Joseph James: Equivalence

Started Mar 8, 2011 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,152
Like?
Re: Joseph James: Equivalence (so whats the point?) II
In reply to clk_walker, Mar 10, 2011

clk_walker wrote:

I agree with mbloof and Great Bustard.

Agreeing with me always makes you look more manly.

But "equivalence" as defined by GB and as he states doesn't address IQ.

Correct, but Equivalence provides a framework with which to evaluate IQ, and the Essay does cover aspects of IQ, specifically noise and detail, in quite some detail.

But IQ should not be ignored in this equation otherwise we get unequivalent images. The number MPs is the first thing that should be made equal. I have attempted to address this with my equivalence levels. But I have no intend to spend the time and energy that GB does on this enterprise.

The number of pixels is merely a means to an end. What we want is a system that resolves as much detail as possible. For any given system, more pixels means more detail, but there are systems that resolve more detail with less pixels.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow