It is his own workflow but not a good way to compare resolution IMO, below
are two cropped scans both with ICE "normal" at 4000dpi:
http://www.accura.com.hk/Pen_D_06.jpg (no GEM, 1.2MB)
http://www.accura.com.hk/Pen_D_07.jpg (GEM level 2, 970KB)
See the serious loss in details on the walls (low contrast area).
BTW, it is taken with Olympus Pen D with a F1.7 Lens at F4 or 5.6,
Fuji RDP III.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sample page #2 is done without ICE or GEM. See:
> <http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor2.htm>
>
> His defense of using ICE and GEM in most of the comparisons is given on
> the same page as:
>
> "I've included these two comparison images specifically to show how well
> the 6mp Canon 10D image resolves detail when compared to a 4000 dpi scan
> of Provia F ISO 100 at nearly 19mp. This comparison is set on a
> particularly level playing field since the same lens and focal length
> were used and no post processing was applied to the scanned image. I'm
> aware that Nikon Scan's ICE and GEM slightly reduce sharpness in the
> final image. The softening of image detail caused by using ICE at
> 'normal' and GEM at '2' is very minor. My reason for applying ICE and
> GEM to the other images in this comparison article is that I use ICE and
> GEM in my regular scan to image workflow to avoid tedious touchup and
> reduce visible grain. I do this in an attempt to make 35mm photo
> enlargement quality more competitive with larger format camera images.
> These two post processing tools can really make a favorable difference
> in prints of 12X18 inches and larger."
>
> Chuck Norcutt
> Woburn, Massachusetts, USA
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|
