600,000+ people judge Best Smartphone Camera - 2022

[Alan Browne]

Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.

Cameras are not named - photos have an id.

Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 22.12.22 um 18:29 schrieb Alan Browne:

>
> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>
> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>
> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>

Cool.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 22.12.22 um 18:40 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:

And the results are very robust and relevant.

[badgolferman]

Alan Browne wrote:

>
>Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>
>Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>
>Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee

If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
quality would be near the bottom. But that's just me, I know many
people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.

[Bodger]

I used to be of the same opinion but recently I've come around. On my
October hiking trip in Wales I left behind my normal set of Canon photo
stuff (which I had whittled down to a small subset of my former selections)
and used a combination of my Pixel 6 Pro, Insta 360 action camera and my
DJI Mini 3 Pro drone. Most likely all of them together with their
accessories weighed less than the Canon stuff and I had a lot more options.
The Pixel takes great pictures in all sorts of conditions and didn't let me
down once. I've had a couple of the Pixel images blown up to 16X20, albeit
on "canvas" which tends to hide minor flaws, and there is nothing to
complain about.

And thinking of it, I can't remember ever taking a selfie unless you
include a couple of photos to let me see a major gash on the back of my
head taken to convince myself to go and get stitched up.

[Bob Campbell]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> “Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
> danger to American democracy.”

> - J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16

>- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

Great. This genius was a judge and thinks that “America is a democracy”.
🙄

The U.S. is a Republic. There IS a difference. Read the constitution if
you don’t know the difference.

I don’t give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians
who have no GD clue what they are talking about.

[nospam]

In article <86GdnWv_uIP0Yjn-...@supernews.com>, Bob
Campbell <nu...@none.none> wrote:

> > łDonald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present

> > danger to American democracy.˛
>
> > - J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
>
> >- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
> > committee
>

> Great. This genius was a judge and thinks that łAmerica is a democracy˛.
> ?

he's correct.

> The U.S. is a Republic. There IS a difference. Read the constitution if

> you donąt know the difference.

<https://www.dictionary.com/e/democracy-vs-republic/>
So, is the United States a democracy or republic?
For all practical purposes, itąs both. In everyday speech and
writing, you can safely refer to the US as a democracy or a republic.
If you want or need to be more precise in referring to the system of
the US, you can accurately call it a representative democracy. And
should you need to be exacting? The US can be called a federal
presidential constitutional republic or a constitutional federal
representative democracy.

> I donąt give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians

> who have no GD clue what they are talking about.

that would be all of them.

[geoff]

On 23/12/2022 6:29 am, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>
> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>
> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>

Very interesting is the variation in exposure for his skin tone, some
extremely unable to figure a correct exposure for it, or overall with
his facial presence throw the rest of the frame out.

Most annoying is his saying of 2x ( and 3x etc) as "2 ex" rather than "2
times" !

geoff

[Chris Schram]

On 2022-12-23, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> I donšt give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians

>> who have no GD clue what they are talking about.
>
> that would be all of them.

This is the kind of stupid off topic bullshitt talk that belongs on an
apple iphone newsgroup. not android.

go away.

[Alan]

"democracy" has a technical meaning and general usage...

...and in general usage, the US is a democracy.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 23.12.22 um 02:07 schrieb Bob Campbell:

> The U.S. is a Republic. There IS a difference. Read the constitution if
> you don’t know the difference.
>
> I don’t give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians
> who have no GD clue what they are talking about.

Only you have ...
*ROTFLSTC*

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-12-22 20:07, Bob Campbell wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> “Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
>> danger to American democracy.”
>
>> - J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
>
>> - Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
> committee
>
> Great. This genius was a judge and thinks that “America is a democracy”.
> 🙄

Your struggle with grammar proves America should focus more on
education. This is no surprise.

--

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-12-22 22:11, geoff wrote:
> On 23/12/2022 6:29 am, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>
>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>
>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>
>
>
> Very interesting is the variation in exposure for his skin tone, some
> extremely unable to figure a correct exposure for it, or overall with
> his facial presence throw the rest of the frame out.

