HELP ME - Test your monitor for me !

read and ask to me.

  • Total voters
    11
They are both imperfect. The first once isn't bad, the second one is bad. If they are for a webpage or print I would beef up the quality. Keep in mind a general viewer wouldn't be analyzing it the way we would. So if that's a quality 5 or 6 and a 10 or 12 is perfect, then somewhere in between say 8 might be good.

Unless that's not what you were asking.
 
Both imperfect.. the second one is a highly compressed jpeg, the first one is better.
Can I ask, whats the point of this test?
 
looks like pic2 has some major jpeg artifacts..... pic1 looks just fine though
 
Pic 1 has some kind of background garbage behind the text, and some minor jpg compression issues.

Pic 2 (is this the right image, just a tiny 100 pixel icon?) shows a lot of jpg compression artifacts.
 
The fuzziness in both pictures looks like the result of jpg compression.

4jrxbs.jpg


Top is level 12 (high quality, largest file size), then 6, 3, and 0 (worst quality, lowest file size).

If you save the pic and zoom in you can really see how compression affects the image quality.
 
some users tell to me that thay see very well and clean both pictures.
WHY ?
how is possible?
 
Maybe because their monitors suck and are missing shades before absolute white?
 
senna89 said:
some users tell to me that thay see very well and clean both pictures.
WHY ?
how is possible?
Click to expand...

Because you are relying on completely subjective reporting by random people on the internet, which is completely unreliable (and pointless).

Not only that, but you are not clear as to what to "look" for.
 
Perhaps some people are judging purely based on whether or not they can read the image itself. If they can read it and/or see that it is a photo of a monitor, than it is "perfect" enough for them.

It's a very subjective test, as previously stated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top