>>3814328>Making them match perfectly is about +10 yellow and 95% levels.And then the rest of the picture is further off.
>Color separation in the lace is, apart from the overall image bias, identical.It's not lol
>Are you using an IPS monitor designed for photography? Is it calibrated? If not I would bet your monitor introduced the variation you think you are seeing. If anything an uncalibrated monitor could make two colors look alike.
>I can see the slight overall difference but could never have pegged one to CCD and the other to CMOS, and doubt it's even hardware related. The important point is that tonal separation and color detail is all there in both.I'm not attributing it to CMOS vs CCD, but to different CFAs. Sensors themselves are pretty much color-agnostic.
>Evidence?How much more evidence do you need at this point?
>But you have not demonstrated ACCURACY. Fucking hell, how low is your IQ that you do not understand this?When you have crosstalk and have to reconstruct the channels from that muddy data, you don't get the most accurate results. It becomes a question of them being satisfactory. I'm not saying the color reproduction of the Typ 240 isn't satisfactory, I'm saying the M9 is better.
>Noise is part of the equation but that doesn't bode well for CCD since the noise is worse.Noise is a problem if the signal isn't strong enough.