He didn't go into settings, I suspect they just let the camera do its
default Point and Shoot to see how it would evaluate the scene.

Some cameras may default to a brighter/darker exposure and that was
somewhat the point of the overall test...

> Most annoying is his saying of 2x ( and 3x etc) as "2 ex" rather than "2
> times" !

Those young whippersnappers!

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-12-22 23:05, Chris Schram wrote:

>> Bob Campbell wrote:
>>> I donšt give a damn about Trump. But I am VERY annoyed at U.S. politicians
>>> who have no GD clue what they are talking about.

> This is the kind of stupid off topic bullshitt talk that belongs on an
> apple iphone newsgroup. not android.

Yes, Bob Campbell really stepped on his own crank with this one.
Needs grammar lessons too.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present

[sms]

Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
cameras, camera quality is important for many users.

Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my wife's
phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking so much
time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very little
over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten much older.

It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
taking a picture of something.

[RichA]

On Thursday, 22 December 2022 at 12:29:51 UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>
> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>
> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee

They all suck.

[Alan Browne]

Actually they don't. Considering the portability and rapid usability,
the majority are very good indeed.

And as Yousuf Karsh used to say:

"Better the camera you have with you than the camera you don't."

[sticks]

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 18:54:51 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my wife's
>phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking so much
>time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very little
>over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten much older.

*Much* older? My guess was that you were only 40+ years older. <g>

[Your Name]

On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>
>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>
>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>
>>
>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>
> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.

Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now simply
a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they don't
really need.

> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten
> much older.
>
> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
> taking a picture of something.

"a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.

[Alan]

On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>
>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>
>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>
>>>
>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>>
>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
>> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>
> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
> pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
> the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now simply
> a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they don't
> really need.

Utterly wrong.

A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that is
too far away to fill the frame.

>
>
>
>
>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
>> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
>> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have
>> gotten much older.
>>
>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>> taking a picture of something.
>
> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
> using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.

What a limited life you've chosen.

[Your Name]

On 2023-01-03 21:41:50 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>
>>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on, camera
>>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>>>
>>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
>>> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>>
>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
>> pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
>> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
>> the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now simply
>> a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they don't
>> really need.
>
> Utterly wrong.
>
> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
> is too far away to fill the frame.

Most phone and proper cameras already have some degree of physical
zoom, especially these these days (the software zoom is rather
pointless sinc it only guesses what the missing pixels should be).

>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
>>> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
>>> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten
>>> much older.
>>>
>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>>> taking a picture of something.
>>
>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
>> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
>> using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.
>
> What a limited life you've chosen.

Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of anything.

[Alan]

Again, utterly wrong.

Let us posit three phones.

One with a 640x480 and no optical zoom.

One with 640x480 and a 2x optical zoom

And one with a modern phone's 8064x6048 pixel sensor with no optical zoom.

And let us imagine that we are interested in taking a picture of
something that only occupies a small 100x100 are of the first phone's
sensor.

On the 2x optical zoom camera, you've now got an image with 200x200 pixels

But on the modern phone's sensor, you get an image with 1,260x1,260 pixels.

>>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>>>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was
>>>> taking so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have
>>>> changed very little over the 40+ years we've been going there,
>>>> though we have gotten much older.
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>>>> taking a picture of something.
>>>
>>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
>>> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone
>>> else using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.
>>
>> What a limited life you've chosen.
>
> Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of anything.

So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
clarity...

...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
accomplished artist in drawing and painting?

[Your Name]

<snip>

Oh dear, here we go yet again ... since when did "most" suddenly get
redefined to mean "all". :-\

>
>
>>>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>>>>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
>>>>> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
>>>>> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten
>>>>> much older.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>>>>> taking a picture of something.
>>>>
>>>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
>>>> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
>>>> using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.
>>>
>>> What a limited life you've chosen.
>>
>> Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of anything.
>
> So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter clarity...

