I'm not sure I understand, provided you have built-in sharpened eyes, you
shall see both monitor and real world the same (oversharpened to our eyes)
then you will not need additional sharpening for image dispaly on your
monitor, no?
At the mean time, my eyes found oversharpened image has less details than
normal one. The oversharpened image just look edgier but not having
finer/more details.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> On 6/12/2011 9:29 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>> I think visual acuity may well be part of the issue. Remember, I have
>>> 20/10 (6/3) vision, I can resolve detail at 6 m
>>> that a person with average vision can't see unless twice as close. I
>>> see
>>> detail that most people don't.
>> I always doubt about this quote, we are watching a montior that can be
>> physically adjusted to any position we wanted. I can identify each pixel
>> so
>> I don't think I see any less (sharp) than you.
>
> You misunderstand. In this case, you could see the difference. I was
> talking about those who couldn't see it, at least
> without adding pixels by magnifying the image on their screens.
>
>> On the other hand some of your oversharpen cases (not this one) led me
>> believe your monitor is not sharp so you need more sharpening.
>
> This is much harder to make clear. I wish I could find a way for you to
> see the world through my eyes. My left eye is
> 20/20, the right about 20/10, even 20/8 at times in the past when they
> were checked.
>
> If I cover my right eye I, especially when viewing something with lots of
> fine detail, as with foliage, I'm almost
> shocked at how soft the world must appear to most people, let alone those
> with less than average visual acuity.
>
> The visual world in which I live is crunchier, edgier, I'm not sure just
> what the right word is, than that of most
> people. It has more small detail in the central visual field.
>
> When I sharpen an image for display, I naturally tend to try to make
> something that 'looks like' what the world looks
> like to me, what the subject looked like to me when I shot it. As it
> happens, that's often very hard or impossible to do
> with present display technology and web image sizes.
>
> So what you see is often the result of a struggle between what I want to
> see, what is possible for me to create and my
> knowledge that most folks like images less sharp than I do. Believe it or
> not, I routinely sharpen an image to something
> like my taste, then reduce that sharpening to show it to others on the
> web.
>
> I routinely am very frustrated at the impossibility of getting foliage to
> look 'right' on screen - it's often just so
> soft and undefined looking.
>
> It's not that I can't see the effect of what you find to be
> oversharpening - it's very obvious to me. It's that I am
> comparing the image on screen to a different visual world than you see.
> Something 'oversharpened' at least somewhat,
> while still imperfect, is often closer to my visual world than one that's
> softer, and more natural looking to you.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|