Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 13,601
Re: Details, DP2M and Pixel-Peeping ...

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

FDecker wrote:

So, you artificially created an object with single pixel resolution just to show that, without pixel-peeping, the details of this object can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever....?

I detect a certain incredulity and a bit of spin:

1) The object has single pixel dimensions, not "resolution".

2) The illustration proves to my satisfaction that the details of ANY object "can‘t be properly seen on a normal monitor or iPad or whatever" - not just "this object". My thread uses "this object" as an example because, being an artificial construct, it avoids the inevitable obfuscation caused by a real image taken with a real lens by a real photographer.

The main point of this thread is to show that pixel-peeping is necessary when one is interested in examining how detail is rendered in an image. Often, 100% doesn't hack it, unless ...

Oh . . . now I get it. Thanks for the explanation Ted. Sorry your initial posts went over my head.

So why are you arguing about pixel peeping being necessary?

Do I STILL not get it?

As you know, when commenting on an image, I have been known to post zoomed-in illustrations of detail - often when I'm bashing Quattro processing artifacts.

For illustrative purposes only, here's a 100% crop from a nice Merrill landscape posted here by @Ceistinne:

There's some rock detail (circled) which looks fine in this view and quite good in the original view.

But now please view that same detail at X7 (700%):

No need to see the original of this crop, the artifacts are now obvious and cause for concern in a pedantic view.

This thread is aimed directly at those who decry pixel-peeping as if it were somehow "wrong".

Interesting Ted. Do you think the artifacts could be a result of the scaling?

No. The scaling was by Nearest Neighbor with no smoothing, just the same as the mesh image.

Here's my result from scaling it with Preview:

I don't know what "Preview" is - but the smoothing that it applied is quite obvious, even in the above post view.

Here's my result from clicking the 'Smooth' checkbox in FastStone Viewer:

Looks quite similar, d'ya think?

I just figured Preview (the image and PDF viewer that comes on every Mac, and can be used to turn images 90 or 180 degrees, crop, resize, sharpen, convert, and adjust color, brightness, contrast, etc.) was using a different scaling method vs. bicubic, but maybe you're right Ted. Maybe it smoothes the image too. Whatever it does, it looks like the image has far less artifacts.

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Nikon D810 Sigma sd Quattro H Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +20 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow