Uh, oh! Chuck agrees with you too. He told me so (quietly).
Dr. Flash
Ken Norton wrote:
>> You can also use Early stage noise reduction feature. It
>> ´s like modifying E-1 AA filter effectiveness. As you know, it´s very
>> common to see labyrinth maze patterns in cameras with weak AA filters
>> when sharpening in Raw Processing Workflow.
>
>
>
> With Olympus RAW files, the maze patterns are frequently encountered because
> the bayer conversion isn't RGBG, but RGGB in the mapping. You usually don't
> see the patterns unless you're dealing with saturated reds, oranges and
> yellows.
>
>
>
>> After wasting some weeks
>> fine tuning the software options, now I can say without any doubt that
>> Olympus Studio weren´t taking E-1 to the limit. I also processed E-3
>> images with this software using a Zuiko Digital 14-35 and I am still
>> shocked ;) Resolving power is higher than medium format cameras. Crystal
>> clear images with unsurpassed clarity.
>>
>
>
> We are battling the sliding scale of acceptability. What was outstanding
> yesterday is now garbage today. In reality, if I presented you a
> reasonably-sized print which I told you was taken with the 5Dmk2, but
> instead was taken with the E-1, there are few, if any, who will be able to
> recognize that it' a lie.
>
> In his D3X review, Thom Hogan wrote:
>
> "Finally, a word about "size." One reason a lot of people get excited about
> the 24mp number is that they envision "printing bigger." At the 360 dpi that
> you would normally give an Epson inkjet printer (Canon's and HP's prefer 300
> dpi, I believe), the maximum size of a D3x image before you have to start
> resizing is ~11x17". On a D3, that number would be ~8x12"..."
>
> Oh, for crying out loud. I cannot believe that ANY reasonable thinker
> honestly believes that you have to go 1:1 for a quality print and that you
> need 24MP to print larger than 11x17". This is beyond moronic and doesn't
> even come close to being scientifically defendable. Whether Thom personally
> believes this garbage, I don't know, but his typing it has put credence to
> it. Shame on you, Thom.
>
> I can scientifically prove that this 1/360 resolution requirement is bogus.
> Anybody can prove that it's bogus if they just get their heads out of their
> spec-sheet reading rear-ends.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|