- You missed my point - I'm not in agreement with the original assumption. - Don Till 16:23:52 11/02/09
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: Oh boy... It's that rare case when I actually agree with Don. posted by carcass93 on November 02, 2009 at 10:05:35
And even if I was, and I might not be surprised if I actually would be, the most I would conclude it that the most accurate is not always the most preferable.
But that fact I came to that exact conclusion decades ago.
What's objectionable is attempting to find objective evidence why? As if one really expects science to back up their own subjective preferences? That's so arrogant and self-serving it's repulsive.
- I thought I made it clear what exactly I agree with, quoting your 2 sentences. - carcass93 08:37:40 11/03/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: You missed my point - I'm not in agreement with the original assumption. posted by Don Till on November 02, 2009 at 16:23:52
If it's of any solace - the rest of it, or any of your follow-ups, didn't make sense to me whatsoever, as usual is the case with your posts.
- RE: You missed my point - I'm not in agreement with the original assumption. - Todd Krieger 22:08:49 11/02/09
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: You missed my point - I'm not in agreement with the original assumption. posted by Don Till on November 02, 2009 at 16:23:52
"And even if I was, and I might not be surprised if I actually would be, the most I would conclude it that the most accurate is not always the most preferable."
"Accuracy" should be associated with a standard or benchmark (no pun intended). Otherwise, "accuracy" will have different meanings to different people.
(There is a standard for color accuracy of still picture cameras called Imatest. People use this to determine the color accuracy of a camera under review. The deviations from accuracy are ultimately displayed on a chart.)
I no longer use the term "accurate" in an audio assessment..... I might *think* it's accurate, but that does not mean it would perform well referenced to an established standard, if it were to exist.
- RE: Accuracy - rick_m 10:43:50 11/03/09
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: You missed my point - I'm not in agreement with the original assumption. posted by Todd Krieger on November 02, 2009 at 22:08:49
I love the chart, it's really colorful...
And color is only a small part of the picture, pun intended. How about MTF, pincushion and barrel distortions, off-axis glare resistance, speed, noise, handling, size, weight, cost, auto focus speed and error, flexibility vs ease of use? And that's just a camera, how about the mapping of the gamut through your computer display error and service's printer?
But when push comes to shove, who cares? It's just like stereos, is accuracy in the look (or sound) or is accuracy in the emotional impact? If the latter then you're almost always better off with black and white prints.
Rick
- RE: Accuracy - rick_m 10:43:50 11/03/09
(0)
- I thought I made it clear what exactly I agree with, quoting your 2 sentences. - carcass93 08:37:40 11/03/09
(0)
Post a Followup:
