Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Film vs. Digital @ equivalent 9 x 6 print then cropped and enla

Subject: [OM] Re: Film vs. Digital @ equivalent 9 x 6 print then cropped and enlarged
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:30:23 -0700
This suffers seriously from artifacts  that certainly are not the fault 
of the sensor. Probably JPEG artifacts compounded by upsampling.

Here is a quick grab of a roughly 1/2" square piece of the gladiola 
image I've been playing with and posting sampled up to 200% 
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/CRW_01952x.jpg>. Of course it's just 
taken with a consumer zoom, but at least it doesn't have all those awful 
artifacts. And you can see a lot of subtle, low contrast detail in the 
petals, both in shadow and bright illumination. But look at all that 
grain... ;-)   It is superimposed on another, much different image, 
which has it's own 1/2" square section enlarged to 200%.

It looks to me like both upsamples are sharper than your sample, but 
that doesn't really mean anything, because your scan of a 6x9 print 
doesn't do the original film image full credit.

You can also see roughly 1" square (assuming a 9x6" print) samples of 
DSLR output at various isos here 
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Compar2FM1600sa.jpg>. This should help 
you get an idea of how speed affects the image. This is 300D, E-1 would 
be noisier at 400 iso and above.

And some various size full pixel samples of DSLR images superimposed on 
downsampled versions of the full images 
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/WaltChall/>.

Moose

Simon Worby wrote:

>This is the (made up, coz I didn't print it!) 1/2" square section.
>http://www.lestac.co.uk/om/Dettora320sq.jpg
>



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

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