On 2023-11-07 04:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 11/6/23 23:20, Wally J wrote:
>> Likewise, every single news article says nobody can achieve those results
>> with a puny iPhone without spending a huge budget on professionals and
>> professional lighting equipment, and _still_ Alan Browne believes that he
>> can because Apple said so in a white paper.
>>
>> Given everyone but Alan Browne is aware of how tiny the lens & sensors
>> are,
>> what's interesting is how desperate these iKooks are to believe in magic.
>
> I feel like it should be common sense a dedicated high-end tool can do
> better than a jack of "all" trades.

Your buddy is casting shade on me and implying I wrote something I never
did.

From the very first post in this thread I made it clear that it was
much more than just the iPhone (though its particular abilities such as
ProRes and Log recording are important too).
But the troll you seem to like communing with has to twist it around
into something it never was.

He really has an illness.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Well, at least nobody commented on my bad grammar in the subject line.

There's that.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Jolly Roger, 2023-11-07 16:37:

> On 2023-11-07, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
[...]
>> Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
>
> Oh cry me a river. You schmucks are such fucking snowflakes. It's three
> words in a marketing campaign. The only reason you are so offended by it
> is that it came from a company you have a seething hate boner for. Grow
> some balls and move on.

No - I would exactly say the same if it was Google telling "shot by
Pixel 8". The same bullshit. Just marketing. I just find it amusing that
someone posts that and a flamewar starts just about Apple vs. Android.
It's like in the good old days when there was Commodore, Atari,
Sinclair, Acorn ;-).

I don't care about Apple or Android or whatever. I have both devices -
one private one for work. I personally prefer Android because I don't
like the way how Apple treats the customers. But if others like that -
fine, I don't care. I also have a Sony RX100 M4 and a Canon APS-C DSLR
and an old Canon AES1 film camera and a lot of lenses and other
equipment for the SLR cameras.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote

> I would exactly say the same if it was Google telling "shot by
> Pixel 8".

Exactly. The Apple iKook Alan Browne posted to the _Android_ newsgroup that
faked Apple advertisement - which clearly was meant to be a troll.

> The same bullshit. Just marketing. I just find it amusing that
> someone posts that and a flamewar starts just about Apple vs. Android.
> It's like in the good old days when there was Commodore, Atari,
> Sinclair, Acorn ;-).

Then when the Android users called the Apple trolls out on Alan Browne
posting a faked Apple advertisement to the Android newsgroup, then the
iKooks like Jolly Roger defend the iTrolls by claiming anyone can get those
results without actually spending the millions of dollars that Apple did.

> I don't care about Apple or Android or whatever.

Me neither. I use them both every day. What I care about is the truth.

That's why I said there's no such thing as a "comparable" iPhone because if
you compare even a free Android phone to any iPhone, it can always do more.

You can only "compare" the two devices if you ignore that obvious fact
that the iPhone is crippled in app functionality compared to Android.

Luckily, if we ignore the crippling iOS hardware limitations (e.g., slots &
ports) & if we ignore the crippling lack of iOS functionality, then - &
only then - can you _begin_ to compare iPhone output to that of Android.

> I have both devices -
> one private one for work. I personally prefer Android because I don't
> like the way how Apple treats the customers.

Apple fucks their customer all the time but what's interesting is nobody on
Android ever gloats that Google's profits are off their back.

Only the Apple iTrolls like Jolly Roger & Alan Browne gloat about how much
money Apple makes off of them - and that's just very strange to see.

It took me years to figure out _why_ they do that, as nobody on the Linux
or Windows or Android newsgroup gloats over how much they're fleeced by.

> But if others like that -
> fine, I don't care. I also have a Sony RX100 M4 and a Canon APS-C DSLR
> and an old Canon AES1 film camera and a lot of lenses and other
> equipment for the SLR cameras.

Remember that this thread was started by the iTroll Alan Browne which he
posted to the Android newsgroup - and that he posted Apple advertisements.

That's bad enough.
But then it turns out the Apple advertisement is a lie.

And when the iTrolls get called out on the Apple lie, they whine that if
you too spend millions of dollars, you can get the same results Apple did.

On 11/8/2023 8:08 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:

> I just find it amusing that
> someone posts that and a flamewar starts just about Apple vs. Android.
> It's like in the good old days when there was Commodore, Atari,
> Sinclair, Acorn ;-).

The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the thread.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

> Well, at least nobody commented on my bad grammar in the subject line.

The point of your bad grammar, Alan Browne, is that you're so stupid you
can't even figure out how to use something as trite as a personal pronoun.

That's bad enough.
Why?

Because if you can't figure out how to use personal pronouns, then you
certainly can't figure out that Apple lied in that advertisement you love.

You don't own the mental capacity to figure out personal pronouns, Alan
Browne, so what makes you so sure you can see through Apple's brazen lie?

You can't.
You're too stupid, Alan Brown.

But then you compound the idiocy by trying to insult everyone else.

