AG Schnozz wrote on 11/22/06:
> I've been doing a little semi-scientific study on ultra-sharp
> and ultra-detail prints. So far, in my preliminary testing with
> "joe-consumers" (around 20 so far) is that the slightly less
> detailed images with slightly softened edges is more
> "comfortable" to most of the viewers.
>
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page16.asp:
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page16.asp>
"We were a little disappointed that the K10D's built-in image processor
didn't deliver the crisp sharp edges which can be produced by shooting
RAW and converting using a third party engine (such as Adobe Camera
RAW). It's speculation but it does appear to me to be a combination of
the type of demosaicing algorithm used (not isolating edge detail well
enough) and the type of sharpening algorithm (as discussed earlier this
appears to work to enhance the 'undershoot', the black side, of an edge)."
and page 25:
"...however the single element of the entire K10D equation which left us
scratching our heads was just that. Either a poorly implemented
demosaicing algorithm or a strange choice of sharpening parameters means
that while the K10D's JPEG images have plenty of 'texture' they can lack
the edge sharpness we're used to seeing from semi-pro digital SLR's.
Pentax may well have been aiming for a smooth film-like appearance but I
at least feel that the inability to tweak this out by increasing
sharpness is a mistake. That said it's unlikely you'll see this
difference in any print up to A3 size, it's a 100% view thing so you
have to decide if that's important to you or not. To get that absolute
crisp appearance you'll need to shoot RAW..."
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|