???
It's funny that you find so much of reality to be absurd. The world must be very confusing to you. Go to google and search on "compression faq" and "jpeg faq". You have a lot of reading to do.
Moire in the luminance channel isn't necessarily subtle and jpeg doesn't dither. Do your reading.
jpeg does not dither and as long as the moire is in the luminace data (obviously caused by the lack of an AA filter) you can't blame jpeg for it. The point some people (including me) made long ago, that jpeg is better suited for Bayersensors, was more or less in reference to the lack of chrominance resolution of Bayer Sensors and therefore the not so bad impact of jpegs compression of the chrominace data, luminace is a different story...
It does effectively dither, it doesn't formally call it dithering, but cutting the unique colors in half (sort of like 23-bit) and rearranging whats left to compensate, is really just glorified dithering.
Did you see all the odd-ball color artifacts in the JPEG of the same image I posted?
JPEG is definitely better suited to Bayers simply because the 3x up-sampled, interpolated image can absorb the damage better. Bayers also produce several slightly different color pixels for each full set of RGB data, so there are already plenty of artifacts to camo the new artifacts. JPEG is also harshest by far on sharp lines; a Foveon image isn't about to enjoy that.
It is not, dithering introduces patterns of colored dots to simulate colors that can not be represented with the current colors.
What exactly do you think these show?So you see no relative difference at all in the split images below?
Are you serious?
You don't understand what jpeg is doing, or you don't undersatnd dithering - probably both.
Comically, they are non-sequiturs which has no bearing to the discussion, Ron.
with topics that is related to high dynamic range photography. Should be interesting bedtime reading for you. Heck, graphics types are now worried about things like scotopic and photopic sight .Is that a yes you can see a difference, or no you cannot?What exactly do you think these show?So you see no relative difference at all in the split images below?
Are you serious?
Maybe that's why I was very careful to say "relative" difference, unfortunatley you were not as careful reading it.
We'll get to that if we can ever get past the first point, which is that JPEG'ing, without a doubt, destroys the camera's colorspace...
--
"Yes," you, a human, can see the relative difference there.
So you see no relative difference at all in the split images below?
Are you serious?
LMAO. Please explain the PEG'ing process for us. Hee hee...
They are different images. Unfortunately they have nothing to do with the topic. Please start by apologizing to the people from whom you've stolen those images, then tell us what they have to do with moire in the luminance channel. Alternatively, you could apologize for wasting everybody's time...
Just for everybody's amusement and to make the substance of your claim clear, please give your definition of colorspace and then explain in a methmatically precise manner how it gets "destroyed" by the jpeg process.
I have a better idea. How about if I show you a picture of a dog and cat and then ask if you can see the difference? I hope I can trick you into saying "yes" since by your logic, this means I will have won the argument...
I fully agree, always introducing new points to distract from the false assumptions in the old ones is really odd.
