Agreed (though not as intensely) and again a tradeoff.
.xX
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:48 AM, Thomas Engelmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On 11.12.2007, at 18:06, Alessandro Sabatelli wrote:
/Developer/Examples/Quartz Composer/Compositions/Interactive/
Histogram.qtz
You may want to use an "Image Resize" before the Image Histogram to
ensure good performance
on large images.
... which basically is the reason why such "Histograms" suck for
real adjustment work. Aperture is an example of an rather unusuable
histogram.
Imagine a simple image with black and white stripes 1 px. wide
alternating.
The real histogram are two bars at the far edges of the histogram
(lets name their position 0 and 100).
if the intermediate rep. is scaled by 50%, you get one bar in the
middle (50). At 33 % two bars at 33 and 67.
Given the orig. image is wide enough, there will be scales where the
"histogram" will show uniform distribution or varying curves.
However, there is only one scale where the bars are correct, and
that is 100%
NONE of them have anything to do with an original histogram.
Does it matter for evenly distributed images? Probably not.
Does it matter for feature rich high contrast available light
images? You better bet on it. There is no way with that kind of
"histogram" to adjust EXACTLY to the point where still (noise)
detail is visible at the shady part or guaranteed no precision loss
is before the highlights clip.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Quartzcomposer-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quartzcomposer-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
