4 ms·

I understand why it can be problematic to use humans in test images, but this is in conflict with the purpose of test images. The purpose, briefly, is to allow

I understand why it can be problematic to use humans in test images, but this is in conflict with the purpose of test images. The purpose, briefly, is to allow human eyes to easily spot defects in image processing. While we can use automated methods as well especially for formal analysis of fidelity, in the end the reason why we are displaying images is for human consumption. We don't need to to Lena or the other traditional images, but it should be possible to find a usable example -- even if it's just the grimacing guy from the meme or something.

refulgentis 2y ago
It's not that it's problematic to use humans, it's that it's problematic to use images from 1970s Playboy. There's a theoretical argument to make that this rando site should also have a picture of a human, but it's weak -- something something evolution over millenia, something something parsing faces, therefore we'll notice if its off quicker. It's a weak argument because we don't expect ex. facial symmetry to change, and faces are capable of being quite asymmetrical. In practice its much more valuable for the random website to have ex. the color test card, deep dark night with streetlights to stretch dynamic range, depth of field and details of fine spider web above blurry background, etc. It's fairly easy to find a picture of a human when needed, especially one that we're familiar with and see small details change :)
- lmpdev 2y ago
  I don’t work on image processing but do own $400 professional pencils and use an sRGB monitor and have been producing “high end hobby” level works for a couple of decades I would urge away from using an entire human portrait. Decontextualised elements of the human form register a lot more accurately than an entire face. I spend a great deal of time trying to escape viewing works as a face holistically as it tends (from my subjective experience) to trigger a different part of my brain than the area responsible for visual differentiation/assessment I would think that something similar to this would be better for researchers to quickly and accurately gauge DSP effects than a whole portrait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Missing_Link_by_Nick_Murphy.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Missing_Link_by_Nick_Murp... Obviously much better curated than the referenced image
dylan604 2y ago
Part of the use of having a human was meant to see how well skin tones looked after being developed. The big problem was that it was only a single skin tone that was ever used.
- Lerc 2y ago
  That seems like a poor argument for Lina given how off the colour balance is. It is a very pink image. The merit comes more from the combination of sharp edges, gradients, and details that humans are sensitive to (face) and details that they are not (feathers). Spending bits to place an eye at just the right place is more important than spending the same bits to place a bit of fluff covering the same number of pixels. Something like the photo in test card F at high resolution would be good. (maybe with a fluffier toy)

refulgentis 2y ago

It's not that it's problematic to use humans, it's that it's problematic to use images from 1970s Playboy. There's a theoretical argument to make that this rando site should also have a picture of a human, but it's weak -- something something evolution over millenia, something something parsing faces, therefore we'll notice if its off quicker. It's a weak argument because we don't expect ex. facial symmetry to change, and faces are capable of being quite asymmetrical. In practice its much more valuable for the random website to have ex. the color test card, deep dark night with streetlights to stretch dynamic range, depth of field and details of fine spider web above blurry background, etc. It's fairly easy to find a picture of a human when needed, especially one that we're familiar with and see small details change :)

lmpdev 2y ago
I don’t work on image processing but do own $400 professional pencils and use an sRGB monitor and have been producing “high end hobby” level works for a couple of decades I would urge away from using an entire human portrait. Decontextualised elements of the human form register a lot more accurately than an entire face. I spend a great deal of time trying to escape viewing works as a face holistically as it tends (from my subjective experience) to trigger a different part of my brain than the area responsible for visual differentiation/assessment I would think that something similar to this would be better for researchers to quickly and accurately gauge DSP effects than a whole portrait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Missing_Link_by_Nick_Murphy.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Missing_Link_by_Nick_Murp... Obviously much better curated than the referenced image

dylan604 2y ago

Part of the use of having a human was meant to see how well skin tones looked after being developed. The big problem was that it was only a single skin tone that was ever used.

Lerc 2y ago
That seems like a poor argument for Lina given how off the colour balance is. It is a very pink image. The merit comes more from the combination of sharp edges, gradients, and details that humans are sensitive to (face) and details that they are not (feathers). Spending bits to place an eye at just the right place is more important than spending the same bits to place a bit of fluff covering the same number of pixels. Something like the photo in test card F at high resolution would be good. (maybe with a fluffier toy)