On 11/5/2014 4:49 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
And "pixel level crispness" is not contrast?
No, it's not, at least in the simple sense; see below. I spent some time at this comparison, and I am not unadept in PS.
(More adept now than then, but still ...)
I used the tools at my command to optimize/equalize. Shot taken on a clear, beautiful day, direct sun, with high
contrast, trees and wires against blue sky, and low, textured asphalt roofing, etc., and highly complex details in
various kinds of foliage.
It's easy enough to adjust both global and local contrast. I suppose if I did so only for the smaller sensor, it might
win, but when I did it for both, not so much.
If not, what is it?
There was talk about it at the time. Speculation centered on sensor and microlens design, that on the older sensor there
was some sort of leakage across sensor boundaries, optical and/or electrical, that subtly diminished differences between
adjacent pixels. That could be called something like 'adjacent sensel contrast loss' I suppose, but not of a sort than
global contrast adjustment or LCE addresses.
A similar thing might be accutance in film?
Pixel Level 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/
|