|
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 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | PostLink Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
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. |
We know the CRT have very bad MTF. we got used to that. And we also wonder why a high bandwidth CRT shows so much more details in a complex image than a new Digital.
I guess the lack of extra digital processing and CMS correction. must be a part of it. |
Please define More lol this I must hear.
I think you need to dig a bigger grave lol |
Ok.. look here. And tell me what picture displays the most details and looks most natural. |
Insted of zooming in on already highly compressed images, take a closeup with the camera, then it is easier to see. |
Thats a very very good idea. Try do that, and post it here and see how it compares to the low res CRT image.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | PostLink Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
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. |
We know the CRT have very bad MTF. we got used to that. And we also wonder why a high bandwidth CRT shows so much more details in a complex image than a new Digital.
I guess the lack of extra digital processing and CMS correction. must be a part of it. |
Please define More lol this I must hear.
I think you need to dig a bigger grave lol |
Ok.. look here. And tell me what picture displays the most details and looks most natural. |
Insted of zooming in on already highly compressed images, take a closeup with the camera, then it is easier to see. |
Thats a very very good idea. Try do that, and post it here and see how it compares to the low res CRT image. |
Do it yourself and maby someone will post a digital answer, I will not. And you need to take a real closeup. 
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here 3 pictures, I marked with red where to take the picture.
Show me pictures  Find the picture and find the time in picture.
Who will do this...... Cant wait to see.
Last edited by Diddern on Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:28 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | PostLink Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
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. |
We know the CRT have very bad MTF. we got used to that. And we also wonder why a high bandwidth CRT shows so much more details in a complex image than a new Digital.
I guess the lack of extra digital processing and CMS correction. must be a part of it. |
Please define More lol this I must hear.
I think you need to dig a bigger grave lol |
Ok.. look here. And tell me what picture displays the most details and looks most natural. |
Insted of zooming in on already highly compressed images, take a closeup with the camera, then it is easier to see. |
Thats a very very good idea. Try do that, and post it here and see how it compares to the low res CRT image. |
Do it yourself and maby someone will post a digital answer, I will not. And you need to take a real closeup. |
As long as the CRT picture shows much more detail and looks more natural, i have a hard time to understand why it need to be redone when there is nothing to challenge it.
I think it looks superb even on a low res screen shot, black is black, there is skin details, no white clipping and so on, stuff you cant say about the JVC image.
I cant understand why you dont take a new shot at it showing how much better the JVC with the good mtf can do black, and those high res details in the mud and shin around the eyes.
The difference i see in the CRT vs JVC shot compares very well to my experience comparing CRT vs Digital on my screen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | Here 3 pictures, I marked with red where to take the picture.
Show me pictures Find the picture and find the time in picture.
Who will do this...... Cant wait to see. |
lets finish the muddy face shots first, if you guys cant prove that one to be better why embarrassing yourself with more samples.?
The muddy face is a quite perfect scene for black white high and low res content.
Last edited by stridsvognen on Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | Here 3 pictures, I marked with red where to take the picture.
Show me pictures Find the picture and find the time in picture.
Who will do this...... Cant wait to see. |
lets finish the muddy face shots first, if you guys cant prove that one to be better why embarrassing yourself with more samples.?
The muddy face is a quite perfect scene for black white high and low res content. |
Shut up.
You are not doing it, so just watch and learn.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | Here 3 pictures, I marked with red where to take the picture.
Show me pictures Find the picture and find the time in picture.
Who will do this...... Cant wait to see. |
lets finish the muddy face shots first, if you guys cant prove that one to be better why embarrassing yourself with more samples.?
The muddy face is a quite perfect scene for black white high and low res content. |
I do not have this move.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | Here 3 pictures, I marked with red where to take the picture.
Show me pictures Find the picture and find the time in picture.
Who will do this...... Cant wait to see. |
lets finish the muddy face shots first, if you guys cant prove that one to be better why embarrassing yourself with more samples.?
The muddy face is a quite perfect scene for black white high and low res content. |
Shut up.
You are not doing it, so just watch and learn. |
Im all exited.. So bring that clean black and white, high resolution content, teach us all how it should look like.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | Here 3 pictures, I marked with red where to take the picture.
Show me pictures Find the picture and find the time in picture.
Who will do this...... Cant wait to see. |
lets finish the muddy face shots first, if you guys cant prove that one to be better why embarrassing yourself with more samples.?
The muddy face is a quite perfect scene for black white high and low res content. |
Shut up.
You are not doing it, so just watch and learn. |
Im all exited.. So bring that clean black and white, high resolution content, teach us all how it should look like. |
You will trust me.
