Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

Started Jul 23, 2014 | Discussions thread
Lin Evans
Lin Evans Forum Pro • Posts: 17,355
Re: what's 3-D?

Hi Roland,

It's a scientific fallacy to assume that the subjective is quantifiable. No matter what the population size it's impossible to quantify things such as emotions. Only by manipulating the data and arbitrarily assigning values is it possible to create the "appearance" of quantification. There is no way to accurately assess the intensity of an emotion. Making ballpark guesses is all that's possible and this doesn't result in real knowledge. You can argue this forever but you will not be able to quantify an emotional response because there is no scientific way to measure such. You can't measure it in ounces, grams, liters, volts, watts, frequency or any other known physical property. If you can't measure it you can't quantify it. Any attempts are simply guesses and in my opinion no better than an observer stating "he was really mad about that, or he was mildly upset, or she was furious." These are arbitrary divisions and have no scientific meaning. All these attempts do is to order the emotion in some ascending or descending manner. Whether the increments are linear or logarithmic or something else entirely are unknowable. Sorry, but we will never be able to agree on this if you hold that emotions are any more quantifiable because of the population size. There is no way to know that the population is even homogeneous. What may appear as a mild emotion in fact could be a strong emotion. The observer simply can't get inside the head of the observed.

Best regards,


Roland Karlsson wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

The connection is that unsolicited comments made by non-Sigma users at multiple major photography and equipment shows on numerous separate occasions revealed an unusual number of comments about a "3D" appearance. These comments were not heard at other manufacturer's displays nor have they been reported as being commonplace as they were at the Sigma booths.

As far as I remember those claims were strongest for the old 3 MP sensor and maybe also for the 4.5 MP sensor. And this was for huge prints, even A0. Now A0 is one million square mm. So --- it is 3-4 pixels per square mm. Even at some disyance, you would have strongly visible aliasing.

I do not know - but maybe this has something to do with the claim?

What does this mean? I have no idea. But trying to quantify it is unjustified from a scientific perspective. Something appears to have a dimensional appearance or it looks flat. We could discuss possible reasons until the cows come home and still have no agreement because subjectivity is not quantifiable.

Yes, it is. It takes some population size and some amount of tests in order to show anything. But ... it is clearly quantifiable. For small groups it is harder though. But ... likewise can be said for all subjective opinions. They are very hard to evaluate. As we have seen any time someone here tries to make a comparison by having people look at images.

It's not about "prefering" a Sigma over some other camera at all. It's about perceiving a 3D appearance from a Sigma photo.

A fine line to walk. It would be possible that a flat look and not the irritating 3D look more often is to be preferred

 Lin Evans's gear list:Lin Evans's gear list
Olympus E-10
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow