|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I never seen Mike post that shot, try do the muddy face shot the same way.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: |
I never seen Mike post that shot, try do the muddy face shot the same way. |
Maybe he can post the shot from Gatsby then and compare it to Didderns ipad picture...
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:32 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Why is this picture so over exposed.? you have some serious clipping going on, why not make it look more natural, and capture all the content .?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Why is this picture so over exposed.? you have some serious clipping going on, why not make it look more natural, and capture all the content .? |
Like I say "camera", when you use a ipad you can press where the picture has its focus and adjustmendpoints, if you press a dark spot the picture gets brighter and opposite or the other way around.
So this tells it again, that its worthless. And you cant tell sh*t
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
I never seen Mike post that shot, try do the muddy face shot the same way. |
Maby he can post the shot from Gatsby then and compare it to Didderns ipad picture... |
Im quite sure you dont like to use that shot to compare anything against Mikes shots.
The muddy face shot you posted, was it perfect, or can you do that better.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
You will newer ever make a photo just like you see it. End of story.
But all pictures shown make a impression here is the fact.
Last edited by Diddern on Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:25 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Why is this picture so over exposed.? you have some serious clipping going on, why not make it look more natural, and capture all the content .? |
Like I say "camera", when you use a ipad you can press where the picture has its focus and adjustmendpoints, if you press a dark spot the picture gets brighter and opposite or the other way around.
So this tells it again, that its worthless. And you cant tell sh*t |
Your welcome to use another camera to show how your image on screen look like.
Bad screen shots dont help your case much in proving anything.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
I never seen Mike post that shot, try do the muddy face shot the same way. |
Maby he can post the shot from Gatsby then and compare it to Didderns ipad picture... |
Im quite sure you dont like to use that shot to compare anything against Mikes shots.
The muddy face shot you posted, was it perfect, or can you do that better.? |
Heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheehehehehehehehehehehehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | You will newer ever make a photo just like you see it. End of story.
But all pictures shown make a impression here is the fact. |
Agree.. Thats why we can just do it as good as we can get.. And it should not be a problem for you guys to do a better shot of that muddy face, as you have a camera with about 10x resolution to Mikes, and a Digital with a much much better MTF..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tell me Mr. Stridsvognen.
How can it be possible that a CRT any brand can be better at showing how a picture shall be shown when the MTF is 30-50 compared to a machine almost resolve 1080p almost hundred % ,,, how is that possible? What happens to debth, clearness, details, and so on. Because of the MTF?
Tell me this and only this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tell me Mr. Stridsvognen.
How can it be possible that a CRT any brand can be better at showing how a picture shall be shown when the MTF is 30-50 compared to a machine almost resolve 1080p almost hundred % ,,, how is that possible? What happens to debth, clearness, details, and so on. Because of the MTF?
Tell me this and only this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | Tell me Mr. Stridsvognen.
How can it be possible that a CRT any brand can be better at showing how a picture shall be shown when the MTF is 30-50 compared to a machine almost resolve 1080p almost hundred % ,,, how is that possible? What happens to debth, clearness, details, and so on. Because of the MTF?
Tell me this and only this. |
Have you ever seen a high bandwidth CRT projector, or for that matter a CRT who will resolve more than 80Mhz.?
As i been trying to ask.. Is that muddy face shot the best you guys can do, or can you do it better.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | Tell me Mr. Stridsvognen.
How can it be possible that a CRT any brand can be better at showing how a picture shall be shown when the MTF is 30-50 compared to a machine almost resolve 1080p almost hundred % ,,, how is that possible? What happens to debth, clearness, details, and so on. Because of the MTF?
Tell me this and only this. |
I think the point he made to you was to post another shot of the mud picture, and let that prove your point. And because that shot deals with low end, it should easily look better on the display that has the higher MTF.
Again, the camera is not being use to determine overall image quality. The shot is only being used to show the dark range, and that is where the better MTF should easily shine
Last edited by mp20748 on Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:36 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | You will newer ever make a photo just like you see it. End of story.
But all pictures shown make a impression here is the fact. |
Agree.. Thats why we can just do it as good as we can get.. And it should not be a problem for you guys to do a better shot of that muddy face, as you have a camera with about 10x resolution to Mikes, and a Digital with a much much better MTF.. |
If you look at Mikes muddy Apocalypto shot it is underexposed and has a lot of blackcrush, but you seem to ignore that. The scene in Apocalypto is from a daylight scene with the sun shining.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | Tell me Mr. Stridsvognen.
