>>3814222>And yet, my guess was confirmed. You had a 50/50 chance, which is a flaw in his test. Still, looking over the data he gathered, people basically could not tell with any reliability what so ever. Even if there was a difference you picked up on due to experience with the cameras, it is a very, very tiny one.
>Yes, and the pigments in the eye of people with "moderate" forms of color blindness are characterized by being overly sensitive to the wrong color, much to a similar effect.Way to turn a relevant fallacy into a false one. Unless you have data that shows the overlap in a CFA is dramatically greater than in a healthy human eye?
>Garbage in, garbage out. Garbage theories are not evidence. Evidence would be a color chart test.
>>You were already wrong about WHEN they weakened CFAs for improved light sensitivity.>Easy examples, 5D vs 5D2. D200 vs D300. So 2007/2008. But you said they made the change when they went from CCD to CMOS. That happened in 2004 for the model lines that used CCD.
>They improved low light a lot but caused a lot of complaints about the colors.I don't remember anyone complaining about the colors, and the colors look pretty damn close to me (pic related).
>My word should suffice :^)It doesn't. Sorry to break that to you sweaty.
>The voting is close because people don't know what to look for. LOL then the differences are tiny and meaningless. And tiny differences are simple to profile out. Nobody would fuck up a voting test that pit Velvia 50 against Portra, for example.
