me, and none of the
    quotes were lifted from someone else's quotes of my message, it's
    obvious that you haven't stopped reading my messages/replies. I can
    only conclude that anything that I've said in my own replies that
    you can't agree with or feel threatened by, instead of reading it to
    see if it's of any merit, you simply think "attack - I'd better skip
    this paragraph". Yes, reading those paragraphs would serve no
    useful purpose if it would force you to see what you've been
    studiously avoiding.

    I guess you've also skipped over the compliments I've made. Which
    brings to mind some of the changes you made in response to some of
    the ambiguous content I noted in one of your papers. In the same
    message that noted that ambiguity, I also pointed out other more
    serious problems involving a lack of clarity. Those comments were
    completely ignored, as others have been. I've mentioned this
    before, so perhaps I should have phrased my concerns to you as an
    answer instead of a question, Alex, as you have this uncanny ability
    to avoid seeing my questions. And all this time I thought that you
    were intentionally ignoring them.
    ASAAR, Sep 27, 2006
  20. Many thanks, Roger. That shows the 12-bit ADC limit rather well. It
    raises the question, though, of why the Canon 1D Mark II is actually worse
    at ISO 50 than ISO 100.

    I liked the "photon rain"!

    David J Taylor, Sep 28, 2006
    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.