Jon Ellison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What on earth are you talking about .
> Two different cameras
> Two different sensors
> Two different analogue to dig converters.
> Two different signal to noise processors
> Two different processors.
> The noise appears in exactly the same place on
> both.?????
>
> You need to do some homework..

Same image format, same encoding, prone to the same kind of artifact: colour bleeding.

Same location, same subject.

Enlarging the images, we see similar colour bleeding and similar pinkish streaks.

Your continued diversionary blather suggesting that you don’t understand what’s being said.

> No you haven't missed something , Which is
> actually quite surprising.
> I doubt that it is necessary to prove through
> experimentation that a freshly dipped brush is
> more prone to dripping than an unloaded brush .
> You see Martin . Most people have this worked out
> before the age of five.

You’ll find, Snape, that being snide while failing to understand simple English makes you look doubly stupid (no doubt with justice).

Again by way of paraphrase: you’re being challenged to do what you say someone else did: reproduce what we see in the Chapuis image, a cartouche with NO visible paint runs, using paint which is nevertheless fluid enough to run accidentally.

Contriving paint runs is easy. Any fool can do it. I’m sure you can.

Hard part is reproducing what we find empirically: a cartouche which is verifiably (going by Chapuis) circa 99% free of paint runs.

You say someone else did this? Do it yourself—or cop out and be honest about it.

Your troll quotient is rising by the minute.

M.