There is nothing I need or want to remember.

> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
> accomplished artist in drawing and painting?

There's also nothing I need or want to "share" with anyone else.

That's a major silliness of the Instagram generation ... nobody gives a
flying crap what you are having for lunch, let alone wants you to share
a photo of it with them. :-\

[Alan]

I was making a point by exaggeration.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>>>>>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was
>>>>>> taking so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have
>>>>>> changed very little over the 40+ years we've been going there,
>>>>>> though we have gotten much older.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day
>>>>>> without taking a picture of something.
>>>>>
>>>>> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in
>>>>> my entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for
>>>>> someone else using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo
>>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>> What a limited life you've chosen.
>>>
>>> Nope. Simply no reason or need to take a photo of anything.
>>
>> So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>> clarity...
>
> There is nothing I need or want to remember.
>
>
>
>> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
>> accomplished artist in drawing and painting?
>
> There's also nothing I need or want to "share" with anyone else.
>
> That's a major silliness of the Instagram generation ... nobody gives a
> flying crap what you are having for lunch, let alone wants you to share
> a photo of it with them.  :-\

'since when did "most" suddenly get redefined to mean "all".'

Or is that too subtle for you?

[farter]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:34:20 +1100, Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> wrote:

> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>> Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>> Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>> If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on,
>>> camera
>>> quality would be near the bottom. But that's just me, I know many
>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>> Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and shoot
>> cameras, camera quality is important for many users.

> Picture quality is important.

And that involves a lot more than just the pixel count.

> The ability to take a photo with so many pixels that you could
> professional print the image as a full-size advertising billboard, not
> really. The 'megapixel' count went way past the usefulness range for the
> average person years ago and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con
> people into buying a new device they don't really need.
>
>
>
>
>> Just returned from four days in Yosemite. I was ready to throw my
>> wife's phone into the Merced River since her picture-taking was taking
>> so much time. Those giant trees and those big rocks have changed very
>> little over the 40+ years we've been going there, though we have gotten
>> much older.
>> It's hard to believe that most people used to go a whole day without
>> taking a picture of something.
>
> "a whole day" ... I've never taken a personal photo of anything in my
> entire life. The only times I've taken any photo would for someone else
> using their camera / phone so they can be in the photo too.

Just because you never use any tech, so fucking what ?

[Alan]

On 2023-01-03 16:58, farter wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:34:20 +1100, Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/2022 8:54 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2022 10:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Video explains the test and ranking method clearly.
>>>>>  Cameras are not named - photos have an id.
>>>>>  Subjective (vote on best looking photo - not pixel peeking).
>>>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdjmGimh04&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee
>>>>   If there was a list of features on a smartphone I could vote on,
>>>> camera
>>>> quality would be near the bottom.  But that's just me, I know many
>>>> people are more concerned about selfies than functionality.
>>>  Since smartphones have largely replaced consumer-grade point and
>>> shoot cameras, camera quality is important for many users.
>
>> Picture quality is important.
>
> And that involves a lot more than just the pixel count.

But without pixel count, there would be no quality at all.

I'm sorry, but everything else being equal, more pixels are better than
fewer pixels.

Period.

[Your Name]

Where did I say "most" or "all"??

Why is reading comprehension so dismally dire these days?? :-(

[Alan]

Unaddressed.

You were implicitly making that point, sunshine.

By assuming that all photos that one might take are you "having lunch".

[chop]

Not even possible.

[farter]

Pathetic.

> I'm sorry,

Liar.

> but everything else being equal,

It never is.

> more pixels are better than fewer pixels.

That's bullshit too.

> Period.

Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it;

[Alan]

Which would be my point.

We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them with
perfect clarity.

I lost my brother to cancer in 2021 and I am so grateful that he and his
wife took photos and videos of so many wonderful times we shared.

[chop]

Nope.

> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them with
> perfect clarity.

But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
managed with one of my trees.

