Wayne Steven wrote:joe12south wrote:You are entitled to your opinion, but this reads like hyperbole. (As a matter of effective debating - when you aggrandize a point, you tend to alienate potential converts to your position.)
I suspect that much of what you consider "detail" is what I would consider errors like false color ringing and aliasing.
No Joe, it's fact and the reality is that calling what some of us have realistically pointed out as wrong 'better', is the hyperbole opinion. It has been from the beginning, and I clocked it as such from the beginning. But as usual, the people who have to try to trump anything that challenges what they WANT in this world have to neurotically double down on it. It will never change the fact simply because it is fact, those parts of the image, for some reason, less match real life in average perception (meaning even without eyeballing it). Now, I admitted it is so peculiarly wrong that maybe there is another explanation for it, but it is still there. Even if it is something else, I will still be pointing out the fact of it being there, and right about it possibly being something else (debating has slipped towards a evil fashion about impressing people that you are right through your power don't matter how wrong you are, not reality, reality is not leaving room to be wrong in your statements. You can call that an opinion, so you can't say that it is completely wrong (as an mere opinion may or may not be. Think about it?).
You have people trying to twist things for themselves, and you have even thrown in a debating technicality to score (which is bad reasoning), its about reality not these opinionated people trying to over ride reality. They are so bad, they think if you don't agree with them you must be at least as bad and coming from their tricks department. Like bully school kids, who just want it their way over reality. If these people can't stick up for reality and learn there is no point for them. However, they gave failed to prove it is entirely false detail, or on average it is worse than Braw, and have not even made sby attempt to show there is any false detail at all in that part of the image, where the Braw example just obviously is not detail. I'm going to examine the focal ain again incsse I am wrong in that way (if the part I am naively examining is meant to be on focus or it was out of focus and some error in sharpening in cdng debayering made it look in focus, but as others point out the Braw samples have the look of something else happening.). Stuff opinion, look into it and figure it out. If I gave an opinion, I'll put a if, but, maybe, on condition, then etc qualifying conditional words in it, or ssybits an opinion. You notice I use conditional qualifying words a fair bit, and you will notice those that argue don't use then much, and often ignore them misconstrueing statements (I'm not talking about Jamie here, he does seem to be one of the ones that tries to think about things a bit rather than go off on an emotional reasoning rant about what they feel but has no relevant backing. With such you can reason as they are trying to think about the things said).
Why don't you examine the areas people have pointed out, which represents the more general/average image, over this hyperbole about exceptional problems on surfaces that don't turn up as much? What is more important, how it looks on a premium screen which represents the upper end of the audience's range of viewing, or how it sometimes looks? And these people are considering so limited range of aspects as true picture (which is hyperbole) rather than greater (which is quality). They fail to prove much at all versus being proved wrong many ways. Maybe you don't recognise it is not something to do with my argument, it is the personalities which always want to argue when something challenges what they Want, as wrong. I rarely ever see people that can actually do very good reasoning smd thinking do this.
Joe, I have put enough years into learning the real side of the camera. You can take my word for it, there are a variety of ways to debayer and process an image, and different workflow tools should have whatever version they like. It is up to you, and others, to put in the effort to find out what is out there. I've put in too many hours already answering stuff that I shouldn't have had to answer if people were not being emotionally, morally and mentally lazy. We can all be lazy, and I've got my own issues with that from a string of sickness, but the weakest shouldn't have to do the most when he shouldn't have to do much at all, because of others not bothering to do their part.
BTW: The material sample. That sort of material gives strong intensity changes depending on angle (as well as weave). I've taken a quick picture with this poor phone to illustrate, adjusted for effect. So please try not to laugh too much.
Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:56 pm).
. You come up with a couple of reason why to have global shutter, but dismiss it in a neighbour sentence. That’s a contradiction in my world. 
