12-13-2010, 12:09 PM
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1292238250' post='4963']
I beg to differ...
The first pic of the bird gives a false sense of sharpness because we as humans think if we can see the feathers (or similar things that we find difficult to see with the naked eye), it must be sharp. But if you really look, the bird is filling the entire frame and there's hardly any 1 pixel wide detail.
The second pic has the same issues... black fur is not really a good thing for measuring detail.
GTW
[/quote]
Ah, ok. Because I was comparing them with your samples and these two look sharper than yours to me, sorry :-)
For instance, 3903290645 - I don't really understand why you call the picture sharp? Or do you refer to the chroma noise where skin texture supposed to be as details?
Also, if fur is not good for measuring detail, then what is? As I understand, you don't agree with the LPH results measured by review sites?
P.s. Regarding that bird / feathers picture, what's wrong with this?
![[Image: bird2.png]](http://snap-studio.co.uk/rokas/bird2.png)
I beg to differ...
The first pic of the bird gives a false sense of sharpness because we as humans think if we can see the feathers (or similar things that we find difficult to see with the naked eye), it must be sharp. But if you really look, the bird is filling the entire frame and there's hardly any 1 pixel wide detail.
The second pic has the same issues... black fur is not really a good thing for measuring detail.
GTW
[/quote]
Ah, ok. Because I was comparing them with your samples and these two look sharper than yours to me, sorry :-)
For instance, 3903290645 - I don't really understand why you call the picture sharp? Or do you refer to the chroma noise where skin texture supposed to be as details?
Also, if fur is not good for measuring detail, then what is? As I understand, you don't agree with the LPH results measured by review sites?
P.s. Regarding that bird / feathers picture, what's wrong with this?