DSLR v Consumer Image quality
oi...@woosh.co.nz
digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
latter.
Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
and a FZ20.
Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
wait a year or two yet?
DonB
Boch
the-F828....If they can harness the noise...Should be a great camera...So
I'd wait...And the Canon-350...Could be a winner...
--
_________________-
BOCH
________________
A+TECH
_________
<oi...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109101249.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
rafeb
IMO, the main thing that distinguishes
digicams these days (both point 'n shoot and
DSLRs) is the sensor size. Not surprisingly,
manufacturers go out of their way to hide and
obfuscate that particular statistic. Given
good optics, the sensor size will be the main
determinant of image quality.
There are certainly good things to be said
for the portability and compactness of non-SLR
cameras (both film and digital.)
If I were taking photos mostly of people and
wanting mostly "candid" photos (as opposed to
formal portraits) I'd work with a nice light
point and shoot camera.
I particularly like the tilt/swivel LCDs on
some of the consumer digicams (eg. my Canon
G2.) It lets me get some interesting angles
and perspectives that I can't capture from a
conventional viewfinder.
When I'm hiking deep in the backcountry (where
weight counts) I take my Canon G2.
If image quality is the main thing, you want
the largest possible sensor size, and these are
mostly found in DSLRs. Taken a couple of steps
farther, if image quality were the MAIN thing,
you'd shoot MF or LF film...
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
dylan
If you can't see the difference, or consider it not worthwhile, then I would
keep waiting....
For me DSLR offers more than just the quality difference there's also the
flexibility of the system, just like SLR's in the film world, but if you
don't need it then save your money etc...
Owamanga
You've answered your own question about image quality. If you can't
tell the difference, then what's the issue?
I disagree with you on quality, even at ISO-80 that thing is much more
noisy than a DSLR.
See the noise in the blue sky:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/fz20/samples/p1010069.jpg
Compare to a Canon DSLR, the 10D at ISO-100:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/10d/samples/IMG_0082.JPG
The other big difference between the DLSR and FZ20 is interchangeable
lenses, so ask yourself, are you going to ever need this? I love my
300 on the D70 (it becomes a 450mm) which isn't much further than the
FZ20's 35mm eq. effective 432mm. On the other end, you'll be limited
to effective 36mm. Problem for some, not for others.
--
Owamanga!
Ben Thomas
I don't know if it's a similar comparison to yours, but 8x10s from my 4MP Kodak
DX6490 are significantly inferior to the 7.5x10 prints from my 6MP Nikon D70.
The prints from the Nikon are better in every way: detail, colour, contrast,
jpeg artifacts, depth of field, etc.
The Nikon does retail for double the original retail price of the Kodak so it
should produce significantly better prints.
--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Scott W
print from one form the other. How ever there is much more to it then
just that, there are lighting conditions that just drive the F828 nuts
and it is hard to get a really great photos, I have not had this
problem with the 20D. But then you have to think about what kind of
photos you are going to be taking and when. If you need a long lens
then you need a DSLR, if you are going to be shooting in low light then
you need a DSLR.
The 20D produces a lot more detail then the F828 and both are 8 MP, so
I can make larger prints from the 20D before they will start to look
soft.
Finally there is the fun factor, it is a lot more fun to take photos
with a camera that shoots with no delay, just push the button and you
have the photos.
Scott
Larry
bip...@hotmail.com says...
Taking a GOOD picture with the 828 REQUIRES several factors to fall into
place all at the same time.
NO STRONG BACKLIGHT!
NO SHARP CONTRAST EXTREMES!
Very carefull adjustment of flash level if flash is used.
Avoid sparkling jewelry on subjects.
SHOOT IN MANUAL
CROSS YOU FINGERS
(and wave a chicken over your head while chanting "I hate Sony for this" over
and over again")
OR... Just use the F-717 to get the picture if you gotta use a Sony use their
best one..
I'm STILL glad I didn't sell the 717 when I bought the 828.. (I sold the V-1
instead).
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Jeremy
is the image quality worth the difference?
Ken Rockwell, on his website, has an informative article about this. He
maintains that the non-interchangeable-lens cameras are essentially ported
over from the manufacturers' video lineup, and that if one were to spend an
equal amount on a consumer digicam vs. a DSLR, the DSLR would give better
performance.
He writes, "Even the most expensive and exotic camera that is not a true SLR
is going to be slow and a pain to use. Many expensive digital cameras are
still just very complex point-and-shoot cameras that take way too long to do
anything."
I personally use a consumer digicam and it meets my needs. I still use 35mm
and MF when I require focal length lenses that are outside of my digicam's
zoom range, or when I want the higher resolution of film.
Here is the URL for the full article:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm
Sheldon
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109106115.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There's something to be said for this. While I'm still learning the ins and
outs of my D70, I'm thrilled with the lack of shutter delay. It feels and
acts just like my 35mm cameras. With my point and shoot digital I could go
out and have lunch while it focused and "finally" tripped the shutter.
Scott W
Larry wrote:
> Taking a GOOD picture with the 828 REQUIRES several factors to fall
into
> place all at the same time.
>
> NO STRONG BACKLIGHT!
> NO SHARP CONTRAST EXTREMES!
>
> Very carefull adjustment of flash level if flash is used.
> Avoid sparkling jewelry on subjects.
>
> SHOOT IN MANUAL
> CROSS YOU FINGERS
>
> (and wave a chicken over your head while chanting "I hate Sony for
this" over
> and over again")
>
> OR... Just use the F-717 to get the picture if you gotta use a Sony
use their
> best one..
>
> I'm STILL glad I didn't sell the 717 when I bought the 828.. (I sold
the V-1
> instead).
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.
Gee Larry why do you feel the need to SHOUT so much?
I have now shot close to 20,000 photos on the F828 and for the most
part it works very well. The 8 x 10 prints looks great, last year I
photographed our canoe clubs team in the Molokai Hoe long distance
canoe race and gave each of the team members a CD with all the photos
on it, they where blown away by the quality of the photos.
Having said all that, the 20D produces photos with much more detail and
it a lot more fun to use. There is in fact enough detail from the 20D
that it will not all be visible on an 8 x 10 print.
Scott
bob
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
When I go to DP review and download the images from a D70, and a Coolpix
8400, I can easily see differences in noise in solid fills. I can also
easily see differences in resolution in detailed areas.
I can see the differences on the screen, but they are much more obvious
in prints.
Bob
MarkH
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
If you are happy with what you get from what you have then I fail to see
how spending money is necessary!
However on quality of image try taking photos in less than ideal
conditions.
Try in low light where you need ISO 1600 to get the shot, my Canon 10D can
do that with noise that would be acceptable for most uses (I also have a
lens with f1.8 and another lens with IS). Isn't the FZ20 limited to a max
of ISO 400? I think my 10D has lower noise at ISO 1600 than the FZ has at
ISO 400.
Try sports photos where you need very fast AF and low shutter lag. These
photos were taken with a cheap lens (only f5.6 and 2nd rate focusing motor)
and using AF: http://www.gigatech.co.nz/Superboats2005.htm
Try photos of birds in flight or planes in flight at an airshow. How much
telephoto can you get on the lens on your compact digicam?
In summary: There are advantages to using a D-SLR, if you don't need the
features then you don't need to buy a D-SLR.
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
oi...@woosh.co.nz
The thing holding me back from going to dslr is probably because I have
become used to pulling out a consumer model and just taking a shot,
which is excellent 90% of the time. I sort of cringe at going back to
an array of lenses, clutter , finding a safe place to put one down
while changing, etc etc. Probably got lazy! But also my wife's Lumix is
pretty capable, so I'll wait it out a little because technology moves
so quickly.
DonB
I
Larry
bip...@hotmail.com says...
> Gee Larry why do you feel the need to SHOUT so much?
> I have now shot close to 20,000 photos on the F828 and for the most
> part it works very well. The 8 x 10 prints looks great, last year I
> photographed our canoe clubs team in the Molokai Hoe long distance
> canoe race and gave each of the team members a CD with all the photos
> on it, they where blown away by the quality of the photos.
>
> Having said all that, the 20D produces photos with much more detail and
> it a lot more fun to use. There is in fact enough detail from the 20D
> that it will not all be visible on an 8 x 10 print.
>
> Scott
>
The CAPs are for emphasis, not volume!
I'de use italics if they worked....
I do get frustrated about the camera the 828 should have been, as opposed to
the camera it is...
Im around 20,000 exposures myself, so I shouldn't complain.. But I do break
out the 717 if the backlight situation getss bad (which it does every day of
a horseshow at around 2 PM at the venue we use most).
The arena is completely open at one end,(essentially it is a building with
only 3 walls, with a 40 skylighted ceiling and a 150x250 foot floor) and
first thing in the morning, and again late in the PM the sun comes in that
open end full blast, giving me the strongest backlight in the solar system
for a couple of hours a day.
So I cant use the 828 (or at least cant use it in that direction) for a good
chunk of the day.
Like I said, FRUSTRATING!
C J Campbell
> digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
> because image quality is my thing.
If image quality is your thing, you will find that at size A4 a cheap 3 MP
point and shoot is not much different than a Canon 1Ds Mk II or a 4x5 view
camera on film. All of them look just about the same with a small print.
The only time it makes any difference is when you start to enlarge the
picture for any reason. You can enlarge a 4x5 piece of film a lot more than
any digital before you start losing image quality.
