Would you call this pixel peeping:

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Beyond 100%
In reply to Prognathous, 3 months ago

Prognathous wrote:

Basalite wrote:

Prognathous wrote:

Basalite wrote:
On most current monitors, not really.

Actually, it's the opposite. Modern monitors usually have smaller pixels, so it's now more difficult to see the differences in demosaicing algorithms without going to higher-than-100% magnifications.

My comment stands.

Wasn't your comment that on current monitors there's no difference in the details seen between 100% and 400% when comparing demosaicing algorithms? If so, your comment does NOT stand to reality. It's exactly on these monitors where one would need to go to 400% to see the differences, where as with old monitors that used larger pixels you could potentially see such differences when using 100%.

Most monitors in use do not have a pixel density high enough to warrant zooming past 100%. Is there an echo in here??

I use a 27" iMac and I don't need to be zooming beyond 100%. You're welcome to disagree for yourself but don't act like you don't know what I have been saying.

Of course there is nothing beyond 100% of what makes the image what it is. A high enough ppi could potentially force one to zoom in closer but that's not the same thing for the way most of us view and edit our images today,

Don't speak for "the most of us". You're obviously in a minority here.

LOL. You understand irony, right?

As I said above, and the fact is, most monitors that people use do not require zooming pass 100% to determine ultimate detail and sharpness. That's coming from a Sigma camera user and someone that used to do his own darkroom printing. In other words, someone that obviously cares about resolution and sharpness.

and certainly not a situation affected by the big differences you claim from different raw processing algorithms in use today, because those big differences don't exist.

Where did I claim there's a "big difference"?

If you would not edit away the discussion as it goes then you'd see this comment of yours at the top:

"Try comparing your RAW files converted using different demosaicing algorithms and viewed at 100% and at 400%. You may just be surprised..."

Nothings changed. Your claims of big differences between the raw developers of today simply don't exist.

I didn't claim there are big differences. I claimed there are differences which are only visible when using higher than 100% magnification.

For something to be viewable and surprising (your description) at 400% over 100% on current monitors in use the differences would have to be big.

You don't seem to disagree, so I'll take it that you concede the claim that "There's nothing more beyond and below 100%". Good.

Do I concede to a claim *I made?* Uh, yeah, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. I believed it when I said and I still do.

To concede to something is to admit it is true after first denying it. Since I made the claim why would I deny it only to accept its truth later on? 

Prog.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b

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