I don't know where Ken purports to find his quote in dpreview. Goggle
can't even find fragments of it anywhere on dpreview let alone in the
Sigma DP2 review. Furthermore, in discussing raw conversion they did
indeed use Sigma's software and compare it to ACR 5.5. Rather than the
discussion that Ken purports they actually praise the Sigma SPP software
for producing the sharpest results. (but they don't much care for
actually using it) <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp2/page9.asp>
Is he reporting from a different planet these days?
Chuck Norcutt
Andrew Fildes wrote:
> That's a fairly serious criticism - I always felt that Sigma had been
> treated unfairly (such as by people insisting on quoting one-third of
> the effective pixel count).
> Have you sent the objection to DPR? They should be prepared to respond
> to a serious question like that.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 19/11/2009, at 2:48 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
>> I think you can sum up DeepPee's ideals and philosophy to ACR with the
>> following quote from the Sigma DP2 Review:
>>
>> "The Sigma's results are rather over-sharpened by our standard
>> workflow
>> because it includes a sharpening step to compensate for the
>> low-pass/anti-aliasing filter (which the Sigma doesn't have)."
>>
>> So, what you have here is their own default setting designed for the
>> normal
>> Bayer Array that they didn't even bother to adjust for the non-Bayer
>> Array
>> in the Sigma! They complain that the Sigma is "OVER-SHARPENED" when
>> it had
>> absolutely nothing to do with Sigma, but their own dogged, head-in-
>> the-sand
>> ways.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|