Does not the importance vary depending on values and formations of the involved pixels?
Yeah, you're right. There is some sort of influential factor that makes it appear whether one way or another has priority. I'm not sure what that is. It could be due to a developed understanding of patterns that we acquire in relation to complex formations. Because from the standpoint of single pixels, it is difficult to determine the priority without a greater understanding of what is being conveyed.
From an algorithmic standpoint it makes sense to treat these occurrences as a special case. I'd love to find a way to treat them more accurately to how we would expect them to be, but I haven't found a way yet, if there is a way.
And yea, I want to work on including a way to overlay the visualizations onto the original image.
How so? My 'bad example' was done by imagining myself as a naive pixeler: 'Okay, 1 px line is not thick enough, 2px is too thick..I'll just use 3px bands but overlap them a little'. (ie. an attempt at creating 1.3-1.5px width without any AA available). The result being similar to fig.23, which I consider a thickened line.
But it also applies to faces of any non-huge size AFAICS.
Oh! I misunderstood your diagrams before. Now I understand what you were saying.
hm.. Yeah, I could see how the patterns from one side of a face could emphasize similar patterns across from it.
I had thought banding was the case of thin lines, and the looser linked pixels, but I can see now that the same issue with loose connections are present in thicker lines:
If you look at the blue box, there are only 3 connections (two linked connections and one bound connection), whereas the red boxes have 4 connections (the connections are tighter bound).
I'll have to make sure to include this sort of stuff in the document regarding banding, thanks for pointing that out!