AG Schnozz wrote:
> Ok, I'm getting heartburn on this. I know we've got this insane
> idea that we have to pixel peep on screen therefore resizing of
> one or both samples is necessary.
>
I don't usually do this, but I had spent a lot of money on the basis of
some theoretical assumptions, and I wanted to check out whether they
worked in practice. Since the camera was new, and I wanted to do
something with it and it was very dark out in the middle of the night,
what could I do but set up a tripod and do a test?
I was pleased with the results, so I posted them. Johnny is the one who
brought up the numbers. And since he couched it as a challenge by
publicly saying he was disagreeing with me, how could I turn down the
opportunity to throw around some numbers of my own? Macho Moose!! My
pixels are better than yours! Hoo Haa! :-)
> Excuse me for being naive, but isn't the printed output usually
> the true test of what is better?
That depends. Many more of my images are viewed by me and others on
screen than as prints. I know that's sacrilege, but I've spent my life
as an iconoclast, so what's new?
I do generally agree with you about the pixel peeping. Like prints, the
images viewed on screen are downsized significantly and all those tiny
little details don't make any difference. There are a few occasions
where some tiny area of the original image turns out to have a subject
in it that I didn't even notice at the time. Then it's nice to have nice
clean pixel level images to crop.
> Just because something APPEARS sharper on-screen doesn't always translate
> into a better print.
>
And vice versa, there are some subjects that look fine in a print and
worse on screen.
> You CAN see the difference in the final print, right? I mean in
> something smaller than a mural.
>
No, but what's your point? ;-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|