This is the 2nd post today in which I must reason with all readers of this forum to take into account some simple counter explanations for events.
To say that the black line artifact that occurs in much of the footage can "only occur in the CGI realm" is false. To lead the reader to assume that there is only one explanation for said anomaly is also a little wrong, and does not appeal to the sense of good research.
True scientific research poses questions, not uni-directional answers that must be adhered to at all costs. True and honest research suggests that we view all angles of possibility when making decisions, assumptions and arguments. So, in the efforts of true research I offer this simple "Occam's razor" explanation as to why we may see these so called "masking lines" evident primarily around the outlines of the buildings.
The answer is this: Cheap digital CMOS sensor in early (and even modern) digital cameras. There is indeed a technically sufficient answer as to what causes this somewhat strange phenomenon. It is cramming a high mega-pixel count into crappy or early sensors that in addition to modern JPEG compression can explain these artifacts.
There is a variety of READING rather than assumption to back this up within technical photography and electronic literature, however what first drew my attention to this was simply studying some of my own photos. 2 years ago I acquired a relatively high end smart phone with a fairly low grade 8mp digital camera sensor built in. For the past 2 years I shot hundreds of decent quality photos. I say decent, because on a whole, and in good lighting the camera shoots exceptionally clear and vivid photos, however the devil is in the details.
I will add that while it takes good pics for 3 year old cell phone technology, it is no professional point and shoot by any means. However, I would wager that it shoots about comparable quality of a decent point and shoot camera from ~10+ years ago.
Here are a couple unaltered and un-compressed (other that the default camera software compression algorithm) photos that I offer as evidence to back my claim.
I'm sure this post will be unpopular and seen to defy the basic assumptions of the "all imagery is fake" mantra that is so carelessly thrown around here.
So be it. After a year long case study on some of the absurdities put forth on this forum I can see no other option than to inject some common sense into the realm. After all, while there is certainly a possibility of fakery on a grand scale in which I sometime concur with, I cannot arrogantly toss out more simple explanations as being coincidental, and neither should any other person or entity here who claims to be doing solid research.
For anyone who cares to understand the nature of this behavior in digital photography, a simple explanation is that the camera sensor has a hard time reconciling between extremely contrasting light sources, and figuring out the pixel placement therein. In addition to having a dark outline appear around objects with a very light background and a darker foreground, the reverse can happen with a bright object in a dark area, in what some refer to as a "Halo effect".
Here is a link to a discussion about this exact thing. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/36302-5-dark-outline-image
For those too lazy to read
Anonymous 09-23-2005 at 04:23:18 PM
- 0 +
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
I have a great shot of my nephew fishing on a dock/pier that I took with my
brother's 6 MP Canon Digital Rebel. The main problem being a dark 'outline'
around the subject. The pic was taken at sunset, ambient light (low light
levels) without fill flash and is backlit (semi-silhouette). The image was
shot as RAW and saved as 16 bit Tif with no sharpening etc in the RAW
process. The 'outline' gets worse when I bring it into Photoshop and try to
sharpen it. What is this and how can it be avoided ?
I've noticed it on other digital images I shot too.
Very puzzing. I am not a photography expert regarding the unique
issues of digital photo processing. I do note that the 'edge' follows
your nephew's outline, but it only partiall follows the outline of the
piling to his left...the edges of the piling are free from this effect
although it is bordering the bright area of the reflection from the
water. Also the white waistband bordering the water is free of this
edge. And the fishing reel top edge. This makes me think it is
something in the image processing software of the Rebel 300 image
processor which is getting overwhelmed by radically differences in
brightness, and this edge effect can be seen within the detail of the
top of the piling!
While you might not have applied any sharpening outside with Photoshop,
etc. I wonder if the camera's own Sharpening setting is what is behind