Intagibles in image quality

Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there often
seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to know what
specification produces this effect or what is done to the images in-camera
(not JPEGs) to cause this.
It's like the old enlargement of film negatives. Even if you stay within
the parameters of visible resolution of the negative (you don't enlarge
beyond the point where resolution increases stop being seen on the paper)
the quality on enlargement seems to continually decline.

On 24/11/2011 4:37 p.m., Rich wrote:
Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there often
seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to know what
specification produces this effect or what is done to the images in-camera
(not JPEGs) to cause this.
It's like the old enlargement of film negatives. Even if you stay within
the parameters of visible resolution of the negative (you don't enlarge
beyond the point where resolution increases stop being seen on the paper)
the quality on enlargement seems to continually decline.


They will only be "intangibles" based on the lack of a objective
measure of whatever it is that might make it subjectively better. Bokeh
is an example.
Another fact is that image quality "faults", typically but probably not
limited to coma, sa, and particularly vignetting often subjectively
improve images. That's my firm opinion, and if you don't like it, then
in my opinion you're completely wrong.
Measurebating is a fail, but it's part of the human condition, apparently.

On 2011-11-23 21:05:31 -0800, Me said:

On 24/11/2011 4:37 p.m., Rich wrote:
Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there often
seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to know what
specification produces this effect or what is done to the images in-camera
(not JPEGs) to cause this.
It's like the old enlargement of film negatives. Even if you stay within
the parameters of visible resolution of the negative (you don't enlarge
beyond the point where resolution increases stop being seen on the paper)
the quality on enlargement seems to continually decline.


They will only be "intangibles" based on the lack of a objective
measure of whatever it is that might make it subjectively better.
Bokeh is an example.
Another fact is that image quality "faults", typically but probably not
limited to coma, sa, and particularly vignetting often subjectively
improve images. That's my firm opinion, and if you don't like it, then
in my opinion you're completely wrong.
Measurebating is a fail, but it's part of the human condition, apparently.

....and if you are astigmatic and your glasses aren't quite straight on
your nose...

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 24/11/2011 6:11 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-23 21:05:31 -0800, Me said:

On 24/11/2011 4:37 p.m., Rich wrote:
Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there
often
seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to know what
specification produces this effect or what is done to the images
in-camera
(not JPEGs) to cause this.
It's like the old enlargement of film negatives. Even if you stay within
the parameters of visible resolution of the negative (you don't enlarge
beyond the point where resolution increases stop being seen on the
paper)
the quality on enlargement seems to continually decline.


They will only be "intangibles" based on the lack of a objective
measure of whatever it is that might make it subjectively better.
Bokeh is an example.
Another fact is that image quality "faults", typically but probably
not limited to coma, sa, and particularly vignetting often
subjectively improve images. That's my firm opinion, and if you don't
like it, then in my opinion you're completely wrong.
Measurebating is a fail, but it's part of the human condition,
apparently.

...and if you are astigmatic and your glasses aren't quite straight on
your nose...

....your wife might look perfect with the lights on.

On 2011-11-23 23:15:54 -0800, Me said:

On 24/11/2011 6:11 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-23 21:05:31 -0800, Me said:

On 24/11/2011 4:37 p.m., Rich wrote:
Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there
often
seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to know what
specification produces this effect or what is done to the images
in-camera
(not JPEGs) to cause this.
It's like the old enlargement of film negatives. Even if you stay within
the parameters of visible resolution of the negative (you don't enlarge
beyond the point where resolution increases stop being seen on the
paper)
the quality on enlargement seems to continually decline.


They will only be "intangibles" based on the lack of a objective
measure of whatever it is that might make it subjectively better.
Bokeh is an example.
Another fact is that image quality "faults", typically but probably
not limited to coma, sa, and particularly vignetting often
subjectively improve images. That's my firm opinion, and if you don't
like it, then in my opinion you're completely wrong.
Measurebating is a fail, but it's part of the human condition,
apparently.

...and if you are astigmatic and your glasses aren't quite straight on
your nose...

...your wife might look perfect with the lights on.

