C.H.Ling wrote:
>Talking about resolution I have to step in again, it is never possible that
>a 5MP E-1 or 6MP 10D is better than ISO100 slides.
>
I agree. Altough these images aren't quite a fair test, as Winsor
pointed out, with a known great prime against a zoom.
> During my Europe trip I
>have a few slides that are taken with the Zuiko 21/2 and E-1 with 11-22 (at
>11mm). There is one example, don't complaint about the slightly different in
>object size, the resolution different between the two is very obvious.
>
Again, I agree. But I think the difference is less than one might
suppose from just looking at your 2 examples. There are differences in
other image qualities that affect the sense of sharpness. Also, the
local contrast and sharpening are different between the 2 images. For
example, the higher contrast and higher color saturation in the yellow
print at the top of the poster would give the iimpression of greater
sharpness in the film image even if the sharpness were identical. It's
impossible to make any objective comparison of sharpening and edge
contrast for images of such different sizes which were acquired in such
different ways. However, I did find that the E-1 image improved much
further in PS before starting to look over sharpened than did the
film/scanner image.
Here is a comparison of the scanned image and the E-1 image where the
E-1 has been upsampled 200%, to about the same size as the scanned
image. The first version is the poster from the E-1, unchanged. The
second is the original from the scanner. The third is the E-1 image
after LCE and sharpening and the fourth the LCE/sharpened film scan. The
comparison is difficult because of the artifacts introduced by the
upsampling. I think it is clear that the enhanced E-1 image is actually
sharper in the picture part of the poster, although poorer from
upsampling artifacts in the text portions. Although I used quite a bit
less processing on the enhanced scanner image, I got a little carried
away from an artistic perspective. It does show pretty clearly the
greater detail available from the scanned image
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Postcompb.jpg>. As with the later
samples, you must set your browser to 100% to get the right view, don't
look at images sloppily downsampled by the browser.
I did another set of samples by downsampling the scanned image to the
size of the E-1 image. This is a size that gives an 8x10 print at
260ppi. In this comparison, the enhanced E-1 image is clearly superior
to the untouched scanned image and the text is as clear as in the
enhanced scan image. Again, I overprocessed the 4th version in the sense
that it is probably punchier than the original the poster came from, but
I couldn't resist seeing how much detail I could coax out even
downsampled <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Postcomps.jpg>.
>C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>
> I have did some tests with the 10D+Zuiko and Film with the same Zuikos the
>result were the same, the different in your eyes may be small but to me it
>is quite large, slides has much finer details and even digital got the
>details but it is distorted as I mentioned before. You can check and compare
>the "cross" at the left side of the word "FARMACIA". It is just like the 10D
>samples I have posted before the "mark to space" ratio is not right in
>digital.
>
>
It seems more complex than that to me. Again, I've clipped out some full
pixel samples and compared E-1 sized and scan sized pieces
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/crosscomp.jpg>. In this case, I've
done no enhancement. What I find interesting is that the neon lights are
indeed fatter in the E-1 images, and brighter in the case of the green
cross, but not for the signs in the shop window. This brightness
difference in the neon lights, which are very narrow spectrum, is a clue
that the effect is not just sharpness. Further, look at the incandescent
lights in the shop windows, both front and left side. They have bloomed
in size in the film/scanner image and are much more accurate in the E-1
image. I think these differences aren't related to inherent sharpness,
but the the reaction of different sensor systems to light of different
spectral makeup. I don't know which green cross is more true to the
original subject. I do think the brighter image is slightly better
looking, especially in the smaller size.
>Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>
> However, if you look at the smaller text in the "Orizzonti aperti" sign
>you will see that much more of the small text is resolved in the film
>image than the E-1 image. Also, most of the mult-colored spots forming
>the background are clearly resolved in the film image and nothing but a
>blur in the E-1 image.
>
As above, there is more detail actually available in both images.
>However, I'm still drawn to the digital.
>
Beyond the lower hassle level of getting the image ready to view/print,
there is simply a different "look" to images from the 2 sources. Take a
look at the front stone facade of the Farmacia in my samples. The
greater sharpness of the scanned image and the grain combine to make it
look less appealing to me than the E-1 image in both sizes. In the case
of the big sign on the front, if I look close, I can see the sharpening
artifacts in the enlarged E-1 image and that the other is actually
sharper. But in the smaller images and if I sit back in my chair so the
sharpening artifacts aren't obvious, I like the appearance of the E-1
image better. There is a sort of smoother, less granier look to the E-1
image. It's not as sharp, but has other endearing qualities. Come to
think of it, that's true of people in a lot of cases.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