But when you try to insult everyone else - you can't even form a
grammatically correct sentence in doing so.

On 2023-11-07, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Jolly Roger, 2023-11-07 16:37:
>> On 2023-11-07, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
>>
>> Oh cry me a river. You schmucks are such fucking snowflakes. It's
>> three words in a marketing campaign. The only reason you are so
>> offended by it is that it came from a company you have a seething
>> hate boner for. Grow some balls and move on.
>
> No - I would exactly say the same if it was Google telling "shot by
> Pixel 8". The same bullshit. Just marketing.

> I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
> just about Apple vs. Android.

Alan Brown deliberately cross-posted this to both newsgroups. So you'll
have to take that up with him. Personally, I'd rather not see any posts
cross-posted to both of the these groups.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-11-08, Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
> On 11/8/2023 8:08 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
>
>> I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
>> just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old days when
>> there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
>
> The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
> thread.

They don't happen when Android people aren't on Apple threads either.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-11-07 22:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-11-07, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger, 2023-11-07 16:37:
>>> On 2023-11-07, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
>>>
>>> Oh cry me a river. You schmucks are such fucking snowflakes. It's
>>> three words in a marketing campaign. The only reason you are so
>>> offended by it is that it came from a company you have a seething
>>> hate boner for. Grow some balls and move on.
>>
>> No - I would exactly say the same if it was Google telling "shot by
>> Pixel 8". The same bullshit. Just marketing.
>
>> I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
>> just about Apple vs. Android.
>
> Alan Brown deliberately cross-posted this to both newsgroups. So you'll
> have to take that up with him. Personally, I'd rather not see any posts
> cross-posted to both of the these groups.

Indeed. All my fault. Grammar included.

Just wanted to point out the possible - and that making such possible
requires far more than the iPhone itself.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 11/7/2023 10:04 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:

>>> I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
>>> just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old days when
>>> there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
>>
>> The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
>> thread.
>
> They don't happen when Android people aren't on Apple threads either.

Then why did the OP (who seems to be an "Apple person") post that contrived
simulated iPhone video to Android newsgroups, as if any iPhone could do on
its own what that Apple sham advertisement absurdly pretended it could do?

It's ok that he believes Apple bullshit but nobody on Android is that dumb.

On 2023-11-08, Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 10:04 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>>> I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar
>>>> starts just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old
>>>> days when there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
>>>
>>> The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
>>> thread.
>>
>> They don't happen when Android people aren't on Apple threads either.
>
> Then why did the OP

Ask him. I am not him, nor do I condone his actions.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-11-08 07:09, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 10:04 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>>> I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
>>>> just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old days when
>>>> there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
>>>
>>> The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
>>> thread.
>>
>> They don't happen when Android people aren't on Apple threads either.
>
> Then why did the OP (who seems to be an "Apple person") post that contrived
> simulated iPhone video to Android newsgroups, as if any iPhone could do on
> its own what that Apple sham advertisement absurdly pretended it could do?
>
> It's ok that he believes Apple bullshit but nobody on Android is that dumb.

Sheesh - you're really projecting - I guess you'll locate dumb in the
nearest mirror.

Pretty much any camera (in phone or otherwise) of the same quality,
similar quality lenses and

--- this is the important bit, so read closely ---

* Records in a lossless format (such as Pro Res), and
* Records Log data to preserve the dynamic range.

And of course (as mentioned) from the top, everything about the filming
was studio level production: lighting, dollies, sound equipment,
personnel, talent, etc. and so on... not to mention all the post
processing that had to occur to get to that level of quality. And of
course a lot of detail missing here...

So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
(essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ...
then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Alan Browne, 2023-11-08 20:03:

[...]
> So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
> (essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ...
> then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
> the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.

Sony Xperia V1

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 2023-11-08 14:57, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Alan Browne, 2023-11-08 20:03:
>
> [...]
>> So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
>> (essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ...
>> then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
>> the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.
>
> Sony Xperia V1

Sounds good.

On 2023-11-08 04:09, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 10:04 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>>> I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
>>>> just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old days when
>>>> there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
>>>
>>> The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
>>> thread.
>>
>> They don't happen when Android people aren't on Apple threads either.
>
> Then why did the OP (who seems to be an "Apple person") post that contrived
> simulated iPhone video to Android newsgroups, as if any iPhone could do on
> its own what that Apple sham advertisement absurdly pretended it could do?
>
> It's ok that he believes Apple bullshit but nobody on Android is that dumb.

What about it was "contrived" or "simulated"?

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote

>> Alan Browne wrote
>> Pretty much any camera (in phone or otherwise) of the same quality,
>> similar quality lenses and
>>
>> --- this is the important bit, so read closely ---
>>
>> * Records in a lossless format (such as Pro Res), and
>> * Records Log data to preserve the dynamic range.
>>
>> And of course (as mentioned) from the top, everything about the filming
>> was studio level production: lighting, dollies, sound equipment,
>> personnel, talent, etc. and so on... not to mention all the post
>> processing that had to occur to get to that level of quality. And of
>> course a lot of detail missing here...
>>
>> So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
>> (essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ...
>> then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
>> the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.
> Sony Xperia V1

This question is for people who know photography far better than I do...