But you are not the one that goanna do it, so its just to wait
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | PostLink Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
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. |
We know the CRT have very bad MTF. we got used to that. And we also wonder why a high bandwidth CRT shows so much more details in a complex image than a new Digital.
I guess the lack of extra digital processing and CMS correction. must be a part of it. |
Please define More lol this I must hear.
I think you need to dig a bigger grave lol |
Ok.. look here. And tell me what picture displays the most details and looks most natural. |
Insted of zooming in on already highly compressed images, take a closeup with the camera, then it is easier to see. |
Thats a very very good idea. Try do that, and post it here and see how it compares to the low res CRT image. |
Do it yourself and maby someone will post a digital answer, I will not. And you need to take a real closeup. |
As long as the CRT picture shows much more detail and looks more natural, i have a hard time to understand why it need to be redone when there is nothing to challenge it.
I think it looks superb even on a low res screen shot, black is black, there is skin details, no white clipping and so on, stuff you cant say about the JVC image.
I cant understand why you dont take a new shot at it showing how much better the JVC with the good mtf can do black, and those high res details in the mud and shin around the eyes.
The difference i see in the CRT vs JVC shot compares very well to my experience comparing CRT vs Digital on my screen. |
You are unbelievable!
You can not draw any of those conclusions from that low res picture.
And one of the really weak spots of CRT is very low ansi contrast.
And my JVC is perfectly calibrated and both brightness and contast is perfect, no black crush or white clipping here...
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | We'll be working on the mud shot, but for now, I'll post another shot for you to compare.
You have the better camera, recently calibrated and "better" projector, so this should be easy for you.
This one is for naturalness ONLY
 |
Thats a sweet screen shot, i have never seen a digital able to reproduce that level of naturalness. No Barco 909, or G90 for that matter.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | PostLink Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
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. |
We know the CRT have very bad MTF. we got used to that. And we also wonder why a high bandwidth CRT shows so much more details in a complex image than a new Digital.
I guess the lack of extra digital processing and CMS correction. must be a part of it. |
Please define More lol this I must hear.
I think you need to dig a bigger grave lol |
Ok.. look here. And tell me what picture displays the most details and looks most natural. |
Insted of zooming in on already highly compressed images, take a closeup with the camera, then it is easier to see. |
Thats a very very good idea. Try do that, and post it here and see how it compares to the low res CRT image. |
Do it yourself and maby someone will post a digital answer, I will not. And you need to take a real closeup. |
As long as the CRT picture shows much more detail and looks more natural, i have a hard time to understand why it need to be redone when there is nothing to challenge it.
I think it looks superb even on a low res screen shot, black is black, there is skin details, no white clipping and so on, stuff you cant say about the JVC image.
I cant understand why you dont take a new shot at it showing how much better the JVC with the good mtf can do black, and those high res details in the mud and shin around the eyes.
The difference i see in the CRT vs JVC shot compares very well to my experience comparing CRT vs Digital on my screen. |
You are unbelievable!
You can not draw any of those conclusions from that low res picture.
And one of the really weak spots of CRT is very low ansi contrast.
And my JVC is perfectly calibrated and both brightness and contast is perfect, no black crush or white clipping here... |
So is it the screen shot you made of the muddy face who is a bad screen shot?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | Here 3 pictures, I marked with red where to take the picture.
Show me pictures Find the picture and find the time in picture.
Who will do this...... Cant wait to see. |
I'll try and match this, and can't wait to get to it as well!
Unfortunately, I bought a 4TB HDD from a lying idiot off Ebay, in Ireland, wasn't working so need to buy another 5TB soon, but that's like 2 weeks time from now so you need to hang on for a while longer before I counteract this little stunt of yours. But I promise, I'm coming after you, sir! Buhu, right? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | PostLink Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
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. |
We know the CRT have very bad MTF. we got used to that. And we also wonder why a high bandwidth CRT shows so much more details in a complex image than a new Digital.
I guess the lack of extra digital processing and CMS correction. must be a part of it. |
Please define More lol this I must hear.
I think you need to dig a bigger grave lol |
Ok.. look here. And tell me what picture displays the most details and looks most natural. |
Insted of zooming in on already highly compressed images, take a closeup with the camera, then it is easier to see. |
Thats a very very good idea. Try do that, and post it here and see how it compares to the low res CRT image. |
Do it yourself and maby someone will post a digital answer, I will not. And you need to take a real closeup. |
As long as the CRT picture shows much more detail and looks more natural, i have a hard time to understand why it need to be redone when there is nothing to challenge it.
