Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net From: "James Wilkinson Sword" Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.cellular-phone-tech Subject: Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:46:18 +0100 Organization: ~ Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <7699542da7f01f1304183cf9c297a669@dizum.com> <210420171040573298%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171104408672%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171128465434%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210420171141311326%nospam@nospam.invalid> <2017042311221085132-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <230420171958389453%nospam@nospam.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:411049 comp.sys.mac.system:105360 alt.comp.os.windows-10:40673 alt.cellular-phone-tech:1470 On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 01:19:08 +0100, Snit wrote: > On 4/23/17, 5:11 PM, in article op.yy6atlsijs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 01:09:08 +0100, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 4/23/17, 4:58 PM, in article 230420171958389453%nospam@nospam.invalid, >>> "nospam" wrote: >>> >>>> In article , Snit >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> What matters to me is I paid for a 10MP camera and I get a 2.5MP output. >>>>>> I >>>>>> will never buy Fuji again. Canon did not let me down, I will go with them >>>>>> in >>>>>> the future. >>>>> >>>>> Can you post an unaltered image from it? What camera is it? >>>> >>>> he said it was a finepix s1000fd: >>>> >>> x_s1000fd/> >>> >>> At least according to that he is wrong. >> >> It may state 10MP, but the output is not as good as other 10MP cameras. > > That I can believe... remember, there are many other factors: light > sensitivity, quality of sensors, post processing in the camera (assuming you > are not using RAW), etc. RAW has the same crappy output. Zooming right in you can see groups of 4 pixels are almost identical. It's too precise for me to think it's the lens. >> I can reduce it to 2.5MP in Photoshop, then increase it back to 10MP, and get >> the same result. > > Put one on top of the other set the top to "difference" and you will likely > see some difference. Might need to increase contrast. Not a lot of difference. It should be four times more information. >> That means the manufacturer is LYING. Their hardware is not capable of >> producing 10 million pixels. I had a 6MP Canon that made better pictures than >> the Fuji 10MP. Fuji are con artists. > > Quality and MP are not the same. Agreed, but what I'm seeing is clearly a lack of MP. -- Why were so many niggers killed in the Vietnam war?? Because when the sergeant said to "get down", they all got up and started dancing.