I'm not confused; maybe you have a problem with comprehending what I wrote. I can assure you that I know quite well what I am talking about. But I'm the first one to agree that this is not always popular with the masses that rather believe in quackery and junk science.
well, then instead of giving totally unrelated stuff like
"assurances" and "name calling" - kindly provide refuting points
for someone who claims that he is "logical" and projects an "enlightened, allknowing" attitude, you definitely do not provide much logic in the latest post, merely emotive arguments with no basis other than the reassurance that you know what you're talking about
prove it, instead of coming up with some form of african witch doctor science that only you can understand - i'm sure you'd say something if i told you that the sky was going to fall down today, and assured you that i knew quite well what i was talking about, and the masses that believe in quackery and junk science will just die
to make things easier for you, here are a few questions:
a) do you not agree that fov and in 35mm terms can be easily translated to each other?
b) do you not agree that fov is what people roughly want to know, really want to know instead of some small camera's "focal length"?
if you agree to a and b, then why are you arguing, that is a further question, which i guess no one has an answer to
if you disagree, explain why instead of giving unrelated examples, and claiming that it is junk science. thanks - and if you explain that it is because converting this and that is not equivalent, explain WHY this is so, instead of repeating yourself, since i had already refuted that