I think it looks superb even on a low res screen shot, black is black, there is skin details, no white clipping and so on, stuff you cant say about the JVC image.
I cant understand why you dont take a new shot at it showing how much better the JVC with the good mtf can do black, and those high res details in the mud and shin around the eyes.
The difference i see in the CRT vs JVC shot compares very well to my experience comparing CRT vs Digital on my screen. |
You are unbelievable!
You can not draw any of those conclusions from that low res picture.
And one of the really weak spots of CRT is very low ansi contrast.
And my JVC is perfectly calibrated and both brightness and contast is perfect, no black crush or white clipping here... |
So is it the screen shot you made of the muddy face who is a bad screen shot? |
Why don´t you post some shots yourself?
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | PostLink Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
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. |
We know the CRT have very bad MTF. we got used to that. And we also wonder why a high bandwidth CRT shows so much more details in a complex image than a new Digital.
I guess the lack of extra digital processing and CMS correction. must be a part of it. |
Please define More lol this I must hear.
I think you need to dig a bigger grave lol |
Ok.. look here. And tell me what picture displays the most details and looks most natural. |
Insted of zooming in on already highly compressed images, take a closeup with the camera, then it is easier to see. |
Thats a very very good idea. Try do that, and post it here and see how it compares to the low res CRT image. |
Do it yourself and maby someone will post a digital answer, I will not. And you need to take a real closeup. |
As long as the CRT picture shows much more detail and looks more natural, i have a hard time to understand why it need to be redone when there is nothing to challenge it.
I think it looks superb even on a low res screen shot, black is black, there is skin details, no white clipping and so on, stuff you cant say about the JVC image.
I cant understand why you dont take a new shot at it showing how much better the JVC with the good mtf can do black, and those high res details in the mud and shin around the eyes.
The difference i see in the CRT vs JVC shot compares very well to my experience comparing CRT vs Digital on my screen. |
You are unbelievable!
You can not draw any of those conclusions from that low res picture.
And one of the really weak spots of CRT is very low ansi contrast.
And my JVC is perfectly calibrated and both brightness and contast is perfect, no black crush or white clipping here... |
So is it the screen shot you made of the muddy face who is a bad screen shot? |
Why don´t you post some shots yourself? |
I have no clue to, or the skils to make a good screen shot.
Why dont you answer the question.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | You just have to do your best, look at the picture, and confirm it represent whats on your screen. |
Confirm it represents what's on your screen according to whom and what? You, looking at your computer monitor (which likely isn't calibrated, after it's been through a camera that also isn't profiled, then comparing it to somebody else's screenshots which were judged on a monitor which also isn't calibrated, under varying light conditions, from a totally different camera, screen, projector? This is process is so fraught with error and inaccuracy, that's utterly WORTHLESS for anything other than entertainment purposes.
Trying to judge black levels based on this process and saying things like, "I can tell the black levels are much better on this projector than that projector" or saying, "This projector just looks much more analog" when the photos were taken under completely different conditions is beyond ridiculous and ignorant.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Lets see who can do the best screen shot of that mud face. |
That's what you'll be finding out - who can do the best screen shot - which will have little to nothing to do with what people will actually be seeing in reality.
I also have to laugh at this whole "artificial sharpness" idea, like pixels are evil. Almost all movies are now shot on digital, and on the rare occasion they aren't, the rest of the entire post-production process, right up to and including the Blu-ray disc, is ALL DIGITAL. There are pixels in every single damn step of that process, yet somehow if a projector uses pixels, it's a horrible thing. <smh>
Guess what? If a digital guy want less sharpness and lower MTF, he can defocus the projector slightly. Even at 1080p, with typical viewing angles, nobody will see the pixels unless they strain to find them, and then only under certain circumstances. Even then, it's just the projector very faithfully reproducing the original signal, which is of course made up of pixels.
The CRT fanboy-ism here is just as pathetic as the digital fanboy-ism.
SC |
This is one of the few useful posts over the last several pages - strangely enough, strids chose to ignore it. Do you have a reasonable response, Kurt? Or are you going to continue to demand answers to meaningless questions about equally useless pictures? |
Yeah ecrabb has for the longest been telling all about pictures, whats wrong, and how to make them right.. But he never post any shots.. so its hard to take the guy serious.
This game should leave all advances to the Digital, as the CRT have that bad bad MTF, and Mike uses a cheep camera in a room with some daylight. |
Ah, perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of calibration. Calibration is the comparison of something to a known standard. It's useful in numerous fields, including that of capturing and reproducing both video and still pictures with respect to white point, gamma, and color space. In reality, no one really calibrates their capture device or display, as no one compares their white point or color to the actual source reference. Instead, we have field instruments which have been compared to the reference, and then we use those instruments to adjust our capture devices and video displays.
