 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: "Interesting article, but much to dispute in it as well." posted by rico on December 17, 2006 at 09:18:04:
...like this:"After a run through Lowry's digital rehab, however, the images are artifact-free: Colors are deeper, detail is better and the images look as fresh as anything shot today." Sounds maybe like *edge enhancement*.
"Because we'd taken the noise out of the pictures," he says, "the geologists were seeing stuff in the rocks that they'd never seen before." Hard to believe, as an ex-remote-imaging scientist myself, that such detail was new to them, plus -- *noise reduction*?
clark
Follow Ups:
> "After a run through Lowry's digital rehab, however, the images are artifact-free: Colors are deeper, detail is better and the images look as fresh as anything shot today." Sounds maybe like *edge enhancement*.
God I hope it is more than that.
> "Because we'd taken the noise out of the pictures," he says, "the geologists were seeing stuff in the rocks that they'd never seen before." Hard to believe, as an ex-remote-imaging scientist myself, that such detail was new to them, plus -- *noise reduction*?
There are many flavors of noise. The thing is we'd have to see what they are doing to have any debate with them about their claims. There are many tiers of digital editing in terms of quality. I have seen some really bad restoration and some really good. The claims are grand but there is nothing to dispute without examples.To me the most important thning is that it is being done with film elements that will cease to exist in any useful form quite soon.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