Unfortunately my wife has been dead for 4 years now.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 24/11/2011 10:07 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-23 23:15:54 -0800, Me said:

On 24/11/2011 6:11 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-23 21:05:31 -0800, Me said:

On 24/11/2011 4:37 p.m., Rich wrote:
Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there
often
seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to know what
specification produces this effect or what is done to the images
in-camera
(not JPEGs) to cause this.
It's like the old enlargement of film negatives. Even if you stay
within
the parameters of visible resolution of the negative (you don't
enlarge
beyond the point where resolution increases stop being seen on the
paper)
the quality on enlargement seems to continually decline.


They will only be "intangibles" based on the lack of a objective
measure of whatever it is that might make it subjectively better.
Bokeh is an example.
Another fact is that image quality "faults", typically but probably
not limited to coma, sa, and particularly vignetting often
subjectively improve images. That's my firm opinion, and if you don't
like it, then in my opinion you're completely wrong.
Measurebating is a fail, but it's part of the human condition,
apparently.

...and if you are astigmatic and your glasses aren't quite straight on
your nose...

...your wife might look perfect with the lights on.

Unfortunately my wife has been dead for 4 years now.

That's a conversation stopper.
I'm sorry to hear that.

Bruce wrote in
:

Rich wrote:

Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there
often seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to
know what specification produces this effect or what is done to the
images in-camera (not JPEGs) to cause this.


It would be boring if everything was the same.



Unfortunately in the white collar world, it's also a way to avoid
criminal prosecution and jail.

On 2011-11-24 11:06:36 -0800, Me said:

On 24/11/2011 10:07 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-23 23:15:54 -0800, Me said:

On 24/11/2011 6:11 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-23 21:05:31 -0800, Me said:

On 24/11/2011 4:37 p.m., Rich wrote:
Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there
often
seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to know what
specification produces this effect or what is done to the images
in-camera
(not JPEGs) to cause this.
It's like the old enlargement of film negatives. Even if you stay
within
the parameters of visible resolution of the negative (you don't
enlarge
beyond the point where resolution increases stop being seen on the
paper)
the quality on enlargement seems to continually decline.


They will only be "intangibles" based on the lack of a objective
measure of whatever it is that might make it subjectively better.
Bokeh is an example.
Another fact is that image quality "faults", typically but probably
not limited to coma, sa, and particularly vignetting often
subjectively improve images. That's my firm opinion, and if you don't
like it, then in my opinion you're completely wrong.
Measurebating is a fail, but it's part of the human condition,
apparently.

...and if you are astigmatic and your glasses aren't quite straight on
your nose...

...your wife might look perfect with the lights on.

Unfortunately my wife has been dead for 4 years now.

That's a conversation stopper.
I'm sorry to hear that.

When the conversation starts going in that direction it isn't easy for
me to find much humor in the reference regardless of the intent.

In better days when she was still healthy.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Sue-2Aw.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:46:56 -0600, Rich wrote:
: Bruce wrote in
: :
:
: Rich wrote:
:
: Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
: everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there
: often seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to
: know what specification produces this effect or what is done to the
: images in-camera (not JPEGs) to cause this.
:
:
: It would be boring if everything was the same.
:
:
: Unfortunately in the white collar world, it's also a way to avoid
: criminal prosecution and jail.

You know you're getting old when Rich's witty, insightful remarks start
looking like bizarre, incoherent non sequiturs.

Bob

On 11/30/2011 9:28 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:46:56 -0600, wrote:
: wrote in
: :
:
: wrote:
:
:Ever notice that even when two images from different cameras have
:everything matched (colour, noise, DR, lens differences, etc) there
:often seems to be a difference between them? I'd be interested to
:know what specification produces this effect or what is done to the
:images in-camera (not JPEGs) to cause this.
:
:
: It would be boring if everything was the same.
:
:
: Unfortunately in the white collar world, it's also a way to avoid
: criminal prosecution and jail.

You know you're getting old when Rich's witty, insightful remarks start
looking like bizarre, incoherent non sequiturs.


If you were sarcastic, I can only imagine what you would say.


--
Peter