The concept of calibration applies just as equally across the chain from capture thru editing to display. If any item in the chain is not properly calibrated, then you completely lose the fidelity of the original image. For example, if the camera you use isn't actually set to D65 as its reference white point (and you haven't actually calibrated that on your camera), then every single grey and color that it captures will be skewed when reproduced on any display that's not set exactly the same. Because of the incredibly wide variation in potential settings, chances are incredibly low that a random display will perfectly match the uncalibrated settings on your improperly set up camera.
Another example: if the gamma and brightness are no properly set on your monitor, then when you adjust an image to make it "look" like what you're seeing on the display you took a picture of, you're only adjusting it to look correct on that display. Show that picture on another display - even the exact same model with the exact same settings - and there's more than enough tolerance variation in consumer electronics to allow that picture to look completely different. In fact, chances are incredibly high that it will crush or inflate blacks rather than being spot on as compared to the previous display. The same here applies to color settings and greyscale.
Thus, when discussing screen shots for the purpose of comparing color, greyscale, black levels, shadow detail, and other image qualities that we use to measure the "rightness" of a display (even that term has a lot of grey area...pun partially intended), it is paramount the capture device, editing monitor, and subsequent viewing monitors all perform identically and be calibrated identically. If this is not the case, then you're shooting at a moving target, and useful comparison becomes impossible - you'd have better luck pissing into the wind.
This is exactly what ecrabb is pointing out. Your request that each person "give it their best shot" is utterly meaningless because, unless all capture devices, editing processes and monitors, and viewing monitors are standardized and calibrated, than what appears to be black crush with understaurated colors on one monitor will be just about right on another, and floating blacks and oversaturated colors on yet another.
This is exactly what Steve and now I have been trying to point out, and what you have for some reason been blithely ignoring in your quest here. For someone who seems so concerned about preserving video fidelity, I find this to be a curious and incredibly contradictory stance. Either you care about accurate image reproduction or you just like what looks good to you personally; you can't burn that candle at both ends.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | There is 2 options here, and it would be nice to know whats the right one. |
No, and that's the crux of all this screenshot nonsense: given the variability in capture device and display settings, there is a virtually limitless set of options here, almost none of which are correct in terms of maintaining image fidelity.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | The digital sucks, or those guys cant make a decent screenshot. |
I really have no interest in your CRT vs digital pissing match here, just as I have no interest in whether a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill or whether a Phillips #1 head is better than a #2 head. They're all false dichotomies which have no logically superior choice; rather, you pick what suits you best, accepting its advantages and shortcomings.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | And they hold the power to tell whats right, im just asking the question. |
No, your question is meaningless because no standard basis for comparison (i.e. across the board calibration) has been applied. Even if it were, limitations of the display on which the images were viewed would color (in the general sense of distorting) them in its own way. Unless you think you couldn't tell the difference between an LCD, plasma, OLED, and CRT all properly calibrated to D65, REC.709, and BT.1886 gamma.
Of course, this all completely ignores the lunacy of taking a compressed picture - using finite pixels - of an image comprised of different pixels, editing it, and then further compressing it and claiming it serves any utility for observing supposed digital artifacts, MTF/sharpness/detail of a display, and other pixel-level qualities.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | What image of that muddy face do you think looks the best.? |
Again, a wholly meaningless question when using screen shots to make the comparison. What I have presented is fact; ignoring it and continuing to harp on screen shots won't change that. It will simply make you more incorrect in this endeavor.
Caveat: I'm NOT weighing in on the whole CRT vs digital nonsense. It's a stupid argument to begin with. I'm simply pointing out your wholly incorrect, incessant harping on screen shots as if they actually mean something. Which they don't for the things that you're trying to compare.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | We'll be working on the mud shot, but for now, I'll post another shot for you to compare.
You have the better camera, recently calibrated and "better" projector, so this should be easy for you.
This one is for naturalness ONLY
|
Thats a sweet screen shot, i have never seen a digital able to reproduce that level of naturalness. No Barco 909, or G90 for that matter. |
You are so sweet, hehe naturalness explain ..l.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | You just have to do your best, look at the picture, and confirm it represent whats on your screen. |
Confirm it represents what's on your screen according to whom and what? You, looking at your computer monitor (which likely isn't calibrated, after it's been through a camera that also isn't profiled, then comparing it to somebody else's screenshots which were judged on a monitor which also isn't calibrated, under varying light conditions, from a totally different camera, screen, projector? This is process is so fraught with error and inaccuracy, that's utterly WORTHLESS for anything other than entertainment purposes.