> I lost my brother to cancer in 2021 and I am so grateful that he and his
> wife took photos and videos of so many wonderful times we shared.

But that isnt even possible with many unexpected memorable details of your
life.

[Alan]

Yup.

>
>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>> with perfect clarity.
>
> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
> managed with one of my trees.

And I never claimed it was, so...?

>
>> I lost my brother to cancer in 2021 and I am so grateful that he and
>> his wife took photos and videos of so many wonderful times we shared.
>
> But that isnt even possible with many unexpected memorable details of
> your life.

And?

Does that mean that one shouldn't take images of the moments you can
capture?

[chop]

Nope.

>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>>> with perfect clarity.

>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of
>> EVERY MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously
>> with the very unexpected events like one of the kids falling out
>> of a tree with a ruler in her mouth like one of the neighbours
>> managed with one of my trees.

> And I never claimed it was, so...?

So your original was wrong with its EVERY.

>>> I lost my brother to cancer in 2021 and I am so grateful that he and
>>> his wife took photos and videos of so many wonderful times we shared.
>> But that isnt even possible with many unexpected memorable details of
>> your life.

> And?

So your original was wrong with its EVERY.

> Does that mean that one shouldn't take images of the moments you can
> capture?

Nope, JUST that your original was wrong with its EVERY.

[Alan]

Again: your failure is one of reading for comprehension.

I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect clarity.

Quoting myself here:

'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
clarity...

...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an

accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'

That is one sentence...

...divided for effect...

...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?

I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take a
photo of what was happening in his life.

[Your Name]

It was just one example you braindeead twat ... another argumentative
moron meets the killfile. :-\

[Alan]

But you used that "one example" as a reason to NEVER TAKE A PICTURE OF
ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR LIFE.

[chop]

We'll see...

> I never claimed that anyone remembers every moment with perfect clarity.

But you did use the word EVERY when that isn't even possible.

> Quoting myself here:

> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
> clarity...

Not even possible given your EVERY.

> ...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
> accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'

> That is one sentence...

Which used the word EVERY.

> ...divided for effect...
>
> ...which ends in a QUESTION MARK?
>
> I was asking the previous poster why he felt no need to EVER take a
> photo of what was happening in his life.

But stuffed up when you used the word EVERY.

[Alan]

It's a rhetorical device, you ignoramus.

Posing an impossibility as a question.

[Jolly Roger]

Pointless absolutism aside, something is better than nothing.

Also, never say "never":

<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/?ref_=ttep_ep3>

: )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[chop]

Bullshit, you bullshit artist.

> Posing an impossibility as a question.

It wasn't even a question.

[chop]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:58:48 +1100, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2023-01-04, chop <cho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:26:16 +1100, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-04 00:40, chop wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 10:02:32 +1100, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>>>>> clarity...
>>
>>>> Not even possible.
>>
>>> Which would be my point.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> We take photos of things in our lives BECAUSE we can't recall them
>>> with perfect clarity.
>>
>> But it is never going to be possible to take a photo or video of EVERY
>> MEMORABLE DETAIL OF YOUR LIFE, most obviously with the very unexpected
>> events like one of the kids falling out of a tree with a ruler in her
>> mouth like one of the neighbours managed with one of my trees.

> Pointless absolutism aside, something is better than nothing.

Your Name feels otherwise.

> Also, never say "never":

NEVER.

[Alan]

Nope.

>
>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>
> It wasn't even a question.

Really?

You didn't see the question mark?

And the end of:

'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
clarity, and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also

an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'

Hmmm?

You really can't see it there?

Are your eyes defective?

Or is it your brain?

:-)

[chop]

Yep.

>>> Posing an impossibility as a question.
>> It wasn't even a question.

> Really?

Yep.

> You didn't see the question mark?

There is no question mark in the original, you pathetic excuse for a
bullshit artist.

> And the end of:

> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
> clarity, and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also
> an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'

Says he flagrantly dishonestly adding one now.

