Wayne S wrote:
>You saved me the work of up-sampling and comparing, thanks.
>However...
>
>I think image sharpening at the right viewing distance can make any
>image "appear" better, but in all these examples, the film looks more
>realistic and better to me.
>
Remember, this all started about resolution, not what looks better. C.H.
has pulled it back from other directions a couple of times before
talking about relative looks of the 2 media after I did this comparison.
I didn't try to make anything "appear better" in any artistic sense. I
just used PS tools to bring up as much detail as possible to make
resolution comparisons between the 2 media sort of fairish.
>To me the neon sign is not related to spectral sensitivity of digital
>versus film, but simply better resolution in the film shot. The film
>does exhibit some blooming, but my experience with the LS-4000 scanner
>is that the scanner may be the culprit. Only CH can look at the slide
>and tell us for a fact. I had an underexposed RHP (Provia 100) shot of
>a horse with white stripe on the nose. The film showed no blooming, but
>the Nikon scan of the slide did. Again, the film disadvantage is the
>intermediate step of scanning, which introduces its own problems.
>
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. My scanner doesn't do that.
>I'm not sure how much sharpening you applied in these examples, but to
>my eyes it is too much.
>
See above. It's not what I would use for publication.
>Then again, I'm always setting the base and treble to a flat response.
>
Me too.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|