Trying to judge black levels based on this process and saying things like, "I can tell the black levels are much better on this projector than that projector" or saying, "This projector just looks much more analog" when the photos were taken under completely different conditions is beyond ridiculous and ignorant.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Lets see who can do the best screen shot of that mud face. |
That's what you'll be finding out - who can do the best screen shot - which will have little to nothing to do with what people will actually be seeing in reality.
I also have to laugh at this whole "artificial sharpness" idea, like pixels are evil. Almost all movies are now shot on digital, and on the rare occasion they aren't, the rest of the entire post-production process, right up to and including the Blu-ray disc, is ALL DIGITAL. There are pixels in every single damn step of that process, yet somehow if a projector uses pixels, it's a horrible thing. <smh>
Guess what? If a digital guy want less sharpness and lower MTF, he can defocus the projector slightly. Even at 1080p, with typical viewing angles, nobody will see the pixels unless they strain to find them, and then only under certain circumstances. Even then, it's just the projector very faithfully reproducing the original signal, which is of course made up of pixels.
The CRT fanboy-ism here is just as pathetic as the digital fanboy-ism.
SC |
This is one of the few useful posts over the last several pages - strangely enough, strids chose to ignore it. Do you have a reasonable response, Kurt? Or are you going to continue to demand answers to meaningless questions about equally useless pictures? |
Yeah ecrabb has for the longest been telling all about pictures, whats wrong, and how to make them right.. But he never post any shots.. so its hard to take the guy serious.
This game should leave all advances to the Digital, as the CRT have that bad bad MTF, and Mike uses a cheep camera in a room with some daylight. |
Ah, perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of calibration. Calibration is the comparison of something to a known standard. It's useful in numerous fields, including that of capturing and reproducing both video and still pictures with respect to white point, gamma, and color space. In reality, no one really calibrates their capture device or display, as no one compares their white point or color to the actual source reference. Instead, we have field instruments which have been compared to the reference, and then we use those instruments to adjust our capture devices and video displays.
The concept of calibration applies just as equally across the chain from capture thru editing to display. If any item in the chain is not properly calibrated, then you completely lose the fidelity of the original image. For example, if the camera you use isn't actually set to D65 as its reference white point (and you haven't actually calibrated that on your camera), then every single grey and color that it captures will be skewed when reproduced on any display that's not set exactly the same. Because of the incredibly wide variation in potential settings, chances are incredibly low that a random display will perfectly match the uncalibrated settings on your improperly set up camera.
Another example: if the gamma and brightness are no properly set on your monitor, then when you adjust an image to make it "look" like what you're seeing on the display you took a picture of, you're only adjusting it to look correct on that display. Show that picture on another display - even the exact same model with the exact same settings - and there's more than enough tolerance variation in consumer electronics to allow that picture to look completely different. In fact, chances are incredibly high that it will crush or inflate blacks rather than being spot on as compared to the previous display. The same here applies to color settings and greyscale.
Thus, when discussing screen shots for the purpose of comparing color, greyscale, black levels, shadow detail, and other image qualities that we use to measure the "rightness" of a display (even that term has a lot of grey area...pun partially intended), it is paramount the capture device, editing monitor, and subsequent viewing monitors all perform identically and be calibrated identically. If this is not the case, then you're shooting at a moving target, and useful comparison becomes impossible - you'd have better luck pissing into the wind.
This is exactly what ecrabb is pointing out. Your request that each person "give it their best shot" is utterly meaningless because, unless all capture devices, editing processes and monitors, and viewing monitors are standardized and calibrated, than what appears to be black crush with understaurated colors on one monitor will be just about right on another, and floating blacks and oversaturated colors on yet another.
This is exactly what Steve and now I have been trying to point out, and what you have for some reason been blithely ignoring in your quest here. For someone who seems so concerned about preserving video fidelity, I find this to be a curious and incredibly contradictory stance. Either you care about accurate image reproduction or you just like what looks good to you personally; you can't burn that candle at both ends.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | There is 2 options here, and it would be nice to know whats the right one. |
No, and that's the crux of all this screenshot nonsense: given the variability in capture device and display settings, there is a virtually limitless set of options here, almost none of which are correct in terms of maintaining image fidelity.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | The digital sucks, or those guys cant make a decent screenshot. |
I really have no interest in your CRT vs digital pissing match here, just as I have no interest in whether a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill or whether a Phillips #1 head is better than a #2 head. They're all false dichotomies which have no logically superior choice; rather, you pick what suits you best, accepting its advantages and shortcomings.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | And they hold the power to tell whats right, im just asking the question. |
No, your question is meaningless because no standard basis for comparison (i.e. across the board calibration) has been applied. Even if it were, limitations of the display on which the images were viewed would color (in the general sense of distorting) them in its own way. Unless you think you couldn't tell the difference between an LCD, plasma, OLED, and CRT all properly calibrated to D65, REC.709, and BT.1886 gamma.
