Hi Peter, > Of all people I would not expect to be called Gary Larson by you.
I didn't CALL you Gary Larson, the disconnect reminded me of a well known Gary Larson cartoon, where there is a blackboard in the cartoon with a whole bunch of formulas and at the end a result...but between the formulas and the result it says "and then a miracle happens". I'm only emphasizing the disconnect we have here. > I am not making any leap and I will have to say that no I am > right and you are wrong. Even if you are right...you're not explaining your self sufficiently to show that you are right IMO. The explanations I've given are correct (and others have confirmed this as well), so the only thing that can be at odds here is what the premises we are going by are (or some basic misunderstanding of physics/operation), and I've clearly stated my premises and you haven't said yours are any different... I do not mind being wrong, but you haven't shown me to be wrong, and again, what I've outlined is correct, so if you are right, where is the disconnect? There is not enough information in your explanations to determine that. > If more pixels cover a face, then when > you enlarge than image you will have more detail on that face. Absolutely, no one has ever disputed that...but that premise..."IF more pixels cover a face" is where the leap seems to be. Two images identically framed, one with a 12MP one with a 10MP, that somehow the 10MP has higher pixel density for the same "part" of the image doesn't fly. What you said is: "we take the same exact image of a group of people" and I've explained my understanding of that statement in detail, and cited physical examples. And more pixels do not cover the face if it is the "same exact image". It becomes a matter of pure number of pixels, and has nothing to do with sensor size. So, the explanation that is missing is how do you get the sensor with the smaller number of pixels to have higher pixel density in two "exact same image[s]"? The only way to get two "exact same image[s]" is to use differing focal lengths or different shooting positions so the two images are the "exact same images". > Yes I know you are an engineer for hire, so what. That does not > mean your right all the time. Of course not. And, my expertise has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but the ancillary stuff you brought in is stuff that isn't related to the issue at hand...so it wasn't clear why you brought it up. > All I can say is I was trying to be > polite and explain things but you went on and twisted them up and > then turned it around to make your point and minimize what I was > saying. Not very nice Austin. Peter, I haven't twisted anything you've said, and I have been very polite as well. In fact, I have quoted you directly. And, there are others that have chimed in that have the same "confusion" I am having with your statement as well. You may very well be right in what you believe you are trying to say, but what you believe you are saying, and the way I, and others, are reading it, doesn't agree. So, if you can clarify your position by giving some finite set of circumstances, that would certainly help. Regards, Austin * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