A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
manufacturers' marketing departments. Consider the "sensor size" of the eye
of an eagle, or even a human eye, and the relative quality of that sensor
vs. any camera or film. (I suppose a human eye could be defined as a 150 MP
sensor, but only about 16 MP are used for color vision -- the rest simply
give a rough outline of light and dark. One may note, too, that small
children, whose eyes are not fully developed, may still "see" something like
digital noise, which disappears at about age 5 or so. The physical size of a
human eye is not all that large; the eye of an eagle is much smaller yet
sharper with better color vision.) I wonder how much the image recorded by
the eye could be enlarged before you began to see significant degradation,
but I digress.
Anyway, I suspect that we are far from the limit in what can be crammed onto
an imaging chip.
Ron
different environments in the dead of a cold New England winter --
seaside villages and dunes, forest trails, railroad scenes, etc. --
with my Oly 5060. For much of the time I had a couple of conversion
lenses tucked into my jacket and a spare battery in my pocket. That's
it. Not even a camera bag. The results were really fine, even in low
light (a lot of noise talk is pretty exaggerated I think) . What wasn't
fine I could fix up quickly with Photoshop. My sense is that it is all
cost-benefit analysis at a time when new dslr products are still pretty
pricey and many have a lot of bugs to be worked out as the megapixel
parade calms down. Sure, if you have a very specific need that can
only be met by a dslr go for it. Or some old lenses looking or a new
home. Otherwise, the high end prosumers offer portability, no dust on
sensors, not much to fiddle with and some stunning images. I'd wait a
year or two and in the meantime really get a good sense of what you
really need. This is not to say that you cannot get real added value
with a dslr, but don't leap until you no longer have to try to figture
it out. Most of us have yet to fully exploit or appreciate the features
on our cameras. When they are exhaused and we know what more we need
it's time to move on.
rafe bustin
<christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
>of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
>have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
>manufacturers' marketing departments.
In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
image quality?
In the presence of noise, more signal is always
desirable. It certainly works that way for film,
and in fact for any other physical measurement
that I know of.
Your argument is curious, because sensor size is
one thing that the "marketing departments" have
taken pains to obscure -- at least for their
point & shoot / consumer models.
For a number of reasons, that sort of obfuscation
doesn't work in the DSLR market.
Now, it's possible that not all 15.0 x 22.7 mm
sensors are equally efficient at creating
images... but I haven't seen any hard data at
all on that topic.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
oi...@woosh.co.nz
DonB
oi...@woosh.co.nz
DonB
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> <oi...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1109101249.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
>>digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
>>because image quality is my thing.
Before commenting on the stuff below, I would like to say that
if you have good light, plenty of light, no extremes in light,
then the small sensor P&S cameras take excellent high quality
pictures. But as the light gets tough, then the difference
becomes great. It all comes down to what kind of light you
photograph in.
> If image quality is your thing, you will find that at size A4 a cheap 3 MP
> point and shoot is not much different than a Canon 1Ds Mk II or a 4x5 view
> camera on film. All of them look just about the same with a small print.
There are many who would say this is complete crap, and I would
agree with them. For examples, a 3 MP image gives maximum of
about 200 dpi. Normal eyes can resolve 2 to 3 times this. Large
format photographers easily demonstrate that an 8x10 inch film
contact print beats out a 4x5 enlarged to 8x10. Everyone I've
seen view this demonstration and have normal eyes, agreed there is a
difference, and I do too.
> The only time it makes any difference is when you start to enlarge the
> picture for any reason. You can enlarge a 4x5 piece of film a lot more than
> any digital before you start losing image quality.
Something that is true, but irrelevant to the OPs question.
> A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
> of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
> have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
> manufacturers' marketing departments.
Incorrect. Modern sensors are photon noise limited. The marketing
departments don't even know this, nor hype it. It is a demonstrated
fact. See:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
and check the references for additional data if the above doesn't\
proved it to you.
> Consider the "sensor size" of the eye
> of an eagle, or even a human eye, and the relative quality of that sensor
> vs. any camera or film. (I suppose a human eye could be defined as a 150 MP
> sensor, but only about 16 MP are used for color vision -- the rest simply
> give a rough outline of light and dark. One may note, too, that small
> children, whose eyes are not fully developed, may still "see" something like
> digital noise, which disappears at about age 5 or so. The physical size of a
> human eye is not all that large; the eye of an eagle is much smaller yet
> sharper with better color vision.) I wonder how much the image recorded by
> the eye could be enlarged before you began to see significant degradation,
> but I digress.
And not factual either. The human eye with normal vision has a image
resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels. See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
> Anyway, I suspect that we are far from the limit in what can be crammed onto
> an imaging chip.
Not at all; the photon limit has been reached. See:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
Roger
Photos at http://clarkvision.com
Bruce Graham
ra...@speakeasy.net says...
> In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
> image quality?
>
(not to detract from your argument which I agree with)
Scott W
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> > If image quality is your thing, you will find that at size A4 a
cheap 3 MP
> > point and shoot is not much different than a Canon 1Ds Mk II or a
4x5 view
> > camera on film. All of them look just about the same with a small
print.
>
> There are many who would say this is complete crap, and I would
> agree with them. For examples, a 3 MP image gives maximum of
> about 200 dpi. Normal eyes can resolve 2 to 3 times this. Large
> format photographers easily demonstrate that an 8x10 inch film
> contact print beats out a 4x5 enlarged to 8x10. Everyone I've
> seen view this demonstration and have normal eyes, agreed there is a
> difference, and I do too.
I have to say that from what I have seen a cheap 3 MP is not up to
making great looking 8 x 10 prints, but then I am near sighted and can
see pretty small detail. It was the slightly fuzzy feel to my 8 x 10
prints from my Nikon 995 that made me upgrade to the Sony F828.
I will say that I have found a lot of people who can't see the
difference between a print made from my 995 and the F828, but to me it
is the difference between night and day.
Now enter the 20D, in the tests that I have done between it and the
F828 the 20D captures a lot more detail, and in prints at 8 x 10 fine
detail that can be seen at the pixel level on the computer screen can
not be seen in the print, at least not by me.
The point being is that not all pixels contain the same level of
information.
The other tests that I have done is to take the output from the 20D and
resize it to 3 MP and print from both the original photo and the
resized one, both at 8 x 10 a casual view of them and they look pretty
much the same, a closer look and the original is clearly sharper
looking. But then this is with my near sighted eyes, others I have
shown then to can not tell them apart. The 3 MP from the resized photo
prints much sharper then any camera that is 3 MP native, again not all
pixels are the same
In the end how much resolution is need for an 8 x 10 print depends on
who is looking at it, the young and near sighted will need more
resolution, the old and far sighted less.
I have done tests in terns of at what point does increasing the dpi
feed to the printer stop making a difference , clearly this depends on
the printer. The Fuji Frontier prints at 300 dpi so feeding it higher
resolution will not buy you anything, assuming that the pixels are
sharp. For my printer and my eyes the limits is a bit higher, I can
tell the difference between a print make with an input of 300 dpi and
400 dpi, higher then 400 and I can not tell any difference. Having
said that the difference between 300 and 400 is so small that is take
very careful study to tell them apart, at least by me.
Now someone reading this might think they have found an inconsistency,
I stated that there was detail in the 20D photos that could be seen on
the computer screen but not in the print, this print was made at very
close to 300 dpi, and yet I said that a print made at 400 dpi looks
just a little bit sharper then one at 300 dpi. What is happening is
that the detail that can be seen on the screen but not the print is low
contrast detail, a spider web thread for instance, the eye has much
worst resolving power for low contrast detail then high. But if there
is some high contrast detail in the 400 dpi print at say 200 light
pairs per inch then this will be visible.
Scott
MarkË›
Often it is not until your image is enlarged and in PRINT that you notice it's
shortcomings.
MarkË›
<oi...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1109117527.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You won't be always grabbing a lens.
80% of my quickie grab-shots are with my basic all-around lens, which sits on the camera
in my bag. DSLRs work like point-and-shoots if you want them to.
It's just that when you WANT the control, flexibility, and speed...you have it available
to you.
-Mark²
MarkË›
"Ron" <rkg...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1109128296....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I just spent a long weekend traveling around and photographing a lot of
> different environments in the dead of a cold New England winter --
> seaside villages and dunes, forest trails, railroad scenes, etc. --
> with my Oly 5060. For much of the time I had a couple of conversion
> lenses tucked into my jacket and a spare battery in my pocket. That's
> it. Not even a camera bag. The results were really fine, even in low
> light (a lot of noise talk is pretty exaggerated I think) . What wasn't
> fine I could fix up quickly with Photoshop. My sense is that it is all
> cost-benefit analysis at a time when new dslr products are still pretty
> pricey and many have a lot of bugs to be worked out as the megapixel
> parade calms down. Sure, if you have a very specific need that can
> only be met by a dslr go for it. Or some old lenses looking or a new
> home. Otherwise, the high end prosumers offer portability, no dust on
> sensors, not much to fiddle with and some stunning images. I'd wait a
> year or two and in the meantime really get a good sense of what you
> really need. This is not to say that you cannot get real added value
> with a dslr, but don't leap until you no longer have to try to figture
> it out. Most of us have yet to fully exploit or appreciate the features
> on our cameras. When they are exhaused and we know what more we need
> it's time to move on.
