Upload & Sell: Off
You may have searched for the one word (oneword) permutation, rather than 'micro contrast'. As an aside, I favour 'micro-contrast' - to indicate the two concepts are closely coupled.
Microsoft, microscope, microclimate, .. it is tempting to write microcontrast as one word. I would have found "micro contrast" or "micro-contrast", though.
In any case, I point you to this document featuring the term, I hope the author is sufficiently well-credentialed for you:
And it gives me another chance to point to something more akin to Bif's above statement regarding the importance of 'something more' at the edge of vision.
This is from the same document, in the context of MTF:
"But what does ‘contrast rendition’ actually mean? We must not forget that when we
talk about ‘contrast’ we always mean micro contrast, i.e. structures, which we
can just about see or just cannot see with the naked eye, for example on a slide."
He is either not telling the truth (this very thread is sufficient evidence) or he is using the majestic plural. I don't think the existence of his document is sufficient to get the term adopted by an appropriate standards body, but at least it is a start. Thanks. Used this way, it is a fairly subjective term though.
Zeiss are also big on the *subjective appearance* of sharpness, cited in the same paper, and elsewhere in their series. So maybe we can further modify the thread subject title to 'How much apparent sharpness do you need, punk?'
Sorry, added the last word in as a reference to Dirty Harry's likely appearance at Mitt's big do in the US today, please forgive me. Or not, as the case may be.
At least he was on the right track in the movies.