Of course, this all completely ignores the lunacy of taking a compressed picture - using finite pixels - of an image comprised of different pixels, editing it, and then further compressing it and claiming it serves any utility for observing supposed digital artifacts, MTF/sharpness/detail of a display, and other pixel-level qualities.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | What image of that muddy face do you think looks the best.? |
Again, a wholly meaningless question when using screen shots to make the comparison. What I have presented is fact; ignoring it and continuing to harp on screen shots won't change that. It will simply make you more incorrect in this endeavor.
Caveat: I'm NOT weighing in on the whole CRT vs digital nonsense. It's a stupid argument to begin with. I'm simply pointing out your wholly incorrect, incessant harping on screen shots as if they actually mean something. Which they don't for the things that you're trying to compare. |
+2
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | You just have to do your best, look at the picture, and confirm it represent whats on your screen. |
Confirm it represents what's on your screen according to whom and what? You, looking at your computer monitor (which likely isn't calibrated, after it's been through a camera that also isn't profiled, then comparing it to somebody else's screenshots which were judged on a monitor which also isn't calibrated, under varying light conditions, from a totally different camera, screen, projector? This is process is so fraught with error and inaccuracy, that's utterly WORTHLESS for anything other than entertainment purposes.
Trying to judge black levels based on this process and saying things like, "I can tell the black levels are much better on this projector than that projector" or saying, "This projector just looks much more analog" when the photos were taken under completely different conditions is beyond ridiculous and ignorant.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Lets see who can do the best screen shot of that mud face. |
That's what you'll be finding out - who can do the best screen shot - which will have little to nothing to do with what people will actually be seeing in reality.
I also have to laugh at this whole "artificial sharpness" idea, like pixels are evil. Almost all movies are now shot on digital, and on the rare occasion they aren't, the rest of the entire post-production process, right up to and including the Blu-ray disc, is ALL DIGITAL. There are pixels in every single damn step of that process, yet somehow if a projector uses pixels, it's a horrible thing. <smh>
Guess what? If a digital guy want less sharpness and lower MTF, he can defocus the projector slightly. Even at 1080p, with typical viewing angles, nobody will see the pixels unless they strain to find them, and then only under certain circumstances. Even then, it's just the projector very faithfully reproducing the original signal, which is of course made up of pixels.
The CRT fanboy-ism here is just as pathetic as the digital fanboy-ism.
SC |
This is one of the few useful posts over the last several pages - strangely enough, strids chose to ignore it. Do you have a reasonable response, Kurt? Or are you going to continue to demand answers to meaningless questions about equally useless pictures? |
Yeah ecrabb has for the longest been telling all about pictures, whats wrong, and how to make them right.. But he never post any shots.. so its hard to take the guy serious.
This game should leave all advances to the Digital, as the CRT have that bad bad MTF, and Mike uses a cheep camera in a room with some daylight. |
Ah, perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of calibration. Calibration is the comparison of something to a known standard. It's useful in numerous fields, including that of capturing and reproducing both video and still pictures with respect to white point, gamma, and color space. In reality, no one really calibrates their capture device or display, as no one compares their white point or color to the actual source reference. Instead, we have field instruments which have been compared to the reference, and then we use those instruments to adjust our capture devices and video displays.
The concept of calibration applies just as equally across the chain from capture thru editing to display. If any item in the chain is not properly calibrated, then you completely lose the fidelity of the original image. For example, if the camera you use isn't actually set to D65 as its reference white point (and you haven't actually calibrated that on your camera), then every single grey and color that it captures will be skewed when reproduced on any display that's not set exactly the same. Because of the incredibly wide variation in potential settings, chances are incredibly low that a random display will perfectly match the uncalibrated settings on your improperly set up camera.
Another example: if the gamma and brightness are no properly set on your monitor, then when you adjust an image to make it "look" like what you're seeing on the display you took a picture of, you're only adjusting it to look correct on that display. Show that picture on another display - even the exact same model with the exact same settings - and there's more than enough tolerance variation in consumer electronics to allow that picture to look completely different. In fact, chances are incredibly high that it will crush or inflate blacks rather than being spot on as compared to the previous display. The same here applies to color settings and greyscale.