I think you make some good points above.
What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most simple cameras to assess
your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how much they "needed"
something until they had it available to them.
This is why the phrase, "I didn't know what I was missing!" comes from.
Often times, it isn't until a person has a new capability avaiable to them (like lack of
shutter lag, or major depth of field adjustments--like with a DSLR) that they suddenly
realize what all the fuss is about.
This is why I think anyone considering spending with a few hundred dollars of the 300D or
D70 on a lesser...but sizable camera...should REALLY consider teh DSLR.
It really can open new visions for people when they experience the difference...without
having to magically "miss things" they have never even experienced.
How does one know what one needs when they don't really understand what's out thre first
hand? -This doesn't mean buying a 1Ds Mark II, but it might mean it's worth a low-end
DSLR.
-Mark²
MarkË›
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:gyWSd.116204$0u.42705@fed1read04...
> I think you make some good points above.
> What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most simple cameras to assess
> your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how much they "needed"
> something until they had it available to them.
>
> This is why the phrase, "I didn't know what I was missing!" comes from.
> Often times, it isn't until a person has a new capability avaiable to them (like lack of
> shutter lag, or major depth of field adjustments--like with a DSLR) that they suddenly
> realize what all the fuss is about.
>
> This is why I think anyone considering spending with a few hundred dollars of the 300D
> or D70 on a lesser...but sizable camera...should REALLY consider teh DSLR.
> It really can open new visions for people when they experience the difference...without
> having to magically "miss things" they have never even experienced.
>
> How does one know what one needs when they don't really understand what's out thre first
> hand? -This doesn't mean buying a 1Ds Mark II, but it might mean it's worth a low-end
> DSLR.
>
> -Mark²
Wow! Lots of typos up there...sorry.
I would like to add to the above that although I owned a crummy film camera for years, it
wasn't until my dad gave me my first SLR film camera that photography really took off for
me. Real control breeds real interest in ways that you just can't foster without it.
-Mark²
Stacey
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
Stop looking at 200% crops and make some real prints from full size files.
--
Stacey
Stacey
>
> I can see the differences on the screen, but they are much more obvious
> in prints.
>
Exactly, that's why you have to look at prints, not 200% crops to determine
image quality. Color saturation, fringing, balance between color chanels
etc etc all have an effect on final "quality".
--
Stacey
Stacey
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
>>of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those
>>who have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
>>manufacturers' marketing departments.
>
>
> In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
> image quality?
>
When you're fighting DOF?
--
Stacey
Stacey
> Sure, if you have a very specific need that can
> only be met by a dslr go for it.
The main reason I got one, I wanted something the had the 35mm equiv of a
~21mm-50mm zoom and no P&S goes that wide.
--
Stacey
ch...@go.com
this bit..
>The human eye with normal vision has a image
>resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels.
Your website seems to argue that you simply multiply the ability of the
eye to resolve detail, by its angle of view.
But hang on a tick!!! The eye is only sharp in a *very* small angle -
I would guess less than a 5 degree cone! It fills in the rest with
memory and 'false' resolution by assumption. To prove that, I use the
following `party trick` when I take photography classes, and I would
invite you to do the same. You will need an assistant.
Get the assistant to write a sentence, out of your sight, on a piece of
paper, in thick black letters about an inch high. Then, stand about 20
feet away from a blackboard, upon which is a dot or cross. Stare
*fixedly* at that point, and then invite your assistant to slowly bring
the paper towards that point on the board. Note how close it has to be
before you can actually read it...
Similarly, stare fixedly at these words. Can you read a sentence that
is, say, just four lines above it without moving your eye? No cheating
from memory!
If you are claiming that we have 500 megapixels, then you must be
allowing the eye to wander off in all directions, gathering data as it
goes. By that definition, I reckon the angle of view is therefore a
360 degree sphere, and by moving sideways... well on the way to
infinite resolution!!
I don't think a value for the eye's 'resolution' is of any use. Visual
acuity, and our ability to resolve detail *when staring right at it!*,
is something quite different.
Maybe it is just semantics, but I think it is an interesting concept,
and most folk who are confronted by the `party trick` are quite
surprised by it...
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> Modern sensors are photon noise limited. The marketing departments
> don't even know this, nor hype it. It is a demonstrated fact. See:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
It says "The maximum signal-to-noise is then (52000/(square root
52000) = 228... The only way to improve on the signal-to-noise is to
acquire more photons."
But surely the relevant signal-to-noise ratio is the maximum signal
(for white) divided by the dark noise level (for black). What people
notice is noise in the shadows, whereas noise in the highlights is far
less interesting. There is much to be gained by reducing read noise
even without increasing full well capacity.
Andrew.
Ron
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
message
> news:gyWSd.116204$0u.42705@fed1read04...
>
> > I think you make some good points above.
> > What I would quibble with is the idea of starting with the most
simple cameras to assess
> > your needs. In my opinion, many people never really discover how
much they "needed"
> > something until they had it available to them.
> >
Mark:
I like and appreciate the logic of your argument. Ultimately, it will
be some rather obvious and simple truths that move people forward, not
simply what somebody with especially good eyesight or a keen
understanding of the pixel world can explain in engineering terms. I
get beautiful 8x10s out of my old Oly 2020z, which has great optics,
with some PS tweaking. Once behind glass and on a wall they can look
stunning. And, nobody has yet approached them with a loupe and said "My
God, I can tell these are only 2 megapix!" Of course, I can get even
better ones with my 5060 and so it goes. Frankly, for my purposes, the
main advantage of the 5060 is the cropping I can do and a few of the
camera's control features and swiveling lcd (a tremendous plus that
would be useless on a dslr). But then I am not an avid printer. 95% of
what I do is ultimately for the web, including work I do in my
side-business for customers.
Sunday I will be taking the train to New York to photograph the Cristo
Gates Central Park fandango. Lots of walking, subways, etc. I'll have
one very, very small bag with my camera, lenses, extra batteries and
cards, MP3 player, etc. Inconspicuous and light. The way I like it.
I remember all of this in the earlier days of the hi-fi industry. My
local stereo shop was always trying to sell me the cd player that cost
$1500 instead of the one that cost $200 and allowed me to buy,
theoretically at least, $1200 worth of cd's from someone else. The
salesman drove me nuts with technical jargon until I demanded that we
do a blind test with him on the other end. Guess what? You know the
rest of the story. And there is my friend with $5,000 cables. He would
get down on the floor a few feet from one of his speakers and swear
that were I to do the same I could, even with my somewhat ordinary
hearing, tell the difference. Were I somewhat unmoved by this bit of
testing he would show me technical articles. I tried to explain that
for the kind of music I like (primarily jazz from the 40s-60s) $5000
cables and even $15000 speakers might not make much difference. In
fact, I might just hear imperfections I didn't want to hear.
As a long time user of standard SLR's I know the value of the genre. I
just don't think that right now, early 2005, is the time for one to
take the plunge unless one has extra money to burn, or has some very
specific demands like low light shooting or very large prints. This is
not to say that one should go with the most simple, and the decling
prices of dslr's may make them all but irresistable to many. But, ask
me six or eight months from now...:-)
/ron
Skip M
news:382rn3F...@individual.net...
It depends upon which direction you're fighting it... More is not
necessarily better.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Larry
rkg...@charter.net says...
> As a long time user of standard SLR's I know the value of the genre. I
> just don't think that right now, early 2005, is the time for one to
> take the plunge unless one has extra money to burn, or has some very
> specific demands like low light shooting or very large prints. This is
> not to say that one should go with the most simple, and the decling
> prices of dslr's may make them all but irresistable to many. But, ask
> me six or eight months from now...:-)
>
> /ron
>
I agree with YOU!
I have 3 "top of the line" consumer cameras and Though I'm sorely tempted to
run out and buy/order/get the new DRebel Im holding off until at LEAST April,
maybe longer.
The ONLY thing I need to improve is "shutter lag" (even with the Sony 828,
once aware of its foibles, you can avoid them) and I dont want to "waste" a
thousand on a camera and another 500 to 1000 on a lens to give me the same
coverage I get with the Sony 828 or even the Sony 717.
My Fuji S7000 has turned out to be the work-horse of the 3 cameras I use, as
it can be relied upon to come up with the "same" quality photo under most
circumstances..ie no worse with backlighting than without, as long as the
exposure is correct.
PS: I only use the Fuji as a 6mp most of the time.
That is after all what it really is.
rafe bustin
I do both. But there's not much use looking
beyond 100% on the monitor, except for fine
spotting or retouching work on film scans.
I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
judge a digital image. There have only been a few
situations (in my experience) where a print revealed
flaws that were not evident on-screen.
But that does presume a decent monitor that's
properly calibrated. You've done that, right?
When you introduce a printer -- even a Fuji or
a LightJet -- you introduce another huge set
of variables, issues, and technologies.
For me, the prints are the ultimate goal, but
not every image makes it to print. And not
every print makes it past the scrap bin.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Ron
828,
once aware of its foibles, you can avoid them)>
Larry:
You prove two important points, and that is to get to know your camera
and then push it to the max, and to work at taking good photos. Over
the weekend I stood on a train platform with my 5060 and did incredibly
fast firing in the HQ mode at fast oncoming trains. I shut down all
the auto exposure features and bang, bang, bang. I suppose a dslr
would have been faster, but not so much so that it would have made a
difference. And, even though it takes a second or two for my camera to
'warm up' after it decides to rest I've learned over the years that an
occasional tap on the zoom control (which is now done almost
sub-consciously) suffices. As for good photos, I suspect that a very
high percentage of problems with small prosumer cameras can be
attributed to things like miserable knowledge of backlighting, camera
shake, and, sad to say, poor optics.
