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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#642
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
(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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#648
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike writes:
(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in : Jon Pike writes: (Dave Martindale) wrote in : Jon Pike writes: Film grain, of course. Clearly and sharply like I can see on a print that takes me 3 minutes to make in my darkroom. Until you get that, you haven't gotten all the information off the film. If a scan can resolve all the visible detail *from the original scene*, what does that mean, exactly? If nothing that you missed gives information about the scene. There may be some signal that is uncorrelated with the original scene; we call this "noise". nobody's given any indication whatsoever that the 10% resolution loss does -not- include "valuable" information. I was refuting your claim that individual grains must be resolved in order to assure that no information was lost. Different question. I was explaining what is meant by "noise", and how it doesn't contain any information. You seemed not to understand the concept "all the visible detail from the original scene". All any of you are doing is saying "if this" or "if that." Sorry, where did you get your 10% loss number again? We are still waiting for any proof that the "loss" you claim is detectable to the unaided human eye. -- -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. |
#649
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike writes:
(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in : Jon Pike writes: (Dave Martindale) wrote in : Jon Pike writes: Film grain, of course. Clearly and sharply like I can see on a print that takes me 3 minutes to make in my darkroom. Until you get that, you haven't gotten all the information off the film. If a scan can resolve all the visible detail *from the original scene*, what does that mean, exactly? If nothing that you missed gives information about the scene. There may be some signal that is uncorrelated with the original scene; we call this "noise". nobody's given any indication whatsoever that the 10% resolution loss does -not- include "valuable" information. I was refuting your claim that individual grains must be resolved in order to assure that no information was lost. Different question. I was explaining what is meant by "noise", and how it doesn't contain any information. You seemed not to understand the concept "all the visible detail from the original scene". All any of you are doing is saying "if this" or "if that." Sorry, where did you get your 10% loss number again? We are still waiting for any proof that the "loss" you claim is detectable to the unaided human eye. -- -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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:51 PM |