Originally Posted by jackc04
Ah, but I did respond to a couple points you made. You stated:"Because of this, no study of this issue that doesn't begin with double blind testing(or some other form of testing) can be considered scientific."
My response addressed that statement - I think you're trying to apply the wrong scientific discipline in this case.
How so? My main point was that science begins
by gathering data, then goes on
to explain the data. That is how the scientific method
All you and others seem to be doing is step 3 -- Prediction. That is not science. That is not even remotely
science. It is dogmatism
And then you added a little personal attack by claiming that there was an aspect of partisan agenda (or "dogma" as you stated), mixed into all this:
"instead of taking a truly scientific approach to this issue, people are making assumptions about what data we would find if we actually ran an experiment. This is not science, it's dogma."
That was a pretty nifty ad hominem I must say. I wanted to clarify that I have no partisan agenda. Ideally, we should be able to talk about this stuff with no personal attacks whatsoever, and just stick to the facts.
I'm not sure why you think I was attacking you; I was merely pointing out the dogmatic approach that people in general seem to be taking on this issue.
As for your Mona Lisa example, you are trying to build a case that in some instances one can perceive the difference between 1080p and 720p at distances significantly farther than the Bale chart, right?
Wrong. I am pointing out that visual acuity may not be the only factor involved in perceiving different resolutions. I agree that at certain distances, pixellation ceases to be detrimental to PQ; however, it only follows from this that different resolutions are indistinguishable if pixellation is the only factor in resolution differences. Someone will have to show
this to be true. I'm not trying to prove that 1080 is better -- I don't know if it's better. I'm trying to point out the dogmatic thinking that seems to be permeating this issue.
Your whole thesis is dependent upon that single point. Are you trying to say that the down scaling process can introduce artifacts into an image that are objectionable? That to me is a leap. You have not backed that up.
No. Please reread that second paragraph. I'm saying that the data loss from downscaling an original higher resolution image may include detail that would have been visible "at distances significantly farther than the Bale chart"
(to borrow a phrase from you). Pieces of the picture are definitely lost during downscaling, and those pieces might impact visual quality at lower resolutions. I'm suggesting the possibility
that visual acuity is not the sole factor in resolution distinction since no one else seems to be doing so.
Its also apples and oranges. I thought we were talking about visual acuity of the eye, not scaling capability. I have no hard data to back it up, but I've seen enough 1080i on 1366x768 TVs to know that the down scaling is pretty good - I don't see any objectionable artifacts.
Again, I'm not referring to artifacts. I'm referring to data loss. And by responding that you personally don't see anything objectionable, you're engaging in "personal bias", no?