05-21-2011, 12:36 PM
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1305978433' post='8724']
I know that you’re trying to be funny, but unfortunately this point is invalid – we’re not comparing two monitors, we’re comparing two images on the same monitor, and the first one is sharper than the second one. And also like I said, I’ll do a test with printed sheets in a few days.
Nope, it tests exactly the detail in red channel – and we’re using our visual system to see the difference. Because it’s the way the photography works – pictures are meant for our eyes, not something else. And it’s for human eyes to determine whether pictures are sharp or not.
So basically all your arguments are “I don’t like it so it has to be wrong� The thing is that it takes just five minutes to do it by yourself and either confirm my point or prove me completely wrong. Why don’t you do it?
[/quote]
No, what you are writing is nonsense.
EITHER you test out\r visual system (how we perceive red (66% less bright, by the way) compared to white,
OR you test the actual information being captured of a red subject by Bayer CFA sensors.
You did do neither, but mostly the test was of the 1st type, nothing about the 2nd type.
Why I don't do it is because it is bullshit, what you say you are testing. It is a nonsense test which does not hold up in any way.
So, device a better test to actually test the detail recovery of a red/blue/green subject, and a good way to actually evaluate the detail (so, without our eyes being the ones tested).
I know that you’re trying to be funny, but unfortunately this point is invalid – we’re not comparing two monitors, we’re comparing two images on the same monitor, and the first one is sharper than the second one. And also like I said, I’ll do a test with printed sheets in a few days.
Nope, it tests exactly the detail in red channel – and we’re using our visual system to see the difference. Because it’s the way the photography works – pictures are meant for our eyes, not something else. And it’s for human eyes to determine whether pictures are sharp or not.
So basically all your arguments are “I don’t like it so it has to be wrong� The thing is that it takes just five minutes to do it by yourself and either confirm my point or prove me completely wrong. Why don’t you do it?
[/quote]
No, what you are writing is nonsense.
EITHER you test out\r visual system (how we perceive red (66% less bright, by the way) compared to white,
OR you test the actual information being captured of a red subject by Bayer CFA sensors.
You did do neither, but mostly the test was of the 1st type, nothing about the 2nd type.
Why I don't do it is because it is bullshit, what you say you are testing. It is a nonsense test which does not hold up in any way.
So, device a better test to actually test the detail recovery of a red/blue/green subject, and a good way to actually evaluate the detail (so, without our eyes being the ones tested).