A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #642  
Old December 6th 04, 11:02 PM
Jon Pike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in :


snip

Wrong, Jon.

You say subjective. I gave the quantitative answer:


No, you ask people how it looks -to them.- That's subjective. The
quantitative answer is that YES, there IS a measurable loss of
exactness/detail/resolution. You, unscientifically enough, claim that
the loss is acceptable because you think most people won't notice.

To admit and show hard evidence of one thing, and then to say it
doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't support what you're saying,
that's not scientific at all. That's not even really honest.

a 14% reduction
in MTF at the highest frequency (the 2-pixel Nyquist frequency).
I generated this chart myself, and the fact that you
attack and accuse of the image of being stolen shows you are
extremely biased.


Not at all. If you had generated it yourself, then like I said, I
would have expected one of the test areas to be perfectly clear,
while the other would not be.
This is not the case however.


Sorry. Which area do you think is "not clear"?


The whole top area WAS not clear, but he's remade it since, and piped up
the quality on his jpeg compression. If you don't believe me, just ask
him.

You're just not reading very carefully.

I said very clearly that you "c'd it to [yourself], so that implies
[you've] generated this image from scratch. [***IF NOT***], then
[you've] stolen it from someone else and not given them credit."

See how that works? See that "if" there?
That's not saying "It was stolen."
That's saying "here's one possible explanation for one of them not
being perfectly clear"
then I go on to say "here's another" ... you know.. the jpeg issue.

And the question STILL (like all my other questions) stands. Why is
one not perfectly clear?


Yup, you have now modified your position. "If you had generated it
yourself, then like I said, ... This is not the case however."

Sounds like an accusation of plagiarism to me.


Well, when you re-word it like that, move everything around, sure, it
might. If you read what I -wrote- though, then it's clearly not. It was
simply two alternative explanations for what -was- an unclear image.

Do you see how you don't really ever answer the questions?

Are you going to indeed claim it's contaminated by jpeg artifacts?


Actually, a second look at it finds it to be crystal-clear, at least
in the half that's supposed to be. Apparently saved with lossless
JPEG.


Yes, redone. What's striking to me, however, is that in the bottom, the
distortion is very different from what it was originally. Again, I don't
know if that's because he's changed the way he generated it (as usual, he
hasn't told us), or because of lossy jpg compression before mucking
things up even more than expected.


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
  #643  
Old December 6th 04, 11:02 PM
Jon Pike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in :


snip

Wrong, Jon.

You say subjective. I gave the quantitative answer:


No, you ask people how it looks -to them.- That's subjective. The
quantitative answer is that YES, there IS a measurable loss of
exactness/detail/resolution. You, unscientifically enough, claim that
the loss is acceptable because you think most people won't notice.

To admit and show hard evidence of one thing, and then to say it
doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't support what you're saying,
that's not scientific at all. That's not even really honest.

a 14% reduction
in MTF at the highest frequency (the 2-pixel Nyquist frequency).
I generated this chart myself, and the fact that you
attack and accuse of the image of being stolen shows you are
extremely biased.


Not at all. If you had generated it yourself, then like I said, I
would have expected one of the test areas to be perfectly clear,
while the other would not be.
This is not the case however.


Sorry. Which area do you think is "not clear"?


The whole top area WAS not clear, but he's remade it since, and piped up
the quality on his jpeg compression. If you don't believe me, just ask
him.

You're just not reading very carefully.

I said very clearly that you "c'd it to [yourself], so that implies
[you've] generated this image from scratch. [***IF NOT***], then
[you've] stolen it from someone else and not given them credit."

See how that works? See that "if" there?
That's not saying "It was stolen."
That's saying "here's one possible explanation for one of them not
being perfectly clear"
then I go on to say "here's another" ... you know.. the jpeg issue.

And the question STILL (like all my other questions) stands. Why is
one not perfectly clear?


Yup, you have now modified your position. "If you had generated it
yourself, then like I said, ... This is not the case however."

Sounds like an accusation of plagiarism to me.


