<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />If I could continue this line of thought a little, I take it you are saying that even though the human eye can see the dark spots, it is legitimate to clean them up somewhat by the "smoothing" process, etc. because that's what the human eye does to some degree anyway, and because this aids us in seeing the feature more clearly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Neil, remember that we always keep the untouched raw data as part of the process. We can always go back to that.
I think you are raising two different issues. One is: What does the terrain really look like, and the other one is: Assuming there is an artwork rendered there, what does IT really look like (i.e., what was the intent of the artist?)
If we rule out camera noise in the image, I think it's safe to say that the raw data, enhanced maybe just for brightness and contrast (it could have just been taken a little dark, as any photographer knows), IS in fact what it really looks like.
On the other hand, if we're trying to decipher an artwork that may have been put there by some ancient civilization, then I would think that smoothing, which is analogous to a moving average, and histogram equalize, which is spreading the data over the whole range of the eye, is fair game, and desirable, and does not take away needed data.
Sure, you could argue that those black spots, or white spots, were used in the artwork, but that seems like a stretch to me. You could also argue that when we smooth, we accidently take out some of the detail intended by the artist, and that would be true, but I think when we're looking at a face that's a weak argument, because as it smooths, it looks more like a face, not less.
But you're right,though, that there's a fine line. If the artist rendered a birthmark about the size of one of those black spots, the smoothing would not be able to tell the difference between the birthmark and the noise (boulders) in the face.
All told, I think these processes were designed to make people look more like people. Or at least, that's how it works out.
rd
