RLCScontender wrote: ↑25 Apr 2020, 23:31
But my pursuit camera is the most accurate since i got it DIRECTLY straight from the monitor myself.
However, it is
subject to interpretation.
Pursuit camera work is amazing to execute -- but:
I would not say "truth" or "lie" because everybody sees differently, including
seeing the photo.
Elements from camera-adjustment issues (on how things are accurately photographed, to following pursuit instructions) to vision behavior differences between humans (on seeing results of photo), even for well-intentioned photographs, means it can become flamebait to use the word "truth" or "lie" -- and that includes you.
Science papers or research papers buttress the truth (as can a well-taken pursuit photo from a good camera) but don't self-use the words "truth" or "lie" for many obvious reasons like these.
Pursuit photos are a great show and tell. The WYISIWYG is a best-effort and hard to make perfect given differences on how displays vs camera technology, camera technique, human eyes on the original diplay, human eyes on the resulting display. Often the photographed result shown on the same display is more accurate than the photographed result shown on a different display. AND on top of that, different human visions can impart different gamma-behaviours (e.g. can't see the dim colors or dim ghosts as well as the next human). Whether looking at original motion or the photographed motion (that goes through camera distortion and third-party-monitor distortion).
So there are multiple weak links as a Fair Disclosure.
- Camera used (and flaws within)
- Photography technique (and flaws within)
- Whether the photo is retouched (including 'white hat' retouchings like a post-shoot exposure compensation)
- How the remote computer displays the photo (different photo viewers/browsers can show the same photo slightly differently)
- How the remote display shows the photo (by that computer)
- How the remote person sees the resulting photo (on that monitor)
So there can be layers of visual distortions added (like a repeat-photocopying that degrades) -- human vision-wise or hardware-wise -- even though it's so vastly superior (compared to past inventions) method of representing motion blur results -- it is still prone to layers like that.
Yes, even the last bullet. The remote human seeing the resulting photo on a different monitor. Even a WYSIWYG printout of a Word document looks different to a different human, for example a dyslexic sometimes sees continually jumbling text
example, or see distorted color
multiple examples of partial color blindnesses or you have focussing or astigmatism issues (need glasses), or you have motion blindness (
Akinetopsia), or other condition, partial or full-fledged, diagnosed or undiagnosed. Even outside these silos/umbrellas, different eyes and/or human brains add different kinds of weird noises and/or distortions to what they are seeing. This can completely make them unusually sensitive to one thing (tearing or blurring or coronas or stutter or color etc) and unusually insensitive to other aspects (tearing or blurring or coronas or stutter or color etc). There can be a preference aspect but there can also be a eye/brain limitation aspect too. Likewise, a different set of human eyes can see something totally different on a resulting photo even if it's a perfect photo.
TL;DR: Different humans see differently
The fact is person A may prefer monitor 1 over 2 (Genuinely seen both). And person B may prefer monitor 2 over 1 (Genuinely seen both). Even without these photos!
Also -- even in simpler contexts -- for example -- it even applies to web page design. Look at the sides of the forum in a desktop browser. The black checkerboard-flag background on the left/right of the forum sidebar is much brighter on some monitors, and totally black background on different monitors or different human eyes. And monitors can have different gamma. And camera settings can also distort the gamma. And distorted yet again when that same photo is displayed on a different monitor. Etc.
Scientific/researcher discourse needs to be tempered/nuanced by the acknowledgement of the limtiations of testing. We can do our best to perfect it (e.g. purchase a camera like a Sony Alpha a6XXX series, teach oneself an accurate manual technique, use a camera rail) so that our camera and technique have minimal error factors, and the photograph is relatively accurate. But it can never be a perfect photon-to-photon record given different displays, computers, humans, etc.
Pursuit camera photos are the best-ever invented way to easily photograph display motion blur.
But results often have to be interpreted through the lens of all of these limitations and error factors (camera-wise, camera-technique-wise and vision-wise). This is generally why I don't want any polar aguments about truth-or-lie. This only manufactures flamebait accidentially (even if not intentional). The wording, the bolding, and the all-caps, thusly, create a window opening for disagreements, under the lens of display research discourse. In other words, keep an open mind when writing your words.
Pursuit camera photos have known challenges just like measuring GtG, even though pursuit camera has greatly simplified the show-and-tell. But there are innate limitations on how it's reliably communicated.
Pursuit camera is the most perfect way to do it, but still necessarily imperfect (humankind-wise).
Appreciated!
