Ha...if it doesn't matter, why bring it up? I never asked what you did. It's nice to know your name, John, but see ...you have a little problem acknowledging when you see evidence of something, you seem incapable of grasping the Logic you toss around like a fuzzball, at least when someone else is dishing it up. You've spent a LOT of time crapping on the quality of a camera you've never touched, with nothing but largely "anecdotal" evidence to back you up. If you're an engineer, tell me how often does "anecdotal" get tossed around when you're writing briefs for your patents?
I've shown you that the test you relied on for much of your argument ("the CVP test shows me what I knew all along") was fatally flawed. I've shown you that the C500II has excellent color when overexposed. I've showed you how known skin tone values respond to over exposure. But you literally are incapable of saying..."hmm...yeah..you know...that looks a lot better than what I thought. I wish it was a skin tone test, but yeah...I guess you guys were talking about stuff you understood, that I somehow missed" .
Don't worry, I don't need you to say it...so don't. I know, that in your mind it ALL started with you and what you wanted to see. But that's simply not true. Liam started the thread, and I was in it from the very beginning. We were talking about lots of issues regarding these cameras. Because no one aspect is the one that makes you buy it.
Now if I might make a respectful request: I'd really wish you'd take this fight back to the A vs B thread. This thread is about reporting data from one camera. It might be lonely over here, but I'm just fine with that.
Brought up background in the hope that pedantic talking down would cease and instead focus on discussing the evidence or providing proofs. Patents, specifically the claims, are boolean algebra (logic) which form proofs used to determine the scope of the patent. I approach these discussions as a lawyer or scientist would in getting to the truth. Those not aware of what's going on may get frustrated and start going after the speaker (ad hominem) if they aren't speaking the same scientific method + logical-proof language. I realize most people here aren't lawyers or scientists, and do my best to explain things as simply as possible, while always working with a goal to find truth. Everything that's happened in this thread I've seen before regarding insults, mockery, attempts to disqualify due to lack of perceived experience, etc. Every time the discussion revolves around the speaker, vs. focusing on the facts and evidence, that's all irrelevant and forms of ad hominem. I don't like to talk about my experience or background, however I bring it up in hopes that folks will realize I have experience in this space and will stop with ad hominem and focus on rational debate. From now on I'm just going to focus on evidence, facts, logic, and proofs, and call out ad hominem when it happens and leave it at that, since providing evidence of experience hasn't helped guide debates in the right direction.
Another reason to avoid insults / ad hominem is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect:
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]
As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]
A narcissist for example would turn this around and say- "hey that's you!". Common pattern in forum debates.
When I debated global warming, there was a similar pattern which ultimately ended on ad hominem as they had nothing rational to counter the facts and evidence (see Mann vs. Ball for courtroom evidence and proof that folks are flat out lying about what's going on (and had to pay a sizable penalty in lawyer and court fees when they lost )).
This all boils down to ego and folks wanting to be right, to win an argument, which is why there's anger, thoughts of "adversary" "fighting" etc. All you or Liam had to do if you disagreed with my declaration that the FX9 wins in IQ over the C500 II was shoot a live person and do an exposure ramp to demonstrate that the camera works differently (chart doesn't tell the whole story- cameras can do special processing on faces/skin). That's evidence, especially if one could also replicate what CVP did wrong (to help others avoid those issues). I'm guessing you and Liam aren't doing that, because even if it shows the camera in a better light, since I asked for this test, you aren't going do to anything "the adversary that your are fighting with" suggested. That's just ego, and when you guys realize that, maybe you'll have less anger about the world in general*. Sorry if I caused you any grief and good luck with your new camera.
* predictable responses are common to this kind of post
Last edited: