On 16 Nov 2010, at 05:54, Moose wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 11:09 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
>> These are delightful shots, ... However, I am interested to note that the
>> older girl's arm shows speckling at anything other than the normal
>> magnification; I zoom my screen and see strange colours appear in the skin
>
> First question is why are you looking at 200%? :-) Really. The larger
> original size image has been down sampled, then
> sharpened for the presentation size. The algorithms in browsers for
> increasing viewing size are designed for speed, not
> quality. The image at 100% is already one image pixel to one screen pixel, so
> all viewing it at 200% does is create a
> bunch of groups of four pixels for each one. At worst, they will be just the
> same as the original. At best, some
> guessing based on surrounding pixels will shade the individual values. There
> isn't anything more to see.
>>
It was unrealistic to view it like that, Moose, but I did so just to see how
the pixels were shaping up.
> You are quite right about #68. This was not a shoot with the main purpose of
> getting good images. It was about testing
> the camera's limits. #s 60 & 68, and many others, were about finding out
> about what I can do with it in high DR
> situations. Although the EXIF says -0.7 EV, that's misleading. Using Shutter
> priority, fixed ISO and the maximum lens
> opening at 360 mm forced them to be about four stops underexposed.
snip
>
> #68 was a further test to see if anyone noticed the noise. You win. I've
> temporarily added a copy of the original, as it
> looks out of the camera,
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/BlakeHouse/WB650_First_Shots&image=SAM_0068.jpg>
> and one with noise reduction using NeatImage, which will soon replace the
> original in the gallery.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/BlakeHouse/WB650_First_Shots&image=SAM_0068NIia70.jpg>
>
> I think it takes care of your problem without sacrificing anything at this
> size.
It does, very well.
>
>> I note your requirement for long telephoto in the lens, but I am reasonably
>> happy with my short zooms (LX3 and G12). However, I will go for the tele
>> converter for the G12, when I can find one at a reasonable price.
>
>
snip
> You may imagine that the aux. lens is smaller than it is. Here's a comparison
> with the Samsung camera.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Misc&image=IMG_1838ia.jpg>
> Adapter plus lens is both
> longer and wider than the camera, and much deeper. It's a really odd shaped,
> awkward package that's quite nose heavy and
> there's just no convenient way to carry it short of a shoulder bag. The 1.4x
> converter is slightly smaller, but not
> enough to make a significant difference.
>
Hmmm, that does look a little large and less manageable than I had imagined.
Thanks for that advice, and for the useful site.
> And thanks for looking!
It's always a pleasure.
Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
