Is it April 1 already?
:D
AG Schnozz wrote:
> I was photographing a whole bunch of portraits a couple of weeks ago
> and I noticed that there was a slight colorcast difference in the
> images after I changed CF cards. This got me wondering so I used my
> studio gear in the basement and one of my daughters posed for me.
>
> Three CF storage cards were used:
> 1. Lexar 1GB 40x WA
> 2. Sandisk 1GB standard card (blue/red label)
> 3. Hitachi 4GB Microdrive.
>
> The theory is that digital data is digital data and shouldn't be
> effected by the storage media itself as long as all the bits get
> stored. However, as any true audiofile knows, not all CDs or CD
> players are created equal. For example, using a green felt-tip
> marker on the edges of a CD will usually improve the audio quality a
> touch. Before now, I have never seen CF cards compared for image
> fidelity--only speed.
>
> Here is the test setup: Olympus E-1, 14-54, manual exposure, manual
> WB. Lighting is two studio strobes in umbrellas and a filtered 285HV
> behind the subject. Background is black seemless paper. All images
> were processed IDENTICALLY in Olympus Studio version 1.50. There are
> absolutely no differences in image or camera setup between the test
> images. The files were not processed in any editor in any way shape
> or form--these are straight out of Olympus Studio.
>
> I approached this test in a scientific manner and my theory was that
> all images should be identical given that digital data should
> maintain 100% integrity regardless of the media.
>
> Unfortunately, the higher compression JPEGs don't do the RAW files
> justice. However, you should still be able to figure them out.
>
> The results are startling.
>
> The Lexar had excellent color, saturation and contrast, but the
> sharpness just wasn't there. The high write speed of the Lexar
> evidently reduced the sharpness some. Not unlike using a high-speed
> film in our OMs. I'm not sure what is causing this, but possibly the
> E-1's operating system isn't able to handle the data throughput the
> card is able to support. The speed advantage of the 40X card is not
> to be ignored. The slight reduction in sharpness/detail is a fine
> tradeoff for most of the photography I do. But for landscape work,
> I'll have to avoid using this card.
>
> Here is the link to the Lexar image. Click on the image to see the
> full-size original JPEG:
>
> http://image66media.com/Gallery/CF/TAG060
>
> The SanDisk was totally disappointing. This card was bought the other
> day from Radio Shack for $14. The contrast was muted and the
> sharpness was slightly off. Maybe the loss of sharpness/detail is
> related to a mistiming against the E-1's operating system, but I
> cannot explain the loss of contrast and color other than the fact
> this card is of a lower quality. To use a film analogy, this is like
> the difference between Kodak film and KMART branded Agfa film. The
> difference isn't great, but it's there. The midtones are about the
> same as the Lexar, but highlight and shadow contrast is shifted.
>
> Here is the link to the SanDisk image. Click on the image to see the
> full-size original JPEG:
>
> http://image66media.com/Gallery/CF/TAG064
>
> The final image is using the Hitachi 4GB Microdrive. I was absolutely
> shocked at what I saw. The colors were more vibrant, shadows deeper
> and the level of detail is increased. This was, by far, the best
> image of the three. I could output this image to the lab for final
> printing without any post-processing or adjustment. I've been stewing
> on this and if I were to venture a guess, it's that Olympus had
> fine-tuned the read/write portion of the operation system and file
> processor to be timed perfectly to the Microdrive. I also wonder if
> the the data is stored with less variability on the magnetic surface.
> Memory chips are known for bleed-over between adjacent memory blocks
> and the Microdrive would be immune to that particular problem.
>
> Here is the link to the Microdrive image. Click on the image to see
> the full-size original JPEG:
>
> http://image66media.com/Gallery/CF/TAG059
>
> I've suggested a few theories here, but in reality, I'm just
> guessing. I took several pictures with each card and the images were
> consistant per card type. Granted, when we shoot RAW we're able to
> fine-tune and match images from one card to another, but I'd never
> have guessed that this variance even existed.
>
> For the highest quality stuff, I'll be using the Microdrive from now
> on. The cheep SanDisk is very disappointing and I'm not sure what to
> do with them other than MP3 storage. The high-speed Lexar appears to
> be a good tradeoff and I'll probably get another new one. But I'll
> need to come up with a standardized test to see how it does as
> compared to the other cards.
>
> No, I haven't had a chance yet to test these cards in other cameras.
>
> AG-Schnozz
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|