Incidentally, I think we do need to make some distictions between those
who are first time investors and those who have already invested in
very good prosumers. But by and large I want to use my money to travel,
get extras, upgrade software, etc. When Pentax gets a good dust
cleaning system and goes back to CF cards I may take the plunge (I have
some beautiful top of the line K mount lenses which I can still use on
my SLR), but right now I can think of very few reasons to do so.
Owamanga
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:58:27 -0500, Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>oi...@woosh.co.nz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
>>> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
>>> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
>>> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
>>> and a FZ20.
>>
>>Stop looking at 200% crops and make some real prints from full size files.
>
>I do both. But there's not much use looking
>beyond 100% on the monitor, except for fine
>spotting or retouching work on film scans.
>
>I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
>judge a digital image. There have only been a few
>situations (in my experience) where a print revealed
>flaws that were not evident on-screen.
But many where a screen preview can reveal an irrelevant quality
difference because it's one that *won't* show on the print.
That's the point. The destination of any good photo is to be printed,
surely? So, that's *all* that matters.
When you enlarge a 3000x2000 pixel image at 200% on your monitor, you
are comparing it in size to a 60" x 40" print. This is *insane*. So
what if you can see an imperfection at that magnification? most people
are never going to *dream* about ever printing a 35mm image image that
size, so imperfections that only show up now are *irrelevant*.
Lets just put this in perspective, that's like saying I want to print
a poster that's 5ft wide, 3ft high and it's got to look good when
viewed from 15 inches? Ha!
Print test pictures from any two cameras you are comparing on the
*same equipment* and then see if there are any problems.
>But that does presume a decent monitor that's
>properly calibrated. You've done that, right?
Not relevant.
>When you introduce a printer -- even a Fuji or
>a LightJet -- you introduce another huge set
>of variables, issues, and technologies.
So use the same equipment to print the comparisons. That way you keep
it a constant.
>For me, the prints are the ultimate goal, but
>not every image makes it to print. And not
>every print makes it past the scrap bin.
If you are binning stuff just because it won't look good at 5ft by 3ft
when viewed from 15inches then you need to get your head tested.
At the very least, you should be using a large format film camera.
--
Owamanga!
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
> judge a digital image.
Indeed not. To print, you almost always have to compress the gamut
and/or the dynamic rnage.
Andrew.
rafe bustin
>At the very least, you should be using a large format film camera.
I do that as well. It puts these puny
6 Mpixel DSLR images in perspective.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
What you are saying is the dynamic range of the sensor,
not the signal-to-noise ratio of a single pixel.
They two specifications are different.
Roger
rafe bustin
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:03:52 -0500, rafe bustin <ra...@speakeasy.net>
>wrote:
>But many where a screen preview can reveal an irrelevant quality
>difference because it's one that *won't* show on the print.
>
>That's the point. The destination of any good photo is to be printed,
>surely? So, that's *all* that matters.
>
>When you enlarge a 3000x2000 pixel image at 200% on your monitor, you
>are comparing it in size to a 60" x 40" print. This is *insane*. So
>what if you can see an imperfection at that magnification? most people
>are never going to *dream* about ever printing a 35mm image image that
>size, so imperfections that only show up now are *irrelevant*.
Print size matters, of course. I have an
Epson 7000 at home, so I can do 24" wide
prints.
I believe you're saying the monitor is
perhaps "overly critical" and there is
much truth to that -- many flaws visible
on the monitor will be invisible in print.
>>But that does presume a decent monitor that's
>>properly calibrated. You've done that, right?
>
>Not relevant.
Hogwash. It's entirely relevant. If the
monitor lacks focus or is misadjusted for
gamma, you will lose detail, and will be
surprised by what you see in print. If
you're doing digital darkroom work on a
cheap uncalibrated monitor at 600 x 800,
you're in for a rough ride.
>>When you introduce a printer -- even a Fuji or
>>a LightJet -- you introduce another huge set
>>of variables, issues, and technologies.
>
>So use the same equipment to print the comparisons. That way you keep
>it a constant.
Constant, yes. But having the effect of
masking or obscuring and generally degrading
the original image. For example, there are
very few print technologies that can match
the Dmax or gamut of a good monitor, and
inkjet prints are far from being "continuous
tone." The ubiquitous "banding" seen on
many inkjet and dye-sub printers has no
parallel on a monitor.
>>For me, the prints are the ultimate goal, but
>>not every image makes it to print. And not
>>every print makes it past the scrap bin.
>
>If you are binning stuff just because it won't look good at 5ft by 3ft
>when viewed from 15inches then you need to get your head tested.
I bin stuff for any number of reasons,
some technical, some not. A large part
of art is knowing what to keep and what
to toss.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> Roger, while I normally agree with your work, I'm not at all sure about
> this bit..
>
>
>>The human eye with normal vision has a image
>>resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels.
>
>
> Your website seems to argue that you simply multiply the ability of the
> eye to resolve detail, by its angle of view.
>
> But hang on a tick!!! The eye is only sharp in a *very* small angle -
> I would guess less than a 5 degree cone! It fills in the rest with
> memory and 'false' resolution by assumption.
By your argument, one only needs a small patch of high resolution
data in the center inch or so of an 8x10 print (e.g. about 1 inch
in diameter) and the rest can be fuzzy. Obviously the
eye+brain see more than that. Your eye wanders around
even if you are not aware of it. As you view a scene,
you move your eyes around to see all the detail.
This is true whether looking at a photographic print,
or looking at a real scene. Stand outdoors and examine
a real scene and the wealth of detail you can see all around you.
Now produce a photograph with that same detail: the detail
you can see with your eyes in the real world. It can't be
done with a digital camera, 35mm film, or medium format
film. One needs large format film, and 4x5 fine grained
film is about the minimum, and even then it does not have the
detail you experience with one's full field of view.
If you've never seen a big large-format print, at the next
opportunity, do so. It can be like looking
out a window to the real scene.
Roger
Chris Brown
rafe bustin <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:41:27 GMT, Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>At the very least, you should be using a large format film camera.
>
>
>I do that as well. It puts these puny
>6 Mpixel DSLR images in perspective.
I gave it and bought one last weekend. It's a great old thing, MPP VI,
upgraded to VII spec with the rotating international back. Two days ago, I
shut myself in my bathroom, blocked the gap under the door, turned out all
the lights, and loaded my first sheet of film. That was a bit of an
intimidating experience - I knew vaugely what to expect after unsealing the
box, but having to do it all in total darkness by feel alone was kind of
daunting. I'm hoping it'll get easier with experience. I also got a rollfilm
back for 6*7, for when I'm feeling too wimpy to use sheet film.
So far, I have spent hours playing with the camera, but have yet to take a
single exposure. How many digital cameras can you say that about? ;-)
I expect I'll be taking a picture this weekend - probably a macro of a dried
flower using the triple extension. I'm hoping my friendly local lab won't
mind me just dropping the dark slide off with them, otherwise I have no idea
how I'm going to get this processed. I don't especially fancy setting up my
own E6 darkroom.
My wife has decided that we are calling the camera, "Snapper", because
something with so much character needs a name. This is not because we expect
to use it to make expensive snapshots, but because the thing essentially
seems to be a load of springs held in formation by willpower, which leap out
and "snap" at the unwary.
Not entirely sure what I've got myself into here...
Owamanga
Except by these standard of arguments, the print will only have about
1/5th of the dynamic range that an eye can handle, plus information
for only one eye (eg, no 3D data). By this argument, it's hardly
convincing - of course in reality our brains ignore all that stuff and
those prints do look amazing.
--
Owamanga!
C J Campbell
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:421BFFD1...@qwest.net...
>
> > Anyway, I suspect that we are far from the limit in what can be crammed
onto
> > an imaging chip.
>
> Not at all; the photon limit has been reached. See:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
Then explain to me, please, why the human eye appears to have a different
photon limit.
Owamanga
wrote:
It's been my experience that focus on modern monitors is rarely bad
enough to affect final-print image quality, especially if you want to
work at 200% zoom. I don't do focus corrections in Photoshop - in
fact, I wouldn't know where to start, so the focus or lack of isn't
going to change what I do to the image. On all LCD displays this is a
non-issue.
By this logic, would you argue that people without 20-20 vision can't
cull images properly too?
Color balance won't affect output quality, other than you'll get a
mis-balanced print. But that's not what we are talking about here - we
are talking resolution, and the need (or not) to critic at 200% or
even 100% zoom.
>>>When you introduce a printer -- even a Fuji or
>>>a LightJet -- you introduce another huge set
>>>of variables, issues, and technologies.
>>
>>So use the same equipment to print the comparisons. That way you keep
>>it a constant.
>
>Constant, yes. But having the effect of
>masking or obscuring and generally degrading
>the original image. For example, there are
>very few print technologies that can match
>the Dmax or gamut of a good monitor, and
>inkjet prints are far from being "continuous
>tone." The ubiquitous "banding" seen on
>many inkjet and dye-sub printers has no
>parallel on a monitor.
