Re: Canon domination?

"Scott W" <biphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1138835611.856781.29220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:
: Now don't think I am trying to demand proof of you algorithm's
: worth, I simply with to point out you have never once demonstrated it
: to the group.  You seem intent on wanting people to believe in your
: system but when people has asked for a reasonable tests you have
: countered that you don't need to prove anything.
:
: The photo of the photo you link to is 385 pixels in length.  From all
: we can tell from your link that photo could have been taken with a cell
: phone.
:
------------------------------
This is old turf Scott.
Let me put it in plain English so you can understand and stop this foolish 
badgering for "evidence" more than a few mathematicians would like to have 
so they can discover my method and make some money from my effort - which of 
course I'll never let them do.

Photographs are not electronic facsimiles on your computer screen. What you 
are looking at is a television image. Think of it as you would the crash 
scene from an automobile accident on the news.

I have substantiated my work many times to members of this very group by 
posting them (at my own expense) photos I have interpolated up and printed, 
right along with the original file. What more substantiation do you need? 
Ask Alan Browne if he saw an enlargement last year. Ask Gordon Moat. He 
wrote a whole thesis on the subject after seeing my enlargements. 
http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html

If you get really desperate, Send an Email to the Managing editor of Rural 
Press in Cleveland Queensland Australia (publisher of more newspapers and 
magazines in Rural Australia than you can count on your pinkies) and ask him 
what he thinks of that picture. They paid for it, they frequently order big 
prints, they must be happy. They employ award winning, highly qualified 
photographers who all think it's great and give me their work to enlarge 
too. Or are you like the troll who steals my pictures, spies on me behind my 
back and stalks me whenever I post a reference to big prints?... Can't 
accept the weight of numbers? 


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: scanning vs. digicams
    ... > Scott W wrote: ... >> Roger N. Clark wrote: ... The people were all moving and all pretty ... That photo is at 1/2 scale of the original, to make it a bit easier to ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Canon domination?
    ... >> The photo of the photo you link to is 385 pixels in length. ... > This is old turf Scott. ... Clearly you didn't need the 8fps of the Mark II, ... you'd be crazy to waste your money on high end bodies... ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: NOT SHOT WITH A D20!
    ... Chris Loffredo wrote: ... > Scott W wrote: ... >> I could be a very nice photo but it is way over compressed. ... digital cameras have the magic "underwater landscape" programme ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Anyone still shoot film?
    ... No.  It's a *composite* photo from the 50D which you have made out of stitched ... Hey Scott, have you ever tried shooting that scene as Noons suggests ... Here is a crop from the single shot compared to a stitched image ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Anyone still shoot film?
    ... I know what a 15Mp dslr can do, Scott: ... Clearly the photo was much sharper then he thought a 50D could do, ... you have posted stitched downsized composites before without indicating that. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)