> had about 10-11% fewer pixels. I then resized one sample by
> upsampling the 5D image and resized the other by
> downsampling the 300D image, so
> that any effect of the resampling would show up.
Ok, I'm getting heartburn on this. I know we've got this insane
idea that we have to pixel peep on screen therefore resizing of
one or both samples is necessary.
Excuse me for being naive, but isn't the printed output usually
the true test of what is better? Just because something APPEARS
sharper on-screen doesn't always translate into a better print.
You CAN see the difference in the final print, right? I mean in
something smaller than a mural.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|