Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Oh, Digital, Wherefore Art Thou?

Subject: [OM] Re: Oh, Digital, Wherefore Art Thou?
From: Marc Lawrence <mlawrence@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:48:26 +1000
> Walt [mailto:hiwayman@xxxxxxx] wrote:
> I have also posted from the cropped scan a small section comprising 
> approximately 1/225th of the whole. (I think that would be 
> .025%, but I'm a math retard, so maybe not.)

Okay, I've tried to do the equivalent for a Canon 10D image. (This
is not meant to be reactive - but just to give a start to digital
comparison to Walt's image example). I could do it with a c5050z
image if anyone wants:

This is my maths behind the webpage...

A 10D picture is 3072x2048 pixels, or 6291456 pixels. 1/225th of
that is approx 27962 pixels. To get a crop, I've been lazy at
working out ratios and just gone for a square crop of 167x167
which is 27889 pixels - close enough. (I tell you this, because
of fears that I have the same level of retardation when it comes
to maths as Walt claims. :) Please correct me as necessary)

The webpage is here:

http://www.geocities.com/montsnmags/crop/crop.htm
(See below before loading. If there are any "over-quota" problems
and you're desperate, I can email the images)

Note, the first link in the above page is to the full size jpg
out of the camera, and is about 2.5Mb - to initially avoid
bumping my geocities quota over the limit you might want to avoid
clicking that thumbnail for a few days if you want to look at it.
For those on limited bandwidth, well, you're warned about that
first picture. :-)

The second link is to a resized, rotated and USM'd copy of the
image, so you can see what the original is like (apart from USM -
which I'll mention further on)

The third link is to a 167x167 crop of the original image, no
manipulation other than the rotate.

The fourth link is to a USM'd (200/0.3/0) version of the above.

The image is my nephew, Jake, taken at Australia Zoo, just in
front of the croc' pens, though Steve wasn't there to feed any
of his children to them that day. It was taken at the 300mm end
of my "consumer" 100-300 EF lens (note, FWIW, this is not considered
a very good quality lens in Canon's lineup - certainly not an "L")
at 1/200, f8.0, ISO 800 (some fill from the in-camera flash).

(I've included the USM version because the general consensus I've
read on the 10D is that, depending on content, the images out of a
10D require *some* sharpening, as at default settings (or at RAW)
there is little (to no?) sharpening done in camera.)

I don't know if the above "comparison" has any relevance, but I
was bored. :-)

Cheers
Marc
Sydney, Oz

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz