Hehehe, it seems like we\'ve come full circle and we\'re back to \"It\'s DOF with micro-contrast (detailed texture)\" yet again.
And, yes it makes sense Samuli, as texture is a function of pixel resolution - relative to the display device and not the real world object - as demonstrated by the castle shot and dictated by common sense. Right? I mean actually there is vastly rich texture even below the molecular scale but we won\'t be seeing these in a DSLR shot from 30 meters away as displayed on a 30\" monitor.
And please forgive me but I\'m still not sure why we have to redefine what has already been defined in much more detail, scientifically, and without imaginary \"feelings\" or a magic ingredient. <shrug> http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=304
I dunno if you will have time to read all of those as I have but my basic thinking is that anyone who does will likely never attempt to use a term like \"3D\" to describe a photograph again.
Hehehe, it seems like we\'ve come full circle and we\'re back to \"It\'s DOF with micro-contrast (detailed texture)\" yet again.
And, yes it makes sense Samuli, as texture is a function of pixel resolution - relative to the display device and not the real world object - as demonstrated by the castle shot and dictated by common sense. Right? I mean actually there is vastly rich texture even below the molecular scale but we won\'t be seeing these in a DSLR shot from 30 meters away as displayed on a 30\" monitor.
And please forgive me but I\'m still not sure why we have to redefine what has already been defined in much more detail, scientifically, and without imaginary \"feelings\" or a magic ingredient. <shrug> http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=304
I dunno if you will have time to read all of those as I have but my basic thinking is that anyone who does will likely never attempt to use a term like \"3D\" to describe a photograph again.
Hehehe, it seems like we\'ve come full circle and we\'re back to \"It\'s DOF with micro-contrast (detailed texture)\" yet again.
And, yes it makes sense Samuli, as texture is a function of pixel resolution - relative to the display device and not the real world object - as demonstrated by the castle shot and dictated by common sense. Right? I mean actually there is vastly rich texture even below the molecular scale but we won\'t be seeing these in a DSLR shot from 30 meters away as displayed on a 30\" monitor.
And please forgive me but I\'m still not sure why we have to redefine what has already been defined in much more detail, scientifically, and without imaginary \"feelings\" or a magic ingredient. <shrug> http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=304
I dunno if you will have time to read all of those as I have but my basic thinking is that anyone who does will likely never attempt to use a term like \"3D\" to describe a photograph again.
Hehehe, it seems like we\'ve come full circle and we\'re back to \"It\'s DOF with micro-contrast (detailed texture)\" yet again.
And, yes it makes sense Samuli, as texture is a function of pixel resolution - relative to the display device and not the real world object - as demonstrated by the castle shot and dictated by common sense. Right? I mean actually there is vastly rich texture even below the molecular scale but we won\'t be seeing these in a DSLR shot from 30 meters away as displayed on a 30\" monitor.
And please forgive me but I\'m still not sure why we have to redefine what has already been defined in much more detail, scientifically, and without imaginary \"feelings\" or a magic ingredient. <shrug> http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=304
I dunno if you will have time to read all of those as I have but I basic thinking is that anyone who does will likely never attempt to use a term like \"3D\" to describe a photograph again.
Hehehe, it seems like we\'ve come full circle and we\'re back to \"It\'s DOF with micro-contrast (detailed texture)\" yet again.
And, yes it makes sense Samuli, as texture is a function of pixel resolution - relative to the display device and not the real world object - as demonstrated by the castle shot and dictated by common sense. Right? I mean actually there is vastly rich texture even below the molecular scale but we won\'t be seeing these in a DSLR shot from 30 meters away as displayed on a 30\" monitor.
And please forgive me but I\'m still not sure why we have to redefine what has already been defined in much more detail, scientifically, and without imaginary \"feelings\". <shrug> http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=304
I dunno if you will have time to read all of those as I have but I basic thinking is that anyone who does will likely never attempt to use a term like \"3D\" to describe a photograph again.
Hehehe, it seems like we\'ve come full circle and we\'re back to \"It\'s DOF with micro-contrast (detailed texture)\" yet again.
And, yes it makes sense Samuli, as texture is a function of pixel resolution - relative to the display device and not the real world object - as demonstrated by the castle shot and dictated by common sense. Right? I mean actually there is vastly rich texture even below the molecular scale but we won\'t be seeing these in a DSLR shot from 30 meters away as displayed on a 30\" monitor.
And please forgive me but I\'m still not sure why we have to redefine what has already been defined in much more detail, scientifically, and without imaginary \"feelings\". <shrug> http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=304
I dunno if you will have time to read all of those as I have but I basic thinking is that anyone who does will likely never attempt to use a term like \"3D\" to describe a photograph again.
Hehehe, it seems like we\'ve come full circle and we\'re back to \"It\'s DOF with micro-contrast (detailed texture)\" yet again.
And, yes it makes sense Samuli, as texture is a function of pixel resolution - relative to the display device and not the real world object - as demonstrated by the castle shot and dictated by common sense. Right? I mean actually there is vastly rich texture even below the molecular scale but we won\'t be seeing these in a DSLR shot from 30 meters away as displayed on a 30\" monitor.
Jan 16, 2010 at 07:43 AM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #8011887 « what is '3d' ? »