Is that true that the Sony Xperia V1 does what Alan Browne claims only an
iPhone can do in terms of what Alan Browne refers to above as recording in
"essentially equivalent to RAW" format and being able to "record log data
to preserve dynamic range"?

Since it's classic for Marketing to focus on just one set of specs while
ignoring the others, does it matter to photography aficianados that, by
comparison, the iPhone is crippled in terms of storage-media choices?

Does the huge pixel-size difference between the two cameras matter much?
<https://www.phonearena.com/phones/compare/Apple-iPhone-15-Pro,Sony-Xperia-1-V/phones/11928,12145>

Which of the following specs is most notably different between them?
Rear:
Triple camera
vs
Triple camera
Main camera:
48 MP (Sensor-shift OIS, PDAF) vs
vs
48 MP (OIS, PDAF)
F1.8; Focal length: 24 mm; Pixel size: 2.44 um
vs
F1.9; Focal length: 24 mm; Sensor size: 1/1.35"; Pixel size: 1.12 um
Second camera:
12 MP (Telephoto, Sensor-shift OIS)
vs
12 MP (Telephoto, OIS, PDAF)
Specifications:
Optical zoom: 3.0x; F2.8; Focal Length: 77 mm
vs
Optical zoom: 5.2x; F2.3; Focal Length: 85-125 mm; Sensor size: 1/3.5"
Third camera:
12 MP (Ultra-wide)
vs
12 MP (Ultra-wide)
Specifications:
Aperture size: F2.2; Focal Length: 13 mm; Pixel size: 1.4 um
vs
Aperture size: F2.2; Focal Length: 16 mm; Sensor size: 1/2.5"
Video recording:
3840x2160 (4K UHD) (60 fps), 1920x1080 (Full HD) (240 fps)
vs
3840x2160 (4K UHD) (120 fps), 1920x1080 (Full HD) (120 fps)
Features:
ProRes, Cinematic mode
vs
HDR, Time-lapse video
Front:
12 MP (Time-of-Flight (ToF))
vs
12 MP
--
This question is asked of people who know photography better than I do.
The goal is to find out if the marketing truly is correct or a lie.

Wally J, 2023-11-08 21:59:

> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote
>
[...]
>>> So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
>>> (essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ...
>>> then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
>>> the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.
>
>> Sony Xperia V1
>
> This question is for people who know photography far better than I do...
>
> Is that true that the Sony Xperia V1 does what Alan Browne claims only an
> iPhone can do in terms of what Alan Browne refers to above as recording in
> "essentially equivalent to RAW" format and being able to "record log data
> to preserve dynamic range"?

At least Sony Xperia V1 also does raw picture snapshots. But depending
on the API implemented by the vendor, this is also possible using "Open
Camera" in many other phones as well. So I can take pictures in raw
format with Open Camera on a Google Pixel 6a as well. In theory, Camera2
should allow *every* app to get uncompressed raw images, but some
vendors prefer to whitelist that feature only for their proprietary
stock camera apps.

About video also see here:

<https://www.videomaker.com/news/sony-reveals-xperia-1-v-with-pro-features-for-video/>

And JFTR: we talk about a phone for around 1400 USD.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 2023-11-11 11:23, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Wally J, 2023-11-08 21:59:
>
>> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote
>>
> [...]
>>>> So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
>>>> (essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ...
>>>> then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
>>>> the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.
>>
>>> Sony Xperia V1
>>
>> This question is for people who know photography far better than I do...
>>
>> Is that true that the Sony Xperia V1 does what Alan Browne claims only an
>> iPhone can do in terms of what Alan Browne refers to above as recording in
>> "essentially equivalent to RAW" format and being able to "record log data
>> to preserve dynamic range"?
>
> At least Sony Xperia V1 also does raw picture snapshots. But depending
> on the API implemented by the vendor, this is also possible using "Open
> Camera" in many other phones as well. So I can take pictures in raw
> format with Open Camera on a Google Pixel 6a as well. In theory, Camera2
> should allow *every* app to get uncompressed raw images, but some
> vendors prefer to whitelist that feature only for their proprietary
> stock camera apps.
>
> About video also see here:
>
> <https://www.videomaker.com/news/sony-reveals-xperia-1-v-with-pro-features-for-video/>
>
> And JFTR: we talk about a phone for around 1400 USD.

Funny how Arlen/Wally spouts BS that I've already addressed.

He seems to need therapy. Losing his marbles.

Alan Browne- <oneway@down.net> wrote

> Funny how Arlen/Wally spouts BS that I've already addressed.

The point is, Alan Browne, that your claim that the iPhone can do what the
Android phone can't do was proven completely incorrect by Arno, was it not?