[Tig] semantics: definition vs. resolution

Sat May 5 08:00:55 PDT 2007

> Respectfully Kevin, I don't think those definitions are enough.

Steve I agree, as I said the post was a bit tongue in cheek. That's the
nature of semantics I guess. The terms have specific meanings in specific
circumstances. So the resolving power of a lens is probably a resolution
that has nothing to do with the resolution of a dpx image (or jpg etc etc)

The word "clarity" came up in an earlier post and I like that as a better
name for perceived image quality.

Clarity in this sense can be quite surprising. The difference in clarity
between a 2k image from a 2k scanner and 2k image ( same size) from a 4k
scanner is huge. 

And Peter Swinson proved without any doubt in my mind that a compressed
image can have much better clarity/resolution/definition than an
uncompressed image of the same size (again if the compressed image comes
from a better source)

Similarly I have a 10x8 printed from a large format negative and a same size
print from a high quality digital camera. The film print looks much sharper,
clearer etc etc (it has more clarity?), yet with a magnifying glass it is
quite obvious that there is more detail in the digital image (more
resolution). In this case the extra detail manifests as legible text.

I do not have any real answers either, just thinking out loud really.
Probably we need the services of a professional wordsmith

Mr. Hobbs are you there?

Happy Coloring
Kevin

Kevin Shaw                 colorist, instructor and consultant
kevs at finalcolor.com          www.finalcolor.com
----------------------------------------------

> From: Steve Hullfish <steve at veralith.com>
> Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 08:17:26 -0500
> To: Kevin Shaw <kevs at finalcolor.com>
> Cc: <tig at ns1.colorist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tig] semantics: definition vs. resolution
> 
> Respectfully Kevin, I don't think those definitions are enough.
> 
> Your definitions leave out interlaced or progressive and, more
> importantly, they dismiss any loss of quality due to anything beyond
> pixel count.
> 
> What about low quality glass? What about poor quality recording
> devices? What about systems that use a certain pixel count, but
> actually compress to record?
> What about various other compression schemes, like HDV?
> 
> To be honest, I do not know the answers to these questions, but I
> simply raise the questions. And maybe my questions are part of some
> OTHER answers than resolution and definition. But it would be nice to
> have some words to describe what ultimately means "picture quality"
> and "resolving power." Like a telescope where the quality is defined
> by how close or small two objects can be and still be resolved as
> SEPARATE objects.
> 
> I completely agree that the larger issue that we're all probably more
> impressed by, or at least more able to MANIPULATE some gain out of is
> bit depth or contrast ratio. Maybe we need a three dimensional number
> that shows how big the image is in pixels, how deep the image is in
> contrast/color and how "fine" the image is in terms of actual
> resolving power.
> 
> On May 5, 2007, at 7:12 AM, Kevin Shaw wrote:
> 
>> Thanks to Yuri Neyman (Gamma & Density) for support in 2007.
>> Guide to TIG Posting is at
>> http://tig.colorist.org/wiki3/index.php/Guide_to_TIG_Etiquette
>>  ====
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think that perhaps within our industry we should treat
>> "definition" as
>> being synonymous with "format". For example standard definition is
>> a format.
>> 
>> I have always adhered to a simple rule
>> 
>> Resolution = pixels across
>> Format (definition?) = pixels across AND lines/pixels down
>> 
>> Therefore 2K (the format being 2048 x 1556) has similar resolution
>> to HD
>> (1920 x 1080) because 2048 is only a few pixels more than 1920.
>> 
>> However 2K is a much larger format, (has more definition) than HD
>> because
>> there is more picture area.
>> 
>> I also maintain that we spend a bit too much time worrying about pixel
>> resolution and not enough on bit depth, but that would be another
>> topic...
>> 
>> Just my thoughts
>> 
>> Happy Coloring
>> Kevin
>> 
>> Kevin Shaw                 colorist, instructor and consultant
>> kevs at finalcolor.com          www.finalcolor.com
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Jim Houston <jdhouston at earthlink.net>
>>> Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:41:18 -0700
>>> To: Alexis Hurkman <hurkman at mac.com>
>>> Cc: tig <tig at ns1.colorist.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Tig] semantics: definition vs. resolution
>>> 
>>> Thanks to Yuri Neyman (Gamma & Density) for support in 2007.
>>> Guide to TIG Posting is at
>>> http://tig.colorist.org/wiki3/index.php/Guide_to_TIG_Etiquette
>>>  ====
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think the terms come from two different fields.
>>> 
>>> One is the domain of art where definition has always
>>> been used to mean the clarity of line, texture and form (how
>>> clearly is
>>> it delineated against something else).  The perception of
>>> clarity relates to it's definition.  Definition can't be measured.
>>> 
>>> The other is the domain of science where resolution is the ability
>>> to separate two fine details from each other.   Resolution is an
>>> attribute that can be measured and assigned values based upon
>>> sampling theory (as inexact as the results might sometimes be).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> and just to mix things up a little bit...
>>> 
>>> accutance is the perception of how sharp something is.
>>> 
>>> Anyone on the list from the OED, give me a call and
>>> i'll straighten you out. :-)
>>> 
>>> Jim H.
>>> Starwatcher Digital
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 4, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Alexis Hurkman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> "Resolution - The ability of an optical or video system to reproduce
>>>> fine detail. A measure of the 'sharpness' of a picture. Usually
>>>> measured in pixels in the horizontal direction and lines or pixels
>>>> vertically. Often the horizontal and vertical resolutions are
>>>> different."
>>>> 
>>>> "Definition - A description of the sharpness or clarity of a
>>>> television picture. High definition pictures portray a lot of
>>>> detail,
>>>> while low definition pictures look soft and less clear. See also
>>>> resolution."
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> No personal abuse; absolutely no advertising or marketing on the
>>> main TIG
>>> mailinglist.  Emergency
>>> tig contact address is rob (at) calarts.edu
>>> Tig mailing list
>>> Tig at tig.colorist.org
>>> http://tig.colorist.org/mailman/listinfo/tig
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> No personal abuse; absolutely no advertising or marketing on the
>> main TIG mailinglist.  Emergency
>> tig contact address is rob (at) calarts.edu
>> Tig mailing list
>> Tig at tig.colorist.org
>> http://tig.colorist.org/mailman/listinfo/tig
> 
> Steve Hullfish
> Verascope Pictures
> (630) 717 9069 office
> (312) 399-4237 cell
> www.veralith.com
> 
> 
> 