At 3:26 AM +0200 6/3/04, Listar wrote:
>From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Dynamic range of films (and digits)
>Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:22:27 +0800
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Gwinn" <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > The bottom line seems to be that color fidelity (and perhaps tonal
>> resolution) turned out to outweigh noise. For me, this is the most
>> interesting result so far. Many people have focused on noise, or the
> > lack of noise, and this may have been misdirected.
>
>I'm not in this field, if not the amplifer, not the sensor then what? So far
>I didn't see the 10D is sacrificing the resolution for noise, it's
>resolution is better than E-1.
I didn't mean the pixel size or number of pixels. By "tonal
resolution" I mean the ability to differentiate shades of gray (in
monochrome) without quantization noise or contours. In color, the
individual tonal resolution of the three colors together is one
component of color fidelity. The other component is the equations
mapping input tricolor brightness values to output values. If these
equations aren't right, the output will suffer.
> > >The original scene was not really low contrast as indicated by
>the blue sky.
> > >In my experience most slides will not be able to provide this
>capture range.
>>
>> Seeing only the photograph, it's hard to see what the original
>> brightness range was. You have the experience there; I would assume
> > that your judgement that slide film would be exceeded is correct.
>
>Checking with the original shooting data, it was ISO100, F4, 1/800s, 12:30
>noon time.
This is the camera setting, which will be proportional to the average
brightness of the scene. The brightness range is the range above and
below that average. For instance, what were the exposure values
(EVs) of the brightest spot and darkest spots in the scene?
> > I just assumed that because the British like rainy, overcast places,
> > they chose Hong Kong, which explained why there were no sunlit photos.
>
>Try here, in summer time from June to Oct, the day time temperature is
>around 30-33 deg. C. In the photo you can see some peoples are holding an
>umbrella, not for the rain but sunlight.
Ouch. So, there will be sunlit photos soon enough. But the Brits
will all be in hiding. Not to mention Yanks from northern climes.
> > Photoshop can do anything but take the picture. From earlier
>> postings, you take the picture in RAW mode, and do all processing in
>> Photoshop?
>
>All E-1 shots in my web site are JPEG, no color correction, only contrast
>adjusted.
>
>http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/E1.htm
The photos and the colors look very good. If you put the photos next
to the originals, how accurately do the photos capture the colors of
the real flowers? This was a classic test with film, and often
showed that internal consistency or compatibility of the colors in an
image was more important than scientific accuracy in making an
appealing image.
>Below test photo was shot with RAW, directly converted by Olympus View
>under shot setting of low contrast, low sharpness, auto white balance, save
>as TIF and then coverted to JPEG by PS.
>
>http://www.accura.com.hk/P5301309.jpg (1.2MB original pixel)
I guess the test would be to photograph the same flowers (and
buildings) using both methods, and compare the results. Why did you
choose the one method for flowers and the other for buildings?
Joe Gwinn
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
