This suffers seriously from artifacts that certainly are not the fault
of the sensor. Probably JPEG artifacts compounded by upsampling.
Here is a quick grab of a roughly 1/2" square piece of the gladiola
image I've been playing with and posting sampled up to 200%
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/CRW_01952x.jpg>. Of course it's just
taken with a consumer zoom, but at least it doesn't have all those awful
artifacts. And you can see a lot of subtle, low contrast detail in the
petals, both in shadow and bright illumination. But look at all that
grain... ;-) It is superimposed on another, much different image,
which has it's own 1/2" square section enlarged to 200%.
It looks to me like both upsamples are sharper than your sample, but
that doesn't really mean anything, because your scan of a 6x9 print
doesn't do the original film image full credit.
You can also see roughly 1" square (assuming a 9x6" print) samples of
DSLR output at various isos here
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Compar2FM1600sa.jpg>. This should help
you get an idea of how speed affects the image. This is 300D, E-1 would
be noisier at 400 iso and above.
And some various size full pixel samples of DSLR images superimposed on
downsampled versions of the full images
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/WaltChall/>.
Moose
Simon Worby wrote:
>This is the (made up, coz I didn't print it!) 1/2" square section.
>http://www.lestac.co.uk/om/Dettora320sq.jpg
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
