Sony's FF is small!! Apparently

Discussion in 'Sony' started by RichA, Sep 5, 2008.

  1. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Nope, you're the one that screwed up. As you were the one to in
    effect say, "you're wrong but I won't say why", you have no legs to
    stand on, making it difficult to walk the blowhard path. Speaking
    of getting on with life, I'd like to suggest that it's time for you
    to grow up and end the juvenile dpi/ppi/points pica slinging, but
    it's pointless as if not this, it'll be somethine else, as you seem
    to be here mainly to argue, insult, and like our resident Alaskan,
    play the 'know it all' troll.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 11, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Hanz Guest

    Rumour has it that Zeiss will release a 'ZE' series of lenses this
    month, with 'E' perhaps for EOS.
    More speculation on http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/forum/topic/683378

    -- Hans
     
    Hanz, Sep 11, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Because the short edge wouldn't be 4032 pixels wide. From your
    earlier message :
    4x1,333 and 6x1,333 gives you 5333x8000 (rounded) pixels to deal
    with, so the short edge would be 5333 pixels wide, not 4,032. This
    is easily handled by a 20" wide printer but too wide for a 17"
    printer when printed at 300dpi.

    Yes, that would work if the image was only 4,000 pixels wide on
    the short edge, but your calculations are still based on too few
    pixels. Try printing 5333x8000 at 252 dpi and a bit more than 21"
    would be needed, so the 17" wide printer wouldn't be able to cope
    unless the dpi was 314 or greater.

    The only BS that's being spread is more of your own. Almost
    everyone knows what "don't get it" means and it's not the same as
    "don't go there". You didn't get it then, you don't get it now, and
    you're now trying to redefine what you meant since you've just
    demonstrated that you really *didn't* get it after all. Do go on,
    (and I know that you will).
     
    ASAAR, Sep 12, 2008
    #23
  4. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    There's your imaging problem rearing its ugly head again. You
    churlishly insist on using 4,032 pixels when I told you that I was
    using a greater number of pixels for the short edge (5,333). This
    was based on your quote from wired-gadgets :
    Do you need any help at multiplication or is it just that you
    can't admit error? I'll help anyway. 4x1,333 == 5,332 (5,333)
    I've repeatedly made clear where my numbers came from but I don't
    recall seeing anything from you identifying where you got 4,032.
    Reasonable people carrying on reasonable discussions might have
    tried to resolve this discrepancy, but as usual, your first and only
    response is to insult and attack. "Do go on."

    Glad to. I'll let you twist and turn your way back to your bridge
    (some might prefer to say slither) to wait for the next innocent
    passerby to insult/attack. As you aren't known for letting up, we
    can infer that this is how you've chosen to spin your way out of an
    indefensible lost cause.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 13, 2008
    #24
    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.