Moose,
Well said! There are lots of discussions about imaging system's quality in
photon, wavelength, film grains, spatial frequency, diffraction limit, film
base fog, bit depth, d-range... For me it is already came to too deep and I
think if you missing one or two parameters your assumption or formula is no
longer valid or unable to provide true representation to real life. Even you
get everything right visual quality is very complicated and in some area
very subjective, it is not a formula can resolve.
I'm more interest on practical things, experimenting and testing the
equipment, the best I will use is a microscope and a CRT monitor to examine
the quality of my photography system.
C.H.Ling
> -----Original Message-----
>
> BTW, I share C.H.'s surprise that you don't read the DC reviews. This is
> where theory meets practice with test resources I don't even want to
> have. There is a great deal to learn there about how all the theory
> interacts with the rather complex and not fully understood human vision
> system. If a black box comparison says A is better than B, but I find B
> to look better than A, the test is at fault, not my eyes (positing that
> my eyes, for the purposes of this, are perfect avatars of those of all
> careful photographers). Remember that all this stuff is only useful for
> photography to the extent that it accords with the human vision system,
> and even the tastes of the humans receiving the images.
>
> Moose
>
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|