I had the same thought. You call a 4 mp JPG "an unprocessed digital
image". On the contrary, it is very much a processed image, the
processing being done by a not very powerful computer.
I do not think a test where you deliberately handicap the equipment
is very meaningful.
Nathan
On 30-mei-2008, at 12:49, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I don't understand the rationale for the small JPEGs, especially
> the 2MP
> film scans and even the 4MP digital images. The 2MP film scan is
> enough
> resolution to produce an excellent 4x6 and a pretty good 5x7. The 4MP
> digital image is enough to make a pretty good 8x10. But nowhere in
> your
> process is there sufficient resolution for a 20x24 or 20x30. Even
> starting from the negative I think an analog 16x20 is still about as
> large as you'd want to go for 35mm.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Bob_Benson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> As I said in the first note, I'm comparing the OM and E-3. This
>> note
>> states my method.
>>
>> Note that I'm not interested in technical or scientific comparisons !
>> Rather, I'm a pretty simple-minded shooter, and I've become pretty
>> comfortable with OM technologies. The question for me is, given
>> my level
>> of interest in picture-taking (which is high) and my (probably less
>> rigorous than you folks) methods -- exactly what does it all
>> mean? When I
>> point my camera - what can I expect?
>>
>> I decided to take duplicate digital and film pictures, with the
>> following
>> groundrules.
>>
>> a. On the E-3, I bracketed 3 shots, the .3 choice. I chose
>> fine etc.
>> JPEG, producing a 4-meg image. I used all “normal” settings, though
>> towards the end I used spot metering a lot more.
>> b. On the OMs (I took 4 – 4ti, 2s, 2n, 2), I used both
>> UC400 and
>> UC100. For many shots I used the trusty 35-105 (I know, I know,
>> not the
>> best, but still pretty good.) For others I used the 100 f2 and 21
>> f2. In
>> some cases I did some 1-stop bracketing.
>> c. On both, I used polarizing filters.
>>
>> I’m now through the 2 week trip. I ended up with about 1200 digital
>> images (that is, about 400 bracketed images) and about 250 film
>> shots (the
>> disparity is explained later.) My plan is to choose around 20
>> “identical”
>> shots and do the following which will produce 5 images for each
>> "identical" shot.
>>
>> a. Digital: pick the best of the 3 bracket shots for each of
>> the 20.
>> 1) Use an unprocessed digital image (4 meg JPEG)
>> 2) Run the digital image thru simple processing
>> (e.g.,
>> Picasso, sharpening, some modest processing like adjusting contrast)
>> b. Film: use the equivalent shot for each of the 20.
>> 3) Use the negative image
>> 4) Use the CD provided by the film developer
>> (about a 2
>> meg JPEG)
>> 5) Scan the negative image (Epson 700), highest
>> resolution.
>>
>> This should give me 5 images: four digital (which includes the
>> scanned
>> negative and the provided CD) and one film.
>>
>> I want to establish how these 5 images compare. (Again, at this
>> point,
>> you serious photographers can cringe and stop reading here.) To
>> do so,
>> I’ll have my trusty Sams Club produce 1) an 8 by 10 for each, and
>> 2) a 20
>> by 24 or 20 by 30 for each. Then we’ll see.
>>
>> What I'm interested in is:
>>
>> a. Sharpness. I of course used the image stabilization, but I'm
>> interested in how sharpness survived thru the various steps above.
>> b. Color, contrast, etc.
>> c. Overall satisfaction
>>
>> As I said, I’ll report the outcomes to you.
>>
>> Again, I'm interested in what you'd be interested in.
>>
>> Bob Benson
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date:
>> 5/29/2008 7:53 PM
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
Book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/128276
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Image licensing: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|