Well, when you re-word it like that, move everything around, sure, it
might. If you read what I -wrote- though, then it's clearly not. It was
simply two alternative explanations for what -was- an unclear image.

Do you see how you don't really ever answer the questions?

Are you going to indeed claim it's contaminated by jpeg artifacts?


Actually, a second look at it finds it to be crystal-clear, at least
in the half that's supposed to be. Apparently saved with lossless
JPEG.


Yes, redone. What's striking to me, however, is that in the bottom, the
distortion is very different from what it was originally. Again, I don't
know if that's because he's changed the way he generated it (as usual, he
hasn't told us), or because of lossy jpg compression before mucking
things up even more than expected.


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
  #644  
Old December 6th 04, 11:03 PM
Jon Pike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/st...itometric6.jht
ml?id=0.1.4.9.6&lc=en,


that link isn't loading for me, so I can't speak on it.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
  #645  
Old December 6th 04, 11:03 PM
Jon Pike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/st...itometric6.jht
ml?id=0.1.4.9.6&lc=en,


that link isn't loading for me, so I can't speak on it.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
  #646  
Old December 6th 04, 11:13 PM
Stephen H. Westin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in :


snip

Wrong, Jon.

You say subjective. I gave the quantitative answer:

No, you ask people how it looks -to them.- That's subjective. The
quantitative answer is that YES, there IS a measurable loss of
exactness/detail/resolution. You, unscientifically enough, claim that
the loss is acceptable because you think most people won't notice.

To admit and show hard evidence of one thing, and then to say it
doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't support what you're saying,
that's not scientific at all. That's not even really honest.

a 14% reduction
in MTF at the highest frequency (the 2-pixel Nyquist frequency).
I generated this chart myself, and the fact that you
attack and accuse of the image of being stolen shows you are
extremely biased.

Not at all. If you had generated it yourself, then like I said, I
would have expected one of the test areas to be perfectly clear,
while the other would not be.
This is not the case however.


Sorry. Which area do you think is "not clear"?


The whole top area WAS not clear, but he's remade it since, and piped up
the quality on his jpeg compression. If you don't believe me, just ask
him.


Great. Now tell us about the visual differences between the two viewed
at full resolution (i.e. not enlarged on screen or print). Remember,
this is a 14% loss in MTF, so it should be clearly visible to you.


You're just not reading very carefully.

I said very clearly that you "c'd it to [yourself], so that implies
[you've] generated this image from scratch. [***IF NOT***], then
[you've] stolen it from someone else and not given them credit."

See how that works? See that "if" there?
That's not saying "It was stolen."
That's saying "here's one possible explanation for one of them not
being perfectly clear"
then I go on to say "here's another" ... you know.. the jpeg issue.

And the question STILL (like all my other questions) stands. Why is
one not perfectly clear?


Yup, you have now modified your position. "If you had generated it
yourself, then like I said, ... This is not the case however."

Sounds like an accusation of plagiarism to me.


Well, when you re-word it like that, move everything around,


I didn't "re-word" [sic} anything. I just elided a bit of text to move
the two logical conditions closer together. To what antecedent does
"This is not the case" refer, if not "If you had generated it
yourself"?

sure, it might. If you read what I -wrote- though, then it's clearly
not. It was simply two alternative explanations for what -was- an
unclear image.


I don't understand. Where are two alternative explanations in

"Not at all. If you had generated it yourself, then like I said, I
would have expected one of the test areas to be perfectly clear,
while the other would not be."

The only explanation you offer there is dishonesty.

snip

Yes, redone. What's striking to me, however, is that in the bottom, the
distortion is very different from what it was originally. Again, I don't
know if that's because he's changed the way he generated it (as usual, he
hasn't told us), or because of lossy jpg compression before mucking
things up even more than expected.


Well, why don't you analyze the images and find out? Perhaps the
image, as it now stands, is exactly what he says it is. For my part, I
believe him, but if you don't, you owe it to yourself to find out
scientifically; nothing you post on USENET will answer your doubts.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
  #647  
Old December 6th 04, 11:13 PM
Stephen H. Westin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in :


snip

Wrong, Jon.