How can it be possible that a CRT any brand can be better at showing how a picture shall be shown when the MTF is 30-50 compared to a machine almost resolve 1080p almost hundred % ,,, how is that possible? What happens to debth, clearness, details, and so on. Because of the MTF?
Tell me this and only this. |
Have you ever seen a high bandwidth CRT projector, or for that matter a CRT who will resolve more than 80Mhz.?
As i been trying to ask.. Is that muddy face shot the best you guys can do, or can you do it better.? |
Have read anything I wrote?
You don't know what you're talking about CRT is a interlaced machine.
You are right it will be something better but still many miles from today's technology. You have to wake up and smell the coffee
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: |
And the samples contain pixels right?? What do you think is more correct, show the digital source material on a digital or an analogue??
|
Your digital does what is called a first order sample and hold. It gets the sample that is a spike signal and holds the value till the next sample. Our video dac gets the samples and turns it onto a sine after oversampling and filtering the alias info.
So what is more correct? The more complicated oversampled and filtered signal is more correct and you can not compare that to the way it was done 10 years ago. Mike optimised the video chain so the slewrate stays unaffected. So these days the MTF is far higher than what some guys know from the past of CRT. I bed it is close to 100% but have to admit I did only eyeball it.
Think of it this way. You desktop contains characters that are positioned on pixel positions by a computer. Your digital makes them into pixels. That looks good. The characters are very defined. Also your 1:1 testpicture looks good. It is very defined. But it is not correct. The two samples in the testpic a black and a white sample should be interpolated and filtered to a sine function. Now that looks soft on your testpic and your desktop and that you do not like. So if you would let the 4k upsampling do the things correct you say it is not sharp. You like it enhanced with reality creation.
So if there is a testpattern at 1080 samples half at full and half at zero intensity. You digital makes them into pixels and that happens to be correct. Now if the picture is a natural face or something you digital might take a mole and make it a complete black pixel. It has no more information so it just makes everything black and white. I prefer the softer more correct interpolation.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | Tell me Mr. Stridsvognen.
How can it be possible that a CRT any brand can be better at showing how a picture shall be shown when the MTF is 30-50 compared to a machine almost resolve 1080p almost hundred % ,,, how is that possible? What happens to debth, clearness, details, and so on. Because of the MTF?
Tell me this and only this. |
I think the point he made to you was to post another shot of the mud picture, and let that prove your point. And because that shot deals with low end, it should easily look better on the display that has the higher MTF.
Again, the camera is not being use to determine overall image quality. The shot is only being used to show the dark range, and that is where the better MTF should easily shine |
As i have said your picture is underexposed and does not show all the detail in the darker parts of the picture shown on screen. My picture shows the detail in the whole picture.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: |
As i have said your picture is underexposed and does not show all the detail in the darker parts of the picture shown on screen. My picture shows the detail in the whole picture. |
You keep missing the point. My evaluation point of reference, is why does your shot NOT show the correct color of the mud?
It is NOT Gray!
The camera may not have been able to get around a little crushing, but for sure I got the black right. And that was the focus
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | You will newer ever make a photo just like you see it. End of story.
But all pictures shown make a impression here is the fact. |
Agree.. Thats why we can just do it as good as we can get.. And it should not be a problem for you guys to do a better shot of that muddy face, as you have a camera with about 10x resolution to Mikes, and a Digital with a much much better MTF.. |
If you look at Mikes muddy Apocalypto shot it is underexposed and has a lot of blackcrush, but you seem to ignore that. The scene in Apocalypto is from a daylight scene with the sun shining. |
Lets see if Mike comes with a muddy face shot with a bit more detail in the lowest level.
You dont think that your shot is over exposed, at least Mike dont have all that green noise in the black area.
If you look under the eyes, and in the white part of the eyes i dont see much information in your picture, try make a better picture of that part.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | Tell me Mr. Stridsvognen.
How can it be possible that a CRT any brand can be better at showing how a picture shall be shown when the MTF is 30-50 compared to a machine almost resolve 1080p almost hundred % ,,, how is that possible? What happens to debth, clearness, details, and so on. Because of the MTF?
Tell me this and only this. |
Have you ever seen a high bandwidth CRT projector, or for that matter a CRT who will resolve more than 80Mhz.?
As i been trying to ask.. Is that muddy face shot the best you guys can do, or can you do it better.? |
Have read anything I wrote?
You don't know what you're talking about CRT is a interlaced machine.
You are right it will be something better but still many miles from today's technology. You have to wake up and smell the coffee |
A interlaced machine..?? lol
Please explain how that works..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
