3 ms·

Do the 3 separate sub pixels look like a photoshop pixel?

by grandempire 1y ago

Dylan16807 1y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by Photoshop pixel. They also look more like a square when I back away. And the mismatch of the square model doesn't mean the point model is good.
- grandempire 1y ago
  > And the mismatch of the square model So your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it. > doesn't mean the point model is good. What does show it’s a good model is all the theory of image processing and the implementation of this theory in camera display systems. You’re welcome to propose an alternative theory, and if that is consistent, try to get manufacturers to adopt it.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    > So your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it. I said subpixels are rectangles. Because they are. If the point model was all you need, then objects small enough to slip between points would be invisible. Which is not the case. In particular a shot of the night sky would look pure black. So if being wrong means we should abandon the model, then we can't use squares or points.
    - grandempire 1y ago
      > I said subpixels are rectangles. Because they are https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Pixel_ge... I look forward to your paper about a superior digital image representation.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        So is this a cheap gotcha because I only said "my monitor" and "most screens" the first couple times and didn't repeat it a third time? It's the one labeled just "LCD". Or are you arguing that the slightly rounded corners on the rectangles make a significant difference in how the filtering math works out? It doesn't. On a scale between "gaussian" and "perfect rectangles", the filtering for this shape is 95% toward the latter.

3 ms·

Do the 3 separate sub pixels look like a photoshop pixel?

by grandempire 1y ago

Do the 3 separate sub pixels look like a photoshop pixel?

Dylan16807 1y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by Photoshop pixel. They also look more like a square when I back away. And the mismatch of the square model doesn't mean the point model is good.
- grandempire 1y ago
  > And the mismatch of the square model So your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it. > doesn't mean the point model is good. What does show it’s a good model is all the theory of image processing and the implementation of this theory in camera display systems. You’re welcome to propose an alternative theory, and if that is consistent, try to get manufacturers to adopt it.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    > So your intuition for why squares makes sense is wrong, but you’re still holding on to it. I said subpixels are rectangles. Because they are. If the point model was all you need, then objects small enough to slip between points would be invisible. Which is not the case. In particular a shot of the night sky would look pure black. So if being wrong means we should abandon the model, then we can't use squares or points.
    - grandempire 1y ago
      > I said subpixels are rectangles. Because they are https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Pixel_ge... I look forward to your paper about a superior digital image representation.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        So is this a cheap gotcha because I only said "my monitor" and "most screens" the first couple times and didn't repeat it a third time? It's the one labeled just "LCD". Or are you arguing that the slightly rounded corners on the rectangles make a significant difference in how the filtering math works out? It doesn't. On a scale between "gaussian" and "perfect rectangles", the filtering for this shape is 95% toward the latter.