Again this doesn't matter. If that's what your output technology is
limited to, then that's what we are striving for. Quality stops there.
Imagine if we only had monochrome printers, you'd be arguing that
color balance is still relevant - of course, it isn't
.
>>>For me, the prints are the ultimate goal, but
>>>not every image makes it to print. And not
>>>every print makes it past the scrap bin.
>>
>>If you are binning stuff just because it won't look good at 5ft by 3ft
>>when viewed from 15inches then you need to get your head tested.
>
>I bin stuff for any number of reasons,
>some technical, some not. A large part
>of art is knowing what to keep and what
>to toss.
So you would agree, I hope, that a minor fault on a 6Mp image that can
only be seen at 200% zoom is not relevant for 99.9% of users, because
that's the real situation.
--
Owamanga!
C J Campbell
"rafe bustin" <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:parn11peoghkevbse...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an
indicator
> >of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those
who
> >have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
> >manufacturers' marketing departments.
>
>
> In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
> image quality?
>
In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye have
better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?
Owamanga
wrote:
Agggh! but the whole point of capturing the image (in *most* people's
use of a DSLR) is to PRINT IT.
Yes, gamut gets compressed, yes data gets discarded, yes the frame
gets cropped slightly, yes a paper texture is introduced, yes
reflected chemical or pigment prints look different to
backlight-screen images. But we *accept* all of that because the final
product IS THE PRINT.
..if we can't see the defect in the print, then there *is no defect*.
--
Owamanga!
rafeb
> By your argument, one only needs a small patch of high resolution
> data in the center inch or so of an 8x10 print (e.g. about 1 inch
> in diameter) and the rest can be fuzzy. Obviously the
> eye+brain see more than that. Your eye wanders around
> even if you are not aware of it. As you view a scene,
> you move your eyes around to see all the detail.
> This is true whether looking at a photographic print,
> or looking at a real scene. Stand outdoors and examine
> a real scene and the wealth of detail you can see all around you.
> Now produce a photograph with that same detail: the detail
> you can see with your eyes in the real world. It can't be
> done with a digital camera, 35mm film, or medium format
> film. One needs large format film, and 4x5 fine grained
> film is about the minimum, and even then it does not have the
> detail you experience with one's full field of view.
> If you've never seen a big large-format print, at the next
> opportunity, do so. It can be like looking
> out a window to the real scene.
It pains me to admit it, but there is
a good deal of truth to this.
Too bad LF is such a pain in the butt,
and so damned slow and expensive.
You couldn't find two more diametrically
opposed approaches to photography --
digicams and LF.
What's equally annoying to me is that,
of my large prints, most of those that
my wife prefers come from the 10D.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Martin Brown
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:10 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A larger of number of pixels on the sensor is not necessarily an indicator
>>of better image quality, nor is sensor size, despite the claims of those who
>>have bought into the "bigger is better" bilge spewed out by camera
>>manufacturers' marketing departments.
>
> In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
> image quality?
>
> In the presence of noise, more signal is always
> desirable. It certainly works that way for film,
> and in fact for any other physical measurement
> that I know of.
Upto around 6Mpixels image quality undoubtedly improves.
But more pixels on the same sized area of silicon produces a trade off
in dynamic range and signal to noise that starts to be an issue around
8-10Mpixels on the current die sizes and manufacturing tolerances.
A physically larger sensor with more pixels would always be better, but
with ever more pixels on the same size chunk of silicon eventually you lose.
> Now, it's possible that not all 15.0 x 22.7 mm
> sensors are equally efficient at creating
> images... but I haven't seen any hard data at
> all on that topic.
The more pixels there are the smaller the capacitance of each pixel well
- lower dynamic range and more susceptibility to noise.
Regards,
Martin Brown
rafeb
Owamanga wrote:
> So you would agree, I hope, that a minor fault on a 6Mp image that can
> only be seen at 200% zoom is not relevant for 99.9% of users, because
> that's the real situation
I can't speak for 99.9% of users.
Mostly what I thought we were discussing is
whether 100% viewing on screen was useful or
not. I maintain that it is, for critical
work, or for large prints. In my experience --
while the print is the end goal, the monitor
is a pretty good predictor of how good the
print can be. If detail or tonality aren't
there on the screen, they're not going to
magically appear on the print.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
rafeb
C J Campbell wrote:
> In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye have
> better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?
The human eye has this thing called
a brain behind it. The human eye has
great resolution over a very small
viewing angle. But the brain can direct
that super-sensitive area (the fovea)
instantly to where it's needed.
In many ways the human eye is a pretty
poor design. Light actually has to
pass through a layer or two of neural
processing tissue before it lands on
the retina!
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Owamanga
>Owamanga wrote:
>
>> So you would agree, I hope, that a minor fault on a 6Mp image that can
>> only be seen at 200% zoom is not relevant for 99.9% of users, because
>> that's the real situation
>
>I can't speak for 99.9% of users.
Well, these are the people who print 200 4x6's for every one 8x10.
These people have never had a 5ft wide print made. These people
wouldn't attempt to critique another person's 5ft print at a distance
of 15 inches. Normal, non-pros with cameras, that take photos of
every-day stuff.
>Mostly what I thought we were discussing is
>whether 100% viewing on screen was useful or
>not. I maintain that it is, for critical
>work, or for large prints. In my experience --
>while the print is the end goal, the monitor
>is a pretty good predictor of how good the
>print can be. If detail or tonality aren't
>there on the screen, they're not going to
>magically appear on the print.
But you can see tonality at 20%.
The detail you can only see by zooming to 200% just isn't going to be
visible on an 8x10. (I mean, we are talking about stuff like jpeg
artifacts here, you *can't* see them on the prints, yet they are
clearly visible at 200% on a screen).
There's nothing overly wrong with occasionally critiquing at 100% or
more if the possible destination print dimensions require that, but in
many cases it's like a bank teller who uses an electron microscope to
check your signature. A fine waste of time.
--
Owamanga!
rafeb
Owamanga wrote:
> Agggh! but the whole point of capturing the image (in *most* people's
> use of a DSLR) is to PRINT IT.
Well, actually a lot of folks claim that
they're not interested in prints, but
rather in seeing their images on a CRT.
I'm not one of those, but it's yet
another way of "seeing" things.
> Yes, gamut gets compressed, yes data gets discarded, yes the frame
> gets cropped slightly, yes a paper texture is introduced, yes
> reflected chemical or pigment prints look different to
> backlight-screen images. But we *accept* all of that because the final
> product IS THE PRINT.
>
> ..if we can't see the defect in the print, then there *is no defect*.
Seems like a narrow point of view, but
maybe OK for "99.9% of users."
This argument presumes that printing
technology is static (and this includes
printer, papers, and ink) or that your
printing skills are static, or that you'd
never want to see the same image in a
larger print.
I've been involved in the "digital darkroom"
for about seven years now. I started out
having great fun scanning 35mm film and
making 8x10" prints on an Epson 600.
At this point I'm shooting everything from
35mm, a 10D, a G2, MF and LF film, and
printing on an Epson 7000, or LightJet,
Chromira, or Durst Epsilon. Maybe someday
I'll have an Epson 9600 or a Roland or
Colorspan... who knows where this
insanity will end?
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
C J Campbell
"rafeb" <ra...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:421ca97f$0$39273$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
> > In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye
have
> > better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?
>
>
> The human eye has this thing called
> a brain behind it. The human eye has
> great resolution over a very small
> viewing angle. But the brain can direct
> that super-sensitive area (the fovea)
> instantly to where it's needed.
>
That explains absolutely nothing. You are saying that the human eye performs
better, despite its deficiencies, because it has better software? Well then,
why can't better software improve the picture on a small digital sensor?
> In many ways the human eye is a pretty
> poor design. Light actually has to
> pass through a layer or two of neural
> processing tissue before it lands on
> the retina!
The eye in this respect is nothing but an extension of the brain. Rods
provide very rough resolution, but tremendous light sensitivity, reacting to
a single photon. The individual rods, however, are poorly connected; often
three or four rods connected to a single pathway. This inefficiency is
probably an advantage in helping to reduce noise.
C J Campbell
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:421BFFD1...@qwest.net...
>
> > of an eagle, or even a human eye, and the relative quality of that
sensor
> > vs. any camera or film. (I suppose a human eye could be defined as a 150
MP
> > sensor, but only about 16 MP are used for color vision -- the rest
simply
> > give a rough outline of light and dark. One may note, too, that small
> > children, whose eyes are not fully developed, may still "see" something
like
> > digital noise, which disappears at about age 5 or so. The physical size
of a
> > human eye is not all that large; the eye of an eagle is much smaller yet
> > sharper with better color vision.) I wonder how much the image recorded
by
> > the eye could be enlarged before you began to see significant
degradation,
> > but I digress.
>
> And not factual either. The human eye with normal vision has a image
> resolution equivalent over 500 megapixels. See:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
>
Does it indeed? So how does the eye achieve that resolution with only 6
million cones and somewhere between 100 million and 200 million rods -- most
of which are duplicates or not connected to anything? Maybe Mr. Clark needs
to check his figures again.
Scott W
rafeb wrote:
> Mostly what I thought we were discussing is
> whether 100% viewing on screen was useful or
> not. I maintain that it is, for critical
> work, or for large prints. In my experience --
> while the print is the end goal, the monitor
> is a pretty good predictor of how good the
> print can be. If detail or tonality aren't
> there on the screen, they're not going to
> magically appear on the print.