> Hmmm?

Humming isnt going to save your bacon,
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

[Alan]

You're a liar or simply too stupid to understand what a question mark
looks like.

Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it appeared:

'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
clarity...

...and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're also an
accomplished artist in drawing and painting?

And here's the message-ID:

<tp2c68$27t1f$3...@dont-email.me>

Now... ...do you still want to stick with your claim?

>
>> And the end of:
>
>> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
>> clarity, and you can share them with anyone you wish because you're
>> also an accomplished artist in drawing and painting?'
>
> Says he flagrantly dishonestly adding one now.

Bzzzzt.

You're not important enough to ever make me tell a lie.

[chop]

We'll see...

> Here is the precise text of the first post, precisely as it appeared:
>
> 'So you every memorable detail of your life is remembered with utter
> clarity...

So no question mark, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

[Alan]

So you snipped the last half of that sentence...

...didn't you?

[Rod Speed]

Nope, what I snipped was a new sentence, stupid.

[Alan]

Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?

[chop]

Irrelevant to your stupidity.

[Alan]

Relevant to your credibility.

[chop]

[Alan]

On 2023-01-04 19:38, chop wrote:

>>>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>>>  Irrelevant to your stupidity.
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

Yeah... ...you've lost.

Now try to be a man about it.

[Rod Speed]

[Alan]

So you can't handle what a 2 year old could handle.

Got it!

[chop]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

[Alan]

You couldn't make your losing more clear, loser.

[chop]

[Alan]

Go ahead.

Lose harder if you must.

[chop]

[Alan]

We get it:

You're a loser and that is literally your cleverest line.

[chop]

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-01-03 16:41, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:

>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
>> pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
>> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
>> the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now
>> simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they
>> don't really need.
>
>
> Utterly wrong.
>
> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that is
> too far away to fill the frame.

Only if the optics are up to it.

Not to mention that high pixel density means lower signal/noise at each
pixel.

Why, generally, professional photographers use higher end cameras, often
full frame (lower pixel density) with high end optics.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

[Alan]

On 2023-01-06 12:47, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 16:41, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>
>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so
>>> many pixels that you could professional print the image as a
>>> full-size advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count
>>> went way past the usefulness range for the average person years ago
>>> and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new
>>> device they don't really need.
>>
>>
>> Utterly wrong.
>>
>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
>> is too far away to fill the frame.
>
> Only if the optics are up to it.

Well that's blindly obvious.

>
> Not to mention that high pixel density means lower signal/noise at each
> pixel.

Perhaps, but you imagine that there aren't continual improvements in
this area?

>
> Why, generally, professional photographers use higher end cameras, often
> full frame (lower pixel density) with high end optics.

That last isn't even a parseable sentence.

But the argument you're advancing remains specious.

By your argument, you should use a 4x3 pixel sensor.

Each pixel can therefore be exquisite, right?

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-01-06 16:10, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-06 12:47, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-01-03 16:41, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so
>>>> many pixels that you could professional print the image as a
>>>> full-size advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count
>>>> went way past the usefulness range for the average person years ago
>>>> and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a
>>>> new device they don't really need.
>>>
>>>
>>> Utterly wrong.
>>>
>>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
>>> is too far away to fill the frame.
>>
>> Only if the optics are up to it.
>
> Well that's blindly obvious.
>
>>
>> Not to mention that high pixel density means lower signal/noise at
>> each pixel.
>
> Perhaps, but you imagine that there aren't continual improvements in
> this area?
>
>>
>> Why, generally, professional photographers use higher end cameras,
>> often full frame (lower pixel density) with high end optics.
>
> That last isn't even a parseable sentence.

For lower IQ's, you're possibly right.

>
> But the argument you're advancing remains specious.
>
> By your argument, you should use a 4x3 pixel sensor.

Not at all what I said. That you're dragging it somewhere else seems to
be par for you.

>
> Each pixel can therefore be exquisite, right?

Only you would contort things that way.