>
> Yes, I (Russ B) made the comment on Jim's post on the DP article:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse620/page17.asp
> The comment on the shots at the bottom of the page BLEW my mind.
> "It's an extremely minor complaint (the likelihood of most people
> noticing