>
The problem is that it is easy to fool yourself into thinking there is
useful detail in a photo when there is not, when viewing it at 100% on
screen. The reason for this is simple, at 100% on screen you will see
low contrast detail because it will be fairly low in lines per inch,
but when printed this low contrast detail is no longer visible to the
human eye.
The eye can see detail to 0.7 line pairs per inch for 100% contrast, at
a light level of 23 foot lamberts, this drops to 0.4 line pairs per
inch at 10% contrast. And you can see down to less then 2% contrast if
the line pairs per inch are at 0.1.
What all this means is that you will see detail on the screen that you
will not see in the print.
So you are correct detail will not magically appear when printed, but
it will disappear.
Scott
Graham Holden
here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>This is why I think anyone considering spending with[in] a few hundred dollars of the 300D or
>D70 on a lesser...but sizable camera...should REALLY consider teh DSLR.
>It really can open new visions for people when they experience the difference...without
>having to magically "miss things" they have never even experienced.
I was in exactly this situation. I had a compact zoom film camera and
wanted to "go digital" (well, go "properly" digital -- I did have a
few-years-old 1+MP p&s, but I'd stopped using it).
Probably the main criteria was to get something "pretty decent" that would
do most of things -- at least reasonably well -- that I'd be likely to want
to do for some time to come.
For little more reason than I spotted a second-hand one in a shop, and it
looked "nice", I originally started looking at the Nikon 8700. Browsing
around the web, I was then toying between it and the 8800 (it cost more,
but had stabilisation). Almost on the verge of buying one or other of
these, I then stumbled across (among other sites) one of Ken Rockwell's
pages where he basically said the same as you: If you're going to spend
your money on [any of the 4 or 5] 8Mp prosumer fixed-lens cameras, you're
probably better spending a little bit more and getting a lower-end dSLR
(better noise, startup- and shooting-speeds etc.).
In my particular case, I also went with his (and others') opinions of the
D70 being preferable/better to the dRebel, but this isn't a Canon v. Nikon
argument -- the important issue is high-end p&s v. low-end dSLR.
Although I've not had as much chance to do as much shooting as I would like
to yet, I'm convinced I made the right choice. The D70 (in my case) allows
much greater freedom for whatever directions my future photographic desires
will take me than one of the high-end p&s would have done. I may never use
all the potential, but at least I know it's there!
Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
rafeb
Chris Brown wrote:
Keep me posted on your travails... by
private email if you like.
I'm all over the map with my camera gear,
it mostly depends on how much schlepping
I'm willing to do at any given moment.
LF is definitely max-schlepping.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
rafeb
Owamanga wrote:
> There's nothing overly wrong with occasionally critiquing at 100% or
> more if the possible destination print dimensions require that, but in
> many cases it's like a bank teller who uses an electron microscope to
> check your signature. A fine waste of time.
For 4x6" prints, most definitely a waste of time.
Maybe even for 8x10".
At this point I've sold a good number large-ish
prints (20x30", 24x36") that formerly I'd only
done at 8x10 or 12x18". I'm getting enough $
from these to where I think my on-screen viewing
time is well justified and properly compensated.
Owamanga
>
>
>Owamanga wrote:
>
>
>> Agggh! but the whole point of capturing the image (in *most* people's
>> use of a DSLR) is to PRINT IT.
>
>Well, actually a lot of folks claim that
>they're not interested in prints, but
>rather in seeing their images on a CRT.
>I'm not one of those, but it's yet
>another way of "seeing" things.
As far as I know, as yet, no CRT or LCD has a 6Mpix resolution. I
guess it won't be long, but right now that's a pipe-dream.
At 100%, on an average screen at 1280x1024, you can see about 1/5th of
a 6Mpix image. This is what they are striving for?
Really?
Or is it more realistic to presume they want the entire frame to *fit*
within the resolution of the display device (would make sense wouldn't
it). In which case we need no more than 1.3Mpix.
Again, especially for these people, it comes back to the fact that
it's *pointless* critiquing this stuff at even 100%.
>> Yes, gamut gets compressed, yes data gets discarded, yes the frame
>> gets cropped slightly, yes a paper texture is introduced, yes
>> reflected chemical or pigment prints look different to
>> backlight-screen images. But we *accept* all of that because the final
>> product IS THE PRINT.
>>
>> ..if we can't see the defect in the print, then there *is no defect*.
>
>Seems like a narrow point of view, but
>maybe OK for "99.9% of users."
Okay, I'm coming down harder on this than my real opinion, (which is
somewhere in the middle) to demonstrate a point in black & white.
>This argument presumes that printing
>technology is static (and this includes
>printer, papers, and ink) or that your
>printing skills are static, or that you'd
>never want to see the same image in a
>larger print.
..which I believe, realistically describes the dreams and aspirations
for 99% of the photos the current user base prints.
>I've been involved in the "digital darkroom"
>for about seven years now. I started out
>having great fun scanning 35mm film and
>making 8x10" prints on an Epson 600.
Okay, I've been doing it for about 10 years, with the help of Kodak's
Photo-CDs, but only started scanning my own slides about 3 years ago
and then gained the ability to go fully digital about 6 months ago.
>At this point I'm shooting everything from
>35mm, a 10D, a G2, MF and LF film, and
>printing on an Epson 7000, or LightJet,
>Chromira, or Durst Epsilon. Maybe someday
>I'll have an Epson 9600 or a Roland or
>Colorspan... who knows where this
>insanity will end?
My 10 year old Photo-CD images are still of high enough resolution for
an 8x10 on the best of today's commercial printers.
Anyway, *then*, when you finally have this superb printer that can do
5ft by 3ft prints, and you've got some damn big walls to hang the
stuff on, and you've found a framer who can put it behind glass for
less than $200 a throw, I'd say sure, go ahead, critique anything you
plan on sending it at 100% or more - it'll be time well spent. But
today, this just isn't realistic.
Even then, I'd question the need for the image to be good enough to
stand up to inspection from 15" away (as you do your screen today).
When I look at paintings or photos that size in exhibitions, I would
usually to maintain a distance of at least 5ft. So, critique your
screen work at a distance of 5ft and now you are being realistic.
--
Owamanga!
David J Taylor
[]
> For little more reason than I spotted a second-hand one in a shop,
> and it looked "nice", I originally started looking at the Nikon 8700.
> Browsing around the web, I was then toying between it and the 8800
> (it cost more, but had stabilisation). Almost on the verge of buying
> one or other of these, I then stumbled across (among other sites) one
> of Ken Rockwell's pages where he basically said the same as you: If
> you're going to spend your money on [any of the 4 or 5] 8Mp prosumer
> fixed-lens cameras, you're probably better spending a little bit more
> and getting a lower-end dSLR (better noise, startup- and
> shooting-speeds etc.).
This is only true, though, if you are prepared to accept the penalties of
interchangeable lenses, dust, size, cost, bulk, weight etc. of the
multi-lens DSLR solution. It depends on many factors including your
photographic needs and aims. One solution doesn't fit all.
David
David J Taylor
[]
> As far as I know, as yet, no CRT or LCD has a 6Mpix resolution. I
> guess it won't be long, but right now that's a pipe-dream.
9MP monitors are already available...
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/
David
rafeb
C J Campbell wrote:
> "rafeb" <ra...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:421ca97f$0$39273$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>>
>>C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye
>
> have
>
>>>better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?
>>
>>
>>The human eye has this thing called
>>a brain behind it. The human eye has
>>great resolution over a very small
>>viewing angle. But the brain can direct
>>that super-sensitive area (the fovea)
>>instantly to where it's needed.
>>
>
>
> That explains absolutely nothing. You are saying that the human eye performs
> better, despite its deficiencies, because it has better software? Well then,
> why can't better software improve the picture on a small digital sensor?
Maybe someday it will... by waving the
sensor around under the lens. But
prints-on-paper or images-on-screen are
a qualitatively different thing from
human vision (as if that even needed
saying.)
>>In many ways the human eye is a pretty
>>poor design. Light actually has to
>>pass through a layer or two of neural
>>processing tissue before it lands on
>>the retina!
>
>
> The eye in this respect is nothing but an extension of the brain. Rods
> provide very rough resolution, but tremendous light sensitivity, reacting to
> a single photon. The individual rods, however, are poorly connected; often
> three or four rods connected to a single pathway. This inefficiency is
> probably an advantage in helping to reduce noise.
Not sure why you're making this argument.
These are the reasons why photography is
different in a hundred ways from human vision.
They've been written about and documented
extensively, not only by physiologists but
by any number of photographic experts.
Fascinating topics, for sure, but far
beyond what I've got time for.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Scott W
then print out the photo, at 300 dpi. On screen the bottom image has
much more detail but when printed the top looks sharper. Show the
printed photo to a number of people as ask which is sharper.
If there were printed at say 150 dpi then which looks sharper depends
on how far away you are. Step back about 10 feet and you will see the
same effect.
http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg
The point is looking on screen can fool you, there is nothing wrong
with looking at the photo at 100% on the screen as long as you don't
use this as the only judgement for the quality of the photo.
Scott
Scott
bob
> I expect I'll be taking a picture this weekend - probably a macro of a dried
> flower using the triple extension. I'm hoping my friendly local lab won't
> mind me just dropping the dark slide off with them, otherwise I have no idea
> how I'm going to get this processed.
