I followed all of this except "But the softness of the processing
appears to be quite linear and easily addressable with a fine-tuned USM"
I haven't gone back and re-read the review comments nor have I attempted
to sharpen one of the sample files but it seem to me what you've said
there is a direct contradiction of the review. Explanation?
Chuck Norcutt
AG Schnozz wrote:
> Chuck wrote:
>
>>I didn't pay too much attention to AG's comments...
>
>
> Story of my life...
>
>
>>First, the
>>difference in sharpness between in-camera JPEG and post
>>processed raw is pretty dramatic. It almost looks like the
>>difference between an excellent lens and a just so-so lens.
>
>
> I would have agreed with you on the lens, except the fuzzyness
> is at the limits of the resolution, as though the AA filter was
> too strong. But the softness of the processing appears to be
> quite linear and easily addressable with a fine-tuned USM.
>
>
>>I'm wondering if the JPEG output is deliberately designed to
>>be "comfortable" for the average photo but with raw available
>>for the advanced used.
>
>
> Possible. When you consider that the average JPEG file is
> printed 4x6 on a Wal-Mart machine, the slightly softened files
> may produce a far superior print with fewer artifacts. In
> otherwords, the file is matched to the common output.
>
>
>>I'd like to hear from AG about the types of photos he has used
>>where people seem to prefer the softer version. I'm wondering
>>if subject matter, size and viewing distance are involved. I
>>can hypothesize that in some types of photos (portraits in
>>particular) an extremely sharp photo can force our attention
>>to parts of the photo that really aren't
>>intended to be examined in detail.
>
>
> My test photos are a mix of portraits in 5x7 and 8x10 as well as
> a couple of 8x10 scenics.
>
> What I have surmised is that when the print exceeds the
> sharpness of normal peoples' vision at the equivelent viewing
> distance, that it becomes less than "real". For example, the
> camera-subject distance of a portrait is generally about 2-3
> meters. What is the normal human vision like at that distance
> vs 1/2 meter for viewing the printed portrait? Same thing with
> a landscape--the camera-subject distance is near infinity
> whereas the up-close viewing is more like 1/2 meter. So what
> happens is that the print is containing far more detail and
> "edginess" than what the normal person would ever experience in
> person. We need to ask ourselves just what is 20/20 vision?
>
> In 35mm film terms, a quality 8x10 enlargement from a 35mm image
> is pretty close to matching the resolution of the human eye at
> the same equivelent subject-camera subject-eye viewing distance.
>
> If I take an image from my E-1 and apply zero sharpening to it,
> it makes a very comfortable 8x10 that is pretty much the
> equivelent of what I get with an unsharpened 35mm image printed
> the same size. Granted, this is MY experience with my particular
> cameras with my selection of lenses printed out in my particular
> output chain.
>
>
>>In any case, it doesn't matter for someone who shoots mostly
>>raw.
>
>
> Bingo. And with the Pentax, I consider the "lack of sharpness"
> in the JPEG file to be a non-issue. The softness is addressable
> with USM and is uniform. Not unpredictably blobby like you get
> with a smaller-sensored digicam.
>
> What excites me about the K10D is that this is a precurser of
> their medium-format digital. Seeing where they came from with
> the *istD, they are on a steep learning curve and learning fast.
> Their eventual release of the 645D should be really well timed
> as Canon is starting to lose their marketing and product "edge".
> People who shot medium-format in the past really are wanting to
> shoot medium-format again and Canon is just a temporary measure
> until the MF companies get their act together. You won't see a
> wholesale swapout, but the market is desparately waiting for an
> affordable MF alternative.
>
> 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
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|