Comment on Baby sized bolete of some sort

• ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Interesting examples, we’re really splitting hairs here. Maybe you’ll catch me contradicting myself with my idea of “artificial” as “deliberately going outside what is normally possible with the technology or challenging the realist nature of the medium” and I’ll learn a lesson!

  1. Is the filter omitted for technical/practical reasons (security camera) or intentionally for artistic purposes? I’d say no and yes, respectively – the latter is specifically altering the equipment for a desired effect.
  2. Most likely I’d say yes because it’s using a technique to increase FOV. The view from any given point is spherical and one needs to introduce some perspective to map it onto a cylinder or prism. That’s not necessarily bad, but it’s an intentional way to bypass technical limits.
  3. It’s been known since the dawn of photography that longer exposures collect more light so the technique is part of the medium. So even if it’s done to create an effect that one couldn’t see with the naked eye, such as the sun “scanning” the sky arc by arc every day from solstice to solstice, I’d say it’s not artificial… unless it’s stacking exposures such as in planetary astrophotography.
  4. Artificial. A very manual and deliberate process to push the equipment’s limitations.

  source

  • Sal@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Interesting examples, we’re really splitting hairs here.

    Haha, maybe 😜 I did some reflection about why the term ‘artificial’ in the context of photography made me want to jump into the conversation in the first place. I think that the reason is that the term ‘artificial’ implies that there is a boundary between what corresponds to a ‘natural’ photograph and an ‘artificial’ photograph.

    Thanks for responding to those examples and giving a definition, I think now I better understand what you mean when you say ‘artificial’. I was interpreting it from a universal point of view of ‘natural/artificial’, but I see now that you meant it in the sense of the camera’s nature. So, if one simply takes a photo with the camera, it is ‘natural’ in the sense that the camera’s nature was enough to capture that image. When a human applies uses a technique that creates an image cannot be captured by the camera itself, then it is ‘artificial’.

    No need to continue discussing the semantics of ‘artificial’, I think we both know what each other means now 😄

    Still, always to chat more about these things as I enjoy talking about techniques. I am actually considering getting a monochrome industrial camera to create some color images manually. I already have filters from UV to the near-IR. Like what I mentioned in example 4. I am curious about whether I can capture noticeably better luminances throughout by using the filters manually. I’m also keeping an eye for an affordable camera with this sensor type: www.sony-semicon.com/en/…/multispectral.html …

    source

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I get why the Bayer filter exists but I’m not really fond of RGGB being effectively the only one available. Why not RGBW with some interesting wavelength response of the white subpixel?

      Same with LCDs. It wouldn’t take much change in the manufacturing process much to create a WWW or YWB 1080p LCD that has less or no color but passes way more light, allowing less backlight or even a reflective mode, while still being driven with conventional electronics. These could be used in public transport signage etc. In some cases, a monochrome LCD with RGB backlight could also come in handy.

      Also not really related but it infuriates me that Samsung turned the Bayer filter 45°, halved the pixel count and patented it as an OLED pattern so nobody can make similar displays.

      source

      • Sal@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Why not RGBW with some interesting wavelength response of the white subpixel?

        Hmm, I’m not really sure. A monochrome pixel would be much more sensitive, but without a neutral density filter it might saturate when the RGB pixels are well-exposed. With a neutral density filter I think it could resolve better the variation of light intensities of very small features.

        Same with LCDs. It wouldn’t take much change in the manufacturing process much to create a WWW or YWB 1080p LCD that has less or no color but passes way more light, allowing less backlight or even a reflective mode, while still being driven with conventional electronics

        So, would the WWW be a monochrome LCD? Wouldn’t these be similar to the ones sometimes used in small electronic displays like this one:

        Image

        I am not sure of what the YWB would do.

        These could be used in public transport signage etc. In some cases, a monochrome LCD with RGB backlight could also come in handy.

        I am also interested in the use of the ‘E-Ink’ displays for public signage in well-illuminated places. I found a few examples online:

        Image

        Also not really related but it infuriates me that Samsung turned the Bayer filter 45°, halved the pixel count and patented it as an OLED pattern so nobody can make similar displays.

        I am not familiar with this… I looked it up and I think it is this? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PenTile_matrix_family

        I’ll look into it. Interesting!

        source

        • -> View More Comments