Be sure to take the bellows extention into consideration when doing
macro work or everything will be underexposed (been there done that).
Check with your labs. I have a box of E6 unopened. (The owner of) the
only lab I found locally that knew what 4x5 was said, Oh, our JOBO has a
tank that can accept 4x5. I'm not sure how it works.
You can wrap it up and mail it off though.
If you buy a Polaroid back off of ebay, you can shoot Polaroid positives
right off, and you can also use it has a holder for ready load. If I
ever really decide to do chrome, I'm headed in that direction.
Bob
Owamanga
>
>Owamanga wrote:
>
>> There's nothing overly wrong with occasionally critiquing at 100% or
>> more if the possible destination print dimensions require that, but in
>> many cases it's like a bank teller who uses an electron microscope to
>> check your signature. A fine waste of time.
>
>For 4x6" prints, most definitely a waste of time.
>Maybe even for 8x10"
Right, then in principle, we agree.
>At this point I've sold a good number large-ish
>prints (20x30", 24x36") that formerly I'd only
>done at 8x10 or 12x18". I'm getting enough $
>from these to where I think my on-screen viewing
>time is well justified and properly compensated.
Although there is nothing wrong with the strive for perfection, I'd
add, that in my experience of what people have been able to sell in
the past, work that is now hanging in homes and work places, the
expectation of a high resolution print from 35mm format at these
dimensions just isn't there. I have a 48" by 36" B&W print of Paris
that hangs in the bathroom, possibly from a 35mm camera, definitely
film. Up close it's as grainy as hell, but realistically what would
you expect?
It's "atmospheric." :-)
--
Owamanga!
Owamanga
Ah yes. At $7,000 every household will have one by the end of the
year.
;-)
That thing makes HD standards look positively shabby.
--
Owamanga!
Scott W
rafe bustin wrote:
> I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
> judge a digital image. There have only been a few
> situations (in my experience) where a print revealed
> flaws that were not evident on-screen.
It is not so much that a print will reveal flaws that you can not see
on the screen as the other way around, flaws that you see on the screen
will often not be visible on the final print. The other part of this
is detail that you can see on the screen my not be visible on the
print. As I posted earlier a shot that looks better on the screen can
look worse when printed, again check out the link to the photo and see
which half looks better on the screen and then print at 300 dpi and see
which looks better printed.
http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg
Scott
rafeb
Owamanga wrote:
> Although there is nothing wrong with the strive for perfection, I'd
> add, that in my experience of what people have been able to sell in
> the past, work that is now hanging in homes and work places, the
> expectation of a high resolution print from 35mm format at these
> dimensions just isn't there. I have a 48" by 36" B&W print of Paris
> that hangs in the bathroom, possibly from a 35mm camera, definitely
> film. Up close it's as grainy as hell, but realistically what would
> you expect?
I don't want to represent myself as a pro
photographer -- I'm definitely not. On the
other hand, in recent years, I've made a
nice chunk of change selling prints. And
I've learned this much -- it's not my own
judgment of the print that matters, but
what my customer thinks. Customer being
defined as he or she who hands me the cash.
(Most often she than he, by the way.)
Were it entirely up to me, I'd be a bit
leery of making 24x26" prints from 35 mm
negatives, or 20x30" prints from 10D
captures. But I'm not going to tell a
paying customer that I won't do that,
nor will I feel the least bit guilty
when I do.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
bob
> The eye can see detail to 0.7 line pairs per inch for 100% contrast, at
> a light level of 23 foot lamberts, this drops to 0.4 line pairs per
> inch at 10% contrast. And you can see down to less then 2% contrast if
> the line pairs per inch are at 0.1.
At what distance, and do you assume that viewing distances for monitors
and prints are proportional?
> What all this means is that you will see detail on the screen that you
> will not see in the print.
I follow the logic, but in practice I almost always find things in the
print that were not obvious on the monitor, and not the other way round.
For instance, if I use the clone tool to remove a neon orange "for sale"
sign on a dock, I might work at 300% or even 1000%.
At 200% on the monitor it looks nearly flawless, but in the print it's
not quite that good.
Bob
Scott W
bob wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
>
> > The eye can see detail to 0.7 line pairs per inch for 100%
contrast, at
> > a light level of 23 foot lamberts, this drops to 0.4 line pairs per
> > inch at 10% contrast. And you can see down to less then 2%
contrast if
> > the line pairs per inch are at 0.1.
>
> At what distance, and do you assume that viewing distances for
monitors
> and prints are proportional?
It depends of the size and resolution of your monitor, for mine I
figure I need to be back about 4 to 6 feet. It also depends on how
close you view your prints. BTW I am assuming 8 x 10 prints when I say
4 to 6 feet.
> > What all this means is that you will see detail on the screen that
you
> > will not see in the print.
>
> I follow the logic, but in practice I almost always find things in
the
> print that were not obvious on the monitor, and not the other way
round.
> For instance, if I use the clone tool to remove a neon orange "for
sale"
> sign on a dock, I might work at 300% or even 1000%.
>
> At 200% on the monitor it looks nearly flawless, but in the print
it's
> not quite that good.
The eye has can see the lowest contrast detail at at about 0.1 line
pairs per minute (or about 30 line pairs per inch when viewed at 12
inches). If you have a low contrast defect that is blown up large
enough it will be less visible then when it is seen smaller. My guess
is that something like this is going on.
Scott
Bill Tuthill
>
> Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
> their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
> and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
> than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
> and a FZ20.
I think this says more for the FZ20 than about DSLR models.
Most consumer digicams have lots of image problems, including
purple fringing at wide angle, bothersome sharpening/JPEG artifacting,
and washed-out highlights. The FZ20 and Minolta A2 seem to transcend
most of these problems.
All(?) DSLR models perform better than the FZ20 at 800-6400 ISO,
but that might not be terribly important to you.
On the downside, lens selection for DSLR is much worse than
what you've got already on your FZ20. It's a pathetic situation
when Sigma makes is the best cost/performance DSLR lens (18-125).
bob
> So here is an interesting test look at the linked photo, on screen, and
> then print out the photo, at 300 dpi. On screen the bottom image has
> much more detail but when printed the top looks sharper. Show the
> printed photo to a number of people as ask which is sharper.
There's either something wrong with your equipment or with mine. On my
screen the top photo is clearer. On my printer, the top photo remains
clearer at both 150 and 300 pixels per inch (as set in Photoshop).
At roughly 400% it becomes evident that the top photo is a blurred
(Gaussian?) version of the bottom, and that the blurring masks the
hideous .jpg artifacts that make the bottom image appear hazy. Zooming
in on the tower at 1600% you can see that this is clearly the case --
The artifacts in the bottom image spray the highlights over everything.
Perhaps the top photo was sharpened after it was blurred.
Bob
oi...@woosh.co.nz
hung up on technology!
DonB
bob
That's a good point: very low contrast changes will only be visable at
relatively larger sizes. Maybe my monitor doesn't have as much tonal
separation in whatever colors were involved as the print did.
Bob
Scott W
The bottom photo does not suffer from jpg artifacts. The two photos
have been filtered to have different MTF curves, the top photo has no
detail past a certain point but has high contrast below that, the
bottom photo has a longer tail on the MTF curve but has lower contrast
at lower spatial frequencies.
Scott
Brian C. Baird
christopherc...@hotmail.com says...
> > In what way is a bigger sensor *not* better for
> > image quality?
> In what way is it better? Why does the small sensor of the human eye have
> better resolution than the large sensor of a 35 mm frame?
#1: The sensor of the human eye isn't that small when you take the area
encompassed by the retina into account. It's over a curved surface
instead of a flat surface, so it can appear to have a smaller area than
it does. The area is about 1000mm. Most people have two eyes, so that
gives a total imaging area of about 2000 mm.
http://www.visionscience.com/mail/cvnet/1997/0334.html
Now, a typical APS-C sensor is about 23 x 15 mm for an area of 345 sq
mm. A 35 mm full-frame sensor is about 36 x 24 mm for an area of 864 sq
mm.
#2: Your eyes have good resolution because they only have to focus on
one area at a time. Thus, the highest concentration of light-detecting
cells is at the fovea - roughly in the center of your retina.
#3: Your brain. Remember, you're not viewing a static image interpreted
by your eyes - you're viewing the average of a lot of signals. Your
brain can interpolate a lot of data much faster than any computer.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Brian C. Baird
christopherc...@hotmail.com says...
> > The human eye has this thing called
> > a brain behind it. The human eye has
> > great resolution over a very small
> > viewing angle. But the brain can direct
> > that super-sensitive area (the fovea)
> > instantly to where it's needed.
> That explains absolutely nothing. You are saying that the human eye performs
> better, despite its deficiencies, because it has better software? Well then,
> why can't better software improve the picture on a small digital sensor?
The human eye performs more like a video camera in the manner that it
collects and presents data. You're not taking a single sample over a
small time period and calling it your field of view at a moment - you're
taking many samples and averaging the output.
Every pause a VCR or DVD? Pretty crappy, eh? Yet when you play the VCR
at normal speed, your brain interprets the data just fine and you see a
clear picture.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
bob
> The bottom photo does not suffer from jpg artifacts. The two photos
> have been filtered to have different MTF curves, the top photo has no
> detail past a certain point but has high contrast below that, the
> bottom photo has a longer tail on the MTF curve but has lower contrast
> at lower spatial frequencies.
