2 ms·
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 ran
by 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 agoI 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