Moose wrote:
> 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%.
I agree that that is very impressive.
> 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.
No, and it was actually only a holiday snap. I'm not sure I put that much
effort into getting it 100% right. And I was only able to scan the 9 x 6 print
in at 720 dpi, which doesn't really do it justice, either.
But I've never been able to do "my own" tests with quality digital images
before, and I'm impressed with what they can do.
Regards,
Simon
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