Interesting. I still can't find any situation where the bottom photo
looks better.
What accounts for the hazy effect? Is it actual haze?
If you "difference" the bottom image onto the top image, and manipulate
the levels, the differences appear mostly (exclusively) ouside highlights.
The differences also fall on rather obvious 8 pixel blocks -- if those
aren't .jpg artifacts, then what kind of artifacts are they?
Bob
J...@no.komm
Larry <larryl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>PS: I only use the Fuji as a 6mp most of the time.
> That is after all what it really is.
Are you saying that it has 6 million cell sites, like so?:
o o o o
o o o
o o o o
o o o
o o o o
o o o
If that's the case, you're losing data taking 6 MP JPEGs as opposed to
12.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
J...@no.komm
rafeb <ra...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>Mostly what I thought we were discussing is
>whether 100% viewing on screen was useful or
>not. I maintain that it is, for critical
>work, or for large prints. In my experience --
>while the print is the end goal, the monitor
>is a pretty good predictor of how good the
>print can be. If detail or tonality aren't
>there on the screen, they're not going to
>magically appear on the print.
The best way to view detail on a monitor, IMO, is to enlarge the image
to 200 to 500%, and stand back about 10 to 20 feet. Then, all the
effects of the monitor, spatially, are pretty much gone. Viewing an
image downsized with the red over here, the green over there, and the
blue over there, all bleeding to the others of the same color, doesn't
really show you what you've captured.
J...@no.komm
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg
>
>The point is looking on screen can fool you, there is nothing wrong
>with looking at the photo at 100% on the screen as long as you don't
>use this as the only judgement for the quality of the photo.
The top image "looks sharper" at a reduced size because it has higher
contrast.
For example, at smaller sizes, there isn't enough darkness in the cabin
windows, nor is the white of the boat as bright as the top image.
J...@no.komm
bob <n...@not.not> wrote:
>Interesting. I still can't find any situation where the bottom photo
>looks better.
I can clearly see the detail between the cabin windows on the bottom
one. That's at 100%, on a 1408*1056 desktop on a viewsonic pf790.
J...@no.komm
Bill Tuthill <c...@spam.co> wrote:
>I think this says more for the FZ20 than about DSLR models.
>Most consumer digicams have lots of image problems, including
>purple fringing at wide angle,
Do you mean chromatic aberration?
bob
> In message <1l5Td.29337$Rl5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> bob <n...@not.not> wrote:
>
>
>>Interesting. I still can't find any situation where the bottom photo
>>looks better.
>
>
> I can clearly see the detail between the cabin windows on the bottom
> one. That's at 100%, on a 1408*1056 desktop on a viewsonic pf790.
I didn't say I couldn't see differences between them. I said the bottom
one never looked better.
At 100% on my Sony E540 at 1600x1200 I cannot see the white between the
windows. Well I can see a few of them if I look really closely. At
1280x1024 I can see the whites. It still doesn't look better. Or sharper.
Bob
Larry
> In message <MPG.1c86435f6...@news.individual.NET>,
> Larry <larryl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >PS: I only use the Fuji as a 6mp most of the time.
> > That is after all what it really is.
>
> Are you saying that it has 6 million cell sites, like so?:
>
> o o o o
> o o o
> o o o o
> o o o
> o o o o
> o o o
>
> If that's the case, you're losing data taking 6 MP JPEGs as opposed to
> 12.
>
In actual practice I shoot Highest resolution, but Im shooting RAW and
Photoshop cs' raw converter lets me chose to render it as a 6mp picture
instead as a 12mp picture.. Thats what I usually do. (I keep the raw file
though so I can change my mind later, if I wish.
There have been times when the 12mp picture seemed to have more detail, but
not often, and not much.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Larry
> Do you mean chromatic aberration?
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
>
>
Sometimes its C.A. (lens) and sometimes its Sensor Bloom.
Stacey
>
>
> I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
> judge a digital image. There have only been a few
> situations (in my experience) where a print revealed
> flaws that were not evident on-screen.
>
The big =IF= is =IF= you know what to look for. Someone who can't see any
difference between a cheap consumer cam and a dSLR might need to make a
print to see the difference.. If they make a print on the same printer from
the current camera and this new one and can't see any difference, then
there isn't much reason to "upgrade" is there?
--
Stacey
ch...@go.com
>of high resolution data in the center inch or so of
> an 8x10 print (e.g. about 1 inch in diameter) and
> the rest can be fuzzy.
No, I didn't say that at all. (Although, if you were to hold your eye
stationary, and just get one tiny look - which is what a camera does -
that is quite true!) I was trying to point out that attempting to
measure the eye's 'resolution' in the same way as you do a camera, is
meaningless. Because by its nature, the eye is continually scanning in
new information and adding to it's built-up picture. In fact your
example of standing outside is a good one. Just by scanning around,
you can build up a picture that is not just 100's of Mp, but thousands,
or more. But at any instant and when pointed just in one particular
direction, the eye's resolution is in fact quite poor overall, with
very high acuity only in one very small area. If you allow me to take
my camera and move it around and take lots more pictures, it will have
potentially huge resolution too!
Similarly, if you put up a 500Mp-equivalent large format image, i would
argue that you could put 100 of those images together in a huge print,
and just let me stand close and wander around to give my eye time to
look carefully at the whole thing... It's just a silly concept.
The eye really isn't that much like a camera at all, in that respect,
and I think applying a Mp equivalent is not sensible.
Stacey
>
>
> Owamanga wrote:
>
>
>> Agggh! but the whole point of capturing the image (in *most* people's
>> use of a DSLR) is to PRINT IT.
>
> Well, actually a lot of folks claim that
> they're not interested in prints, but
> rather in seeing their images on a CRT.
>
Show me a monitor that can display a dSLR image at full resolution.
--
Stacey
Bill Tuthill
> have been filtered to have different MTF curves, the top photo has no
> detail past a certain point but has high contrast below that, the
> bottom photo has a longer tail on the MTF curve but has lower contrast
> at lower spatial frequencies.
So which picture of the ocean liner do you like better? I strongly
prefer the top picture at 100% and the bottom picture at 200% zoom.
Didn't want to waste money printing it out, but I assume the top
would look better on an inkjet and much better with offset printing.
Bill Tuthill
>
>>I think this says more for the FZ20 than about DSLR models.
>>Most consumer digicams have lots of image problems, including
>>purple fringing at wide angle,
>
> Do you mean chromatic aberration?
I'm not sure. With old film cameras and telephoto lenses,
chromatic aberration usually expressed itself as green/cyan
on one side of objects and purple/red on the other side,
especially objects near the corners.
Purple fringing with digital cameras also occurs primarily
in corners, but at wide angle, and usually it's just purple.
paul
Scott W wrote:
> http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg
>
> The bottom photo does not suffer from jpg artifacts. The two photos
> have been filtered to have different MTF curves, the top photo has no
> detail past a certain point but has high contrast below that, the
> bottom photo has a longer tail on the MTF curve but has lower contrast
> at lower spatial frequencies.
How did you filter it? Sounds like an unsharp mask. The bottom pic is
clearly sharper and a bit of a halo around the bright parts such as the
two white 'balls' in the middle. Those same round features become flat
looking in the bottom, spherical in the top.
How does all this change in a print?
Stacey
>
> rafe bustin wrote:
>
>> I disagree that you need a print to properly see or
>> judge a digital image. There have only been a few
>> situations (in my experience) where a print revealed
>> flaws that were not evident on-screen.
>
> It is not so much that a print will reveal flaws that you can not see
> on the screen as the other way around, flaws that you see on the screen
> will often not be visible on the final print.
Exactly why I don't bother to ever post images to this group. People with
something to prove will FIND artifacts that never show up in print to "make
their point"..
Why they find depends on which camera made the images and what they need to
prove. I've had two different people say the same image looks noisy and was
too smooth with too much noise reduction at the same time because it was a
brand neither of them use. No one ever makes a print from different cameras
and compares using that, guess they are too lazy? They all want to look at
200% blowups looking for things they'll never see and that don't mater as
far as "image quality" in the final result anyone would ever normally use.
Yes if you're making 5X8 foot prints it might matter but who does that?
--
Stacey
paul
> In message <421c...@news.meer.net>,
> Bill Tuthill <c...@spam.co> wrote:
>
>
>>I think this says more for the FZ20 than about DSLR models.
>>Most consumer digicams have lots of image problems, including
>>purple fringing at wide angle,
>
>
> Do you mean chromatic aberration?
Is that the same thing or is there a special digital purple flavor
fringe? I understand that CA is due to mis-scaling of different colors
from the center and can be corrected with software that separates &
matches those mis-scaled colors. The PS RAW plugin does this.
J...@no.komm
Larry <larryl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>There have been times when the 12mp picture seemed to have more detail, but
>not often, and not much.
Yeah, I guess with the zoom lens you need optimal aperture and the
sweetest part of its range, perhaps, plus a shake-free exposure to get
the last bits of sharpness out of the lens.
The concept I was endorsing probably applies more to the 3MP/6MP models.
J...@no.komm
Larry <larryl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Sometimes its C.A. (lens) and sometimes its Sensor Bloom.
I would not call CA "purple fringing".