[QUOTE="karasill"]

If you don't think cameras implement some form of AA, then you're just a lost cause. How else do you think movies and pics don't have aliasing issues? Is it magic? It must be, because the idea that cameras/videocameras don't implement some form of AA is a stupid idea. I mean why do cameras even have video processors in them? For kicks?

You're done man, there is no point in arguing with you. When I take a picture of someone in real life, it's going to look jaggy unless you blend the pixels together.... Sorry, if you can't understand that then I question your intelligence.

zipozal

lmao maybe because real life doesn't have jaggies? Honestly do you even know what your saying? You saying that digital cameras blur the edges :lol: why would the edges need blurred? Theirs no jaggy's in Real life, but if their were THEY WOULD SHOW UP in a freaking photo and yes by default my camera is set to 10 megapixels and thats what I take photos at, most people that by high res camera do so to take high res photos shock.

You don't have a 800 dollar SLR camera, if you do prove me wrong...

Actually, many digitals (vast majority of digital SLRs) employ a low-pass AA filter just before the sensor, which is part of the reason why SLR photography consists of not just taking the picture, but also post processing. A degree of USM in Photoshop is almost routine for a typical professional digital workflow.

Oh, and I've got over $10,000 worth of photography gear, but that doesn't prove anything - so no idea about the $800 comment.

[QUOTE="zipozal"][QUOTE="karasill"]

If you don't think cameras implement some form of AA, then you're just a lost cause. How else do you think movies and pics don't have aliasing issues? Is it magic? It must be, because the idea that cameras/videocameras don't implement some form of AA is a stupid idea. I mean why do cameras even have video processors in them? For kicks?

You're done man, there is no point in arguing with you. When I take a picture of someone in real life, it's going to look jaggy unless you blend the pixels together.... Sorry, if you can't understand that then I question your intelligence.

karasill

lmao maybe because real life doesn't have jaggies? Honestly do you even know what your saying? You saying that digital cameras blur the edges :lol: why would the edges need blurred? Theirs no jaggy's in Real life, but if their were THEY WOULD SHOW UP in a freaking photo and yes by default my camera is set to 10 megapixels and thats what I take photos at, most people that by high res camera do so to take high res photos shock.

You don't have a 800 dollar SLR camera, if you do prove me wrong...

The camera that took this didn't do a good job of blending the pixels together. Even though it's real life, the camera takes the image and converts it into pixels, and without blending them together you can have some aliasing issues. I can't believe someone who has a "nice " camera doesn't even know the basics of how it works.... Sad.

I'd have to correct you here. The majority of cameras sold these days have default set at their highest resolution. Remember, more megapixels doesn't correlate to 'professional', so one shouldn't correlate the need to shoot at higher resolutions to the prerequisite of being a professional.

My Digi is brank new sporting 10 megapixels and cost a few hundred dollars so ya it's probably better then what your sporting....

zipozal

Erm. You realize megapixels often mean jack right? Small point and shoots nowadays are reaching resolutions in excess of 12-14MPs. My 8MP EOS 30D eats them for breakfast, given the vastly superior APS-C sized sensor (and of course, better selection of interchangeable lenses of a dSLR system).

It's always hilarious to read blind consumers talking up their cameras by proclaiming they have the most megapixels. So how does yours perform at ISO 1600? Nuff said.

[QUOTE="Painballz"][QUOTE="ElectricNZ"][QUOTE="Collin_85"]

It's obvious he's here to brag. He's getting a new rig, so being an attention-seeking kid desperate for validation, thought of some half-baked question to ask just so he could megaphone to the world that he's getting a new rig.

What he doesn't realize is of course, no one really cares AT ALL.. but hey, what matters is that he feels better on the inside right?

Hah. I admit, I was pretty harsh.. but I never feel guilty about trashing the ego of someone like this.

ElectricNZ

Right, so you know for sure that he's getting a new rig? I mean he COULD be, but you're so sure that it's "obvious" to you.

If he was desperate for attention, he would just post his entire new system and brag, and if he had bought a new rig and posted the specs, that's nothing bad... I mean, why be so hostile towards him?

He could possibly be genuinely asking if he should take pictures of the processor, you know... like what the topic says?

Ive read so much hostility on this thread, it's just sad. People take pictures of their computers all the time, theres nothing wrong with that.

From a photography standpoint, the subect of the cpu is a great to take photos of. It's symmetrical in architecture, can create a nice gradient, the pins are linear... I could go on forever. You could take very nice pictures of such processor.

I think you should go for it and take the pictures, ignore these douchebags.

Here's a cool picture of mine, it's not a technically good photo, but it's cool :) The 3 greatest 8800GTS' ever.

k, I'll ignore the douchebag :)

lol, such bs I got modded.

Geez, what a surprise. :roll:

It's obvious he's here to brag. He's getting a new rig, so being an attention-seeking kid desperate for validation, thought of some half-baked question to ask just so he could megaphone to the world that he's getting a new rig.

What he doesn't realize is of course, no one really cares AT ALL.. but hey, what matters is that he feels better on the inside right?

Hah. I admit, I was pretty harsh.. but I never feel guilty about trashing the ego of someone like this.