Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OM) OT - sort of - apparent discernable resolution, on screen

Subject: Re: [OM] (OM) OT - sort of - apparent discernable resolution, on screen
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 22:41:06 -0700
On 4/18/2012 3:32 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> > From time to time one or two of us state that it is impossible to gauge the
> actual resolution of an image, from its copy shown on screen.
>
> The top image on this page is one made by a friend of mine and posted on
> FB. It was made using a Phase One camera - which has image files that are
> 80 MB in size.
>
> Even though the file size is relatively minute, i contend that this image
> reveals its origin through the amazingly fine detail that can be discerned.

I'm going to disagree here. Others have already pointed out many factors, 
including differences in MF vs. 35 mm lenses, 
tone curves, and so on.

Just as to the original point, apparent resolution in a small web image, which 
I'm going to treat as simply detail 
visible, I think you are being fooled by expert processing and the resulting 
visual clues that increase the detail we 
notice, as opposed to that actually in the image.

If the contrast at an edge is too low, we simply don't see it as a detail. With 
only an increase in the contrast or 
steepness of an edge, it becomes visible detail, even though there has been no 
increase in actual information in the 
image itself.

Even in the case of the image you posted, it is possible to increase the 
apparent detail slightly without it becoming 
too obviously overdone. 
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Misc/Andris-Apse-Merino%20sheep-Phase-one-camera2.htm>

I'm sure the Phase One camera is wonderful, as are the lenses he uses. He is 
also very good in choice of subject, light, 
framing, etc. Nevertheless, what you are seeing and being impressed by is the 
way the image has been processed for web 
display.

I do think his image is apparently sharper than the one Joel posted, but that 
it has less to do with camera and lens 
than processing. 
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wilcox/E060313001w.htm>

> My E-3 and factory-tuned DZ 14~54 lens could never make an image as good as 
> this one.

Again, I have to disagree. You resist using better exposure techniques, rely on 
old, slow computers and old, cheap 
and/or obscure apps for image processing, etc. Clearly, your friend spends the 
time, effort and money to get the best 
tools and learn how to use them to best advantage.

I believe that the same shot, taken with E-3 and 14-54, exposed properly and 
processed with the same skill and care 
spent on the Phase One shot, would look just as good at the 750x582 image size.

Stubborn As A Moose

-- 
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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