On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:59:51 +1000, "Rich" wrote:

>David,
>
>You win. I read about 5 lines of your long post and gave up.

Yuh shoulda slogged thru it... There-in yuh mighta
seen th' light! ;-)

>There's no
>point in trying to reason with you.

There is no point in trying to get me to forsake
reason (and logic, actually), and to accept the
premise that a belief is more valid than an
observation - especially when I provided some
of my raw material upon which I based my
conclusions (opinions...;-), and upon which
others are free to base theirs (even if
different from mine...;-). I am mystified by
this - but I see it as a characteristic of
fundamentalist religion, and therefore
potentially a bit of a problem, as we are now
seeing... If one cannot distinguish between
the value of verifiable evidence and of belief,
and chooses to believe what is not supportable,
well, I guess (by definition) there is no point
in trying to "reason" with such a person...

>Too bad, I happened to find your site
>(although a long, long, long read) useful for what it is - a good example of
>YOUR results shooting with those cameras. Passing on your results as proof
>(no ifs-ands-or-buts about it)really discredits the work you've done. Maybe
>after the the excitement of debating passes, you'll realize just how much
>so....

Do you disbelieve what the frame-grabs show?
Do you really believe that evident picture
characteristics will not appear, if only the
same cameras are used by others? (Assuming I
did not "doctor" the images...;-) This is
nonsense. It is akin to believing that a still
camera with a smashed lens that therefore produces
a demonstrably very poor image will somehow
produce better images in the hands of another
photographer. Again, I'm mystified...! ;-)
Apparently you are unable to believe evidence,
and will base your judgements on..., what....?
Beliefs?

>To you and all my videography collegues... learn your craft and happy
>shooting with whatever tools suit your needs and style!

On this we can agree...;-)