You say subjective. I gave the quantitative answer:

No, you ask people how it looks -to them.- That's subjective. The
quantitative answer is that YES, there IS a measurable loss of
exactness/detail/resolution. You, unscientifically enough, claim that
the loss is acceptable because you think most people won't notice.

To admit and show hard evidence of one thing, and then to say it
doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't support what you're saying,
that's not scientific at all. That's not even really honest.

a 14% reduction
in MTF at the highest frequency (the 2-pixel Nyquist frequency).
I generated this chart myself, and the fact that you
attack and accuse of the image of being stolen shows you are
extremely biased.

Not at all. If you had generated it yourself, then like I said, I
would have expected one of the test areas to be perfectly clear,
while the other would not be.
This is not the case however.


Sorry. Which area do you think is "not clear"?


The whole top area WAS not clear, but he's remade it since, and piped up
the quality on his jpeg compression. If you don't believe me, just ask
him.


Great. Now tell us about the visual differences between the two viewed
at full resolution (i.e. not enlarged on screen or print). Remember,
this is a 14% loss in MTF, so it should be clearly visible to you.


You're just not reading very carefully.

I said very clearly that you "c'd it to [yourself], so that implies
[you've] generated this image from scratch. [***IF NOT***], then
[you've] stolen it from someone else and not given them credit."

See how that works? See that "if" there?
That's not saying "It was stolen."
That's saying "here's one possible explanation for one of them not
being perfectly clear"
then I go on to say "here's another" ... you know.. the jpeg issue.

And the question STILL (like all my other questions) stands. Why is
one not perfectly clear?


Yup, you have now modified your position. "If you had generated it
yourself, then like I said, ... This is not the case however."

Sounds like an accusation of plagiarism to me.


Well, when you re-word it like that, move everything around,


I didn't "re-word" [sic} anything. I just elided a bit of text to move
the two logical conditions closer together. To what antecedent does
"This is not the case" refer, if not "If you had generated it
yourself"?

sure, it might. If you read what I -wrote- though, then it's clearly
not. It was simply two alternative explanations for what -was- an
unclear image.


I don't understand. Where are two alternative explanations in

"Not at all. If you had generated it yourself, then like I said, I
would have expected one of the test areas to be perfectly clear,
while the other would not be."

The only explanation you offer there is dishonesty.

snip

Yes, redone. What's striking to me, however, is that in the bottom, the
distortion is very different from what it was originally. Again, I don't
know if that's because he's changed the way he generated it (as usual, he
hasn't told us), or because of lossy jpg compression before mucking
things up even more than expected.


Well, why don't you analyze the images and find out? Perhaps the
image, as it now stands, is exactly what he says it is. For my part, I
believe him, but if you don't, you owe it to yourself to find out
scientifically; nothing you post on USENET will answer your doubts.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
  #650  
Old December 6th 04, 11:23 PM
Stephen H. Westin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:


snip

I suspect he was thinking of psychophysics and the measurement of
sensation. Everything relies on things like "Can you see it now?" and
"Turn this knob until they match." But the CIE color system seems to
work tolerably well anyway.


You can't get any more subjective than the measurment of sensation. But ask
any psychologist and they'll tell you what they do isn't science.


How many research psychologists do you work with? Apparently none, or
they would avenge themselves for that untruth.

Nor is "turn this knob until they match" ... that's explorative, and
that's not the scientific method. There's no hypothesis.


Alas, I have stumbled into yet another area of your large region of
ignorance. Try Googling for "perception adjustment task". How do you
think the CIE matching curves were determined?

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? Chris Digital Photography 5 September 25th 04 07:43 AM
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? Toralf 35mm Photo Equipment 274 July 30th 04 12:26 AM
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? Toralf Digital Photography 213 July 28th 04 06:30 PM
Will digital photography ever stabilize? Alfred Molon Digital Photography 37 June 30th 04 08:11 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.