Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Busting a myth

Subject: [OM] Re: Busting a myth
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 07:36:30 -0500
OK, I agree with all of that.  And I've always been amazed at some of 
the nice stuff you pull out of the shadows.  I think what I was 
subconsciously objecting to was spending money on Fred Miranda's stuff 
(no matter how low cost) for no demonstrated benefit to myself.  I also 
don't print larger than 8x10 at home.  Larger than that (up to 24" high) 
is printed by a friend with two very large Epsons or by a lab.  In those 
cases I don't attempt to mess with resizing the image at all other than 
cropping to the correct proportions.  The printers do the rest.

Chuck Norcutt

Moose wrote:

> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 
>>I see what appears to me to be improved sharpness and contrast but I 
>>wouldn't call it detail.  
> 
> OK, on one thing I think we can agree to agree. There is no more actual 
> detail in the up-sampled image than in the original. Despite what they 
> do on TV forensics shows, data that isn't there can't be "extracted" or 
> "enhanced".
> 
> Then we may be able to agree on another thing. Data can be in the image, 
> but not apparent to the human visual system. Reorganization of tonal 
> data can make things visible that weren't visible in the original. I 
> hope you have seen enough blue sky & clouds appearing out of 
> undifferentiated white and detail rising out of shadows in examples I've 
> posted to believe that. Like the many details that are invisible or only 
> hinted at in the original here and clear in the adjusted version 
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/pages/DSCF1140a.htm>.
> 
> I then propose that the FM plug-ins, and especially the Resize Pro, make 
> detail that was in the image, but unseen,  visible and/or more clearly 
> visible than do the bicubic versions.
> 
>>And I'm not at all sure that 200% pixel peeping bears any relationship to 
>>prints.
>>  
> 
> Careful now, this is 100% pixel peeping at up-sampled images. A 
> significant difference.
> 
>>Why haven't you compared them on paper at largish print sizes?
>>  
> 
> 1, Lazy.
> 2. I haven't printed anything bigger than 8x11 in ages, and haven't 
> needed to uprez.
> 3. Most of my images are viewed on screen, not on paper.
> 4. Did I mention lazy?
> 
> And - after I did this test, I read Harald Johnson's book on digital 
> printing, where he convinced me that the printer drivers are going to do 
> a better job of matching the available image pixels to the actual 
> hardware than any up-sampling to match my imagined version of the best 
> dpi for my printer. He claims his conclusion is the result of extensive 
> experience and testing. I choose to believe him for a few reasons:
> 
> 1. I'm happy with the printed results I'm getting.
> 2. The other things that he wrote that I tried turned out to work.
> 3. Did I mention a personal aversion to work that doesn't accomplish 
> anything?
> 
> Remember, I wasn't trying to sell anything in this thread, only to show 
> how my test results with a full color image of a natural subject differ 
> from those using a B&W bar chart in the link posted to a web page on 
> Paul Butzi's site claiming that stair interpolation is worse than 
> simple, one step bicubic smoother.
> 
> I am not advocating that anyone buy anything. In fact, I would suggest 
> first simply leaving the image at the pixel size it is, setting the 
> printed output size in the printer driver and letting the calculated dpi 
> fall where it may.
> 
> Moose
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 
> 


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

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