Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
Joofa Senior Member • Posts: 2,655
Re: Microcontrast

AiryDiscus wrote:

Joofa wrote:

AiryDiscus wrote:

Joofa wrote:

Regardless of filters a natural image would have overwhelming large fraction of image content in the low frequency range. That is due to the statistical correlation property of natural images. Filtering can even emphasize that fact more, as you say.

Such a property cannot be general.

It is a general property of natural images.

E.g. images of modern architecture (angular, many lines) will be dominated by higher frequency content.

Yes, such an image would have more energy in the higher frequency regime than say an image of vegetation. However, typically it would still have more energy in the low frequency regime.

When someone uses a word like typically, it generally means they are not so sure.

Listen I can't argue this point with you. This is so established in image processing world that people know it. I guess, you are the one not in the 'know'.

[SNIP of stuff that I'm getting tired of stating again and again]

Do you accept Nasse's data as reliable, or are you casting doubt on it?

Did you even look at the graph that Bob posted? It is showing exactly the point of this subthread. That in low frequency ranges the higher curves stay higher. Unbelievable.

( BTW, I'm not making a claim that why or when or will the higher MTF be always higher? I'm just stating what the graphs say that all of you guys have been posting. Thats all.)

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