Why use Pentax?

Started Mar 18, 2013 | Questions thread
Gerry Winterbourne
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,169
Like?
Bob
In reply to bob5050, Mar 23, 2013

bob5050 wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

I'm not saying that such tests are useless, but they need to be combined with other things to get a full picture.

I feel a bit impertinent to be talking in the presence of my betters (I never fail to learn from your posts, Gerry)

Aw, shucks ...  But, seriously, Bob, I don't think any of us count as "betters".  Go through (I'm writing rhetorically, of course) my posts and you'll see that I've been corrected many times for being wrong - sometimes through ignorance, sometimes through carelessness - and I think that's true of most of us from time to time.

It would be terrible to think that anyone felt inhibited because a few of us try to pass on what we've learned: after all, we all started somewhere.

but actually I'd want to extend that point a bit.

1. The measurement is irrelevant because indistinguishable in actual use. The situation in modern digital photography reminds me quite a bit of the situation with audio gear in the late '70s: different speaker and amp manufacturers would publish frequency-response measurements up to 50kHz, when in fact 'normal' human hearing generally ranges from 16-20kHz, and vary rarely exceeds 30-35kHz (young adults with great hearing, generally higher with women than men). Measurements of flat, unbiased reproduction are the standard and basis for comparisons, but in practice, above 30kHz susch measurements are highly suspect in importance, and above 40kHz they're worthless if you're buying the system for a human audience to experience.

This interests me because although I've never studied the theory and practice of hearing or audio reproduction I do very much enjoy listening to music of many kinds.  I know that my hearing is now restricted to something between 6 and 10kHz but I can still tell the difference between good and mediocre sound quality: which is not to say that I could distinguish very good, excellent and absolutely stupendous.

One thing that occurs to me, although I have no evidence for it, is that even if I can't distinguish high frequencies as such, the higher harmonics modify the shapes of the waves I can distinguish.  If so, perhaps there's an analogy with high visual frequencies?

In that case, we'd be interested in both cases in the quality and nature of the waves (light or sound) and not just their numerical values; but, on the other hand, we'd expect to get better output - all other things being equal (which they rarely are) - from the higher-spec item.

I'm not sure if it is strictly relevant but this post from The Online Photographer shows that we can perceive better resolution than our eyes ought to be able to pick out.  http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/01/how-sharp-is-your-printer-how-sharp-are-your-eyes.html

-- hide signature --

Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

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