10-05-2010, 09:23 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1286210378' post='3478']
We are not looking at different things. I seem to be looking at what we can see, you seem to not be doing that.
We see much more detail all over, and yes, we see some colour artifacts from a bad RAW converter. We were not discussing the colour, though, we were discussing the extra "detail", which is very apparent (it is in luminance, not in colour space... both get extracted from the RAW data in different ways).
[/quote]
Right, so these are the artifacts from a bad RAW converter and not the interpolation blocks, why I didn't think of that? Care to elaborate on which RAW converter produces such ugly artifacts so I could avoid it in the future? :-)
As I get it, you're basically refusing to see what I'm pointing at. Also I don't really understand why you always emphasize that detail is equal to luminance and chroma has nothing to do with that, when it's simply not true and shows [quote] a lack of insight in the matter [unquote].
I'm not talking about the colour accuracy here, but any chroma based details. Yes, these are called *details*, otherwise all B/W images would have exactly the same amount of details as the colour images. Or are you going to argue with this?
My point still stands, especially when your link very conveniently demonstrates an increase of sharpness on B/W sections of the photos only ;-)
We are not looking at different things. I seem to be looking at what we can see, you seem to not be doing that.
We see much more detail all over, and yes, we see some colour artifacts from a bad RAW converter. We were not discussing the colour, though, we were discussing the extra "detail", which is very apparent (it is in luminance, not in colour space... both get extracted from the RAW data in different ways).
[/quote]
Right, so these are the artifacts from a bad RAW converter and not the interpolation blocks, why I didn't think of that? Care to elaborate on which RAW converter produces such ugly artifacts so I could avoid it in the future? :-)
As I get it, you're basically refusing to see what I'm pointing at. Also I don't really understand why you always emphasize that detail is equal to luminance and chroma has nothing to do with that, when it's simply not true and shows [quote] a lack of insight in the matter [unquote].
I'm not talking about the colour accuracy here, but any chroma based details. Yes, these are called *details*, otherwise all B/W images would have exactly the same amount of details as the colour images. Or are you going to argue with this?
My point still stands, especially when your link very conveniently demonstrates an increase of sharpness on B/W sections of the photos only ;-)