Thus, when discussing screen shots for the purpose of comparing color, greyscale, black levels, shadow detail, and other image qualities that we use to measure the "rightness" of a display (even that term has a lot of grey area...pun partially intended), it is paramount the capture device, editing monitor, and subsequent viewing monitors all perform identically and be calibrated identically. If this is not the case, then you're shooting at a moving target, and useful comparison becomes impossible - you'd have better luck pissing into the wind.
This is exactly what ecrabb is pointing out. Your request that each person "give it their best shot" is utterly meaningless because, unless all capture devices, editing processes and monitors, and viewing monitors are standardized and calibrated, than what appears to be black crush with understaurated colors on one monitor will be just about right on another, and floating blacks and oversaturated colors on yet another.
This is exactly what Steve and now I have been trying to point out, and what you have for some reason been blithely ignoring in your quest here. For someone who seems so concerned about preserving video fidelity, I find this to be a curious and incredibly contradictory stance. Either you care about accurate image reproduction or you just like what looks good to you personally; you can't burn that candle at both ends.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | There is 2 options here, and it would be nice to know whats the right one. |
No, and that's the crux of all this screenshot nonsense: given the variability in capture device and display settings, there is a virtually limitless set of options here, almost none of which are correct in terms of maintaining image fidelity.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | The digital sucks, or those guys cant make a decent screenshot. |
I really have no interest in your CRT vs digital pissing match here, just as I have no interest in whether a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill or whether a Phillips #1 head is better than a #2 head. They're all false dichotomies which have no logically superior choice; rather, you pick what suits you best, accepting its advantages and shortcomings.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | And they hold the power to tell whats right, im just asking the question. |
No, your question is meaningless because no standard basis for comparison (i.e. across the board calibration) has been applied. Even if it were, limitations of the display on which the images were viewed would color (in the general sense of distorting) them in its own way. Unless you think you couldn't tell the difference between an LCD, plasma, OLED, and CRT all properly calibrated to D65, REC.709, and BT.1886 gamma.
Of course, this all completely ignores the lunacy of taking a compressed picture - using finite pixels - of an image comprised of different pixels, editing it, and then further compressing it and claiming it serves any utility for observing supposed digital artifacts, MTF/sharpness/detail of a display, and other pixel-level qualities.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | What image of that muddy face do you think looks the best.? |
Again, a wholly meaningless question when using screen shots to make the comparison. What I have presented is fact; ignoring it and continuing to harp on screen shots won't change that. It will simply make you more incorrect in this endeavor.
Caveat: I'm NOT weighing in on the whole CRT vs digital nonsense. It's a stupid argument to begin with. I'm simply pointing out your wholly incorrect, incessant harping on screen shots as if they actually mean something. Which they don't for the things that you're trying to compare. |
So if you for a moment forget its a screenshot, whats the best picture of the 2.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | You just have to do your best, look at the picture, and confirm it represent whats on your screen. |
Confirm it represents what's on your screen according to whom and what? You, looking at your computer monitor (which likely isn't calibrated, after it's been through a camera that also isn't profiled, then comparing it to somebody else's screenshots which were judged on a monitor which also isn't calibrated, under varying light conditions, from a totally different camera, screen, projector? This is process is so fraught with error and inaccuracy, that's utterly WORTHLESS for anything other than entertainment purposes.
Trying to judge black levels based on this process and saying things like, "I can tell the black levels are much better on this projector than that projector" or saying, "This projector just looks much more analog" when the photos were taken under completely different conditions is beyond ridiculous and ignorant.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Lets see who can do the best screen shot of that mud face. |
That's what you'll be finding out - who can do the best screen shot - which will have little to nothing to do with what people will actually be seeing in reality.
I also have to laugh at this whole "artificial sharpness" idea, like pixels are evil. Almost all movies are now shot on digital, and on the rare occasion they aren't, the rest of the entire post-production process, right up to and including the Blu-ray disc, is ALL DIGITAL. There are pixels in every single damn step of that process, yet somehow if a projector uses pixels, it's a horrible thing. <smh>
Guess what? If a digital guy want less sharpness and lower MTF, he can defocus the projector slightly. Even at 1080p, with typical viewing angles, nobody will see the pixels unless they strain to find them, and then only under certain circumstances. Even then, it's just the projector very faithfully reproducing the original signal, which is of course made up of pixels.
The CRT fanboy-ism here is just as pathetic as the digital fanboy-ism.
SC |
This is one of the few useful posts over the last several pages - strangely enough, strids chose to ignore it. Do you have a reasonable response, Kurt? Or are you going to continue to demand answers to meaningless questions about equally useless pictures? |
Yeah ecrabb has for the longest been telling all about pictures, whats wrong, and how to make them right.. But he never post any shots.. so its hard to take the guy serious.
This game should leave all advances to the Digital, as the CRT have that bad bad MTF, and Mike uses a cheep camera in a room with some daylight. |
Ah, perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of calibration. Calibration is the comparison of something to a known standard. It's useful in numerous fields, including that of capturing and reproducing both video and still pictures with respect to white point, gamma, and color space. In reality, no one really calibrates their capture device or display, as no one compares their white point or color to the actual source reference. Instead, we have field instruments which have been compared to the reference, and then we use those instruments to adjust our capture devices and video displays.
The concept of calibration applies just as equally across the chain from capture thru editing to display. If any item in the chain is not properly calibrated, then you completely lose the fidelity of the original image. For example, if the camera you use isn't actually set to D65 as its reference white point (and you haven't actually calibrated that on your camera), then every single grey and color that it captures will be skewed when reproduced on any display that's not set exactly the same. Because of the incredibly wide variation in potential settings, chances are incredibly low that a random display will perfectly match the uncalibrated settings on your improperly set up camera.
Another example: if the gamma and brightness are no properly set on your monitor, then when you adjust an image to make it "look" like what you're seeing on the display you took a picture of, you're only adjusting it to look correct on that display. Show that picture on another display - even the exact same model with the exact same settings - and there's more than enough tolerance variation in consumer electronics to allow that picture to look completely different. In fact, chances are incredibly high that it will crush or inflate blacks rather than being spot on as compared to the previous display. The same here applies to color settings and greyscale.
Thus, when discussing screen shots for the purpose of comparing color, greyscale, black levels, shadow detail, and other image qualities that we use to measure the "rightness" of a display (even that term has a lot of grey area...pun partially intended), it is paramount the capture device, editing monitor, and subsequent viewing monitors all perform identically and be calibrated identically. If this is not the case, then you're shooting at a moving target, and useful comparison becomes impossible - you'd have better luck pissing into the wind.
This is exactly what ecrabb is pointing out. Your request that each person "give it their best shot" is utterly meaningless because, unless all capture devices, editing processes and monitors, and viewing monitors are standardized and calibrated, than what appears to be black crush with understaurated colors on one monitor will be just about right on another, and floating blacks and oversaturated colors on yet another.
This is exactly what Steve and now I have been trying to point out, and what you have for some reason been blithely ignoring in your quest here. For someone who seems so concerned about preserving video fidelity, I find this to be a curious and incredibly contradictory stance. Either you care about accurate image reproduction or you just like what looks good to you personally; you can't burn that candle at both ends.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | There is 2 options here, and it would be nice to know whats the right one. |
No, and that's the crux of all this screenshot nonsense: given the variability in capture device and display settings, there is a virtually limitless set of options here, almost none of which are correct in terms of maintaining image fidelity.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | The digital sucks, or those guys cant make a decent screenshot. |
I really have no interest in your CRT vs digital pissing match here, just as I have no interest in whether a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill or whether a Phillips #1 head is better than a #2 head. They're all false dichotomies which have no logically superior choice; rather, you pick what suits you best, accepting its advantages and shortcomings.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | And they hold the power to tell whats right, im just asking the question. |
No, your question is meaningless because no standard basis for comparison (i.e. across the board calibration) has been applied. Even if it were, limitations of the display on which the images were viewed would color (in the general sense of distorting) them in its own way. Unless you think you couldn't tell the difference between an LCD, plasma, OLED, and CRT all properly calibrated to D65, REC.709, and BT.1886 gamma.
Of course, this all completely ignores the lunacy of taking a compressed picture - using finite pixels - of an image comprised of different pixels, editing it, and then further compressing it and claiming it serves any utility for observing supposed digital artifacts, MTF/sharpness/detail of a display, and other pixel-level qualities.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | What image of that muddy face do you think looks the best.? |
Again, a wholly meaningless question when using screen shots to make the comparison. What I have presented is fact; ignoring it and continuing to harp on screen shots won't change that. It will simply make you more incorrect in this endeavor.
Caveat: I'm NOT weighing in on the whole CRT vs digital nonsense. It's a stupid argument to begin with. I'm simply pointing out your wholly incorrect, incessant harping on screen shots as if they actually mean something. Which they don't for the things that you're trying to compare. |
So if you for a moment forget its a screenshot, whats the best picture of the 2.? |
Witch 2 post them up again
|
|
| 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
|
|
