Mostly I find there is not much to choose between them, but some
details appear better in the 10D upsized image to me.
For instance:
The seams in the blue topped white towers are much more apparent in
the 10D image, as is the texture between them.
The roof tiles of the same building are much more apparent, but they
could have been replaced.
There is more detail in the blue balconies in the 10D shot of the
same building.
In the red topped white building you can see the folds in the drapery
in the window in the 10D shot, not in the film shot.
The projections in the edge of the red roof have form in the 10D shot
and are blobs in the film shot. On the roof of the same building is
an orange door with a split window. The split is readily apparent in
the 10D shot and it has almost completely disappeared in the film
shot. Both the antenna and the pipe are much more clear in the
digital shot.
In the white building with the writing on the side the difference in
contrast is apparent, so of course the black characters on a white
surface are going to look a little better. Pointing out how much more
visible the hand rail is in the stair well in the digital shot would
be equally unfair. But you can see the surface texture on the white
building in the digital shot and all you see in grain in the film shot.
So I don't know why you think the film image is better.
Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA
On Oct 4, 2006, at 9:51 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
> I always concentrate on the higher contrast details for easier
> comparison,
> just like the Chinese characters and the railing I focused on in the
> microscope views. Upsize the 10D image is the fair way to compare
> image of
> different size. I can hardly believe you found the 10D image has
> better
> resolution there.
>
> C.H.Ling
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|