Information transmission was compared for magnitude estimation and absolute judgment of weight. Three groups of 5 subjects made magnitude estimations with a standard to which they could always refer, magnitude estimations with a standard presented once at the beginning of each judgment session, or absolute judgments of weight. Ten weights (22-292 g), with an infor mational value of 3.32 bits, composed the stimulus set. Informational analyses showed that in formation transmitted by magnitude estimations was between 1.60 and 2.26 bits, and that this did not differ from the value of 1.91 for absolute judgments; thus, channel capacity limits both kinds of judgments in spite of the large apparent task differences. Subjects used between 3 and 5 intensity categories in estimating weights; thus, this number does not depend on response un certainty, the ranges and ratios of subjective scales, or the numbers subjects use in magnitude estimations. It is concluded that one-to-one mappings between the physical and psychological dimensions of weight cannot be carried out. Nevertheless, the finding that subjective estimates of weight contain intensity information about stimuli supports the possibility of a new objective psychophysics. Informational analyses of psychophysical judgments are based on absolute judgments (Engen & Pfaffman, 1959, 1960; Garner, 1953; Garner & Hake, 1951; Pollack, 1952, 1953), and have shown that there exists an upper limit on the amount of information transferred by such judgments when the stimuli presented to subjects are unidimensional (Garner, 1962; Garner & Hake, 1951; Pollack, 1952, 1953). This limit is usually called chan nel capacity and shows how much ofthe information con tained in the physical stimuli is transferred by subjective judgments in the form ofthe identification ofthese stimuli. Channel capacities for different sensory continua usually lie between 2 and 3 bits of information, corresponding to a very limited number, between 3 and 8, of objective or discriminal categories. Generally, this limit shows that stimuli presented for identification by absolute judgment can be perfectly discriminated when their number does not exceed channel capacity (Garner, 1962). Channel ca pacity is, accordingly, a restrictive factor in sensory dis crimination (Miller, 1956), and represents an important indicator ofthe functioning ofdifferent sensory analyzers. The nature of absolute judgments is nominal. Subjects are asked to identify each stimulus by some conventional response (usually a number or a name). Such responses do not reflect the intensity properties of the presented stimuli or the differences among them; thus, subjects are not expressing subjective evaluations or measurements of