For David Millier

Started 3 months ago | Discussion thread
 Like?
 Re: Really? "diluted" ... hmmm... In reply to Lin Evans, 3 months ago

Lin Evans wrote:

There you go again - off on yet another tangent to avoid the simple conclusion that there are lines above Nyquist. This has nothing to do with our "perceptual system" trying to make sense of this. The damned lines are lines and they are just as "real" as the lines below Nyquist.

i think the question is whether those lines are accurate, not whether there are lines. I sincerely hooped you are not suggesting nyquists theorem is wrong as tht would be quite frankly, well, laughable.

one possible explanation also: did dpreview mark the nyquists limit properly?  I am not saying they didnt but if it looks too much like a duck and quacks like a duck, this is one of those cases that you better double check they didn't let a real duck in instead of the dog. Because nyquist sure isn't wrong.

Where I come from if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's undoubtedly a duck.

I'm appalled at these silly attempts to change the subject, go off on tangents and obfuscate to avoid a very simple conclusion. The resolution chart photos demonstrate conclusively that there are lines visible above Nyquist. Not "imaginary" or "constructed by our perceptions." If I crop the first inch of what is above Nyquist and present it to an audience of 1,000,000 people, I would be willing to bet that excepting the blind in that population, all would describe what they see as lines. There will never be any true advance in understanding until we admit that simple observation.

Lin

DMillier wrote:

How abut this: there a series of converging parallel line below nyquist. Above nyquist, the lines break up into a series of blotchy, patchy fragmented collections of B&W splinters.

Our perceptual system tries to make sense of this and partially recreates the lines (that aren't really lines) because the converging lines above give enough of a hint for us to guess. It works for this exact pattern to an extent. However, when you try the same trick with a rectangular plate punched with regular holes, you get a series of diagonal stripes that may be lines but definitely aren't holes.

And this is the problem with using aliasing to simulate detail: sometimes by pure chance the result looks passably like the real subject and other times it looks nothing like the subject whatsoever.

It's surprising that someone who is so philosophically dead against the "guessing" that is Bayer reconstruction is relaxed about the "guessing" that is aliasing false detail.I would have thought that a properly anti-aliased Foveon image would be the holy grail: no Bayer interpolation and no aliasing artefacts = a pure, accurate, realistic image.

Does it really matter that a few percent of resolution would be sacrificed? It's not as if the Merrill sensor is short of detail

ps.

See Mike's post in the "magenta blotches" thread for a great example of what aliasing does to damage the integrity of Foveon images.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

--
learntomakeslidshows.net

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Complain
Post ()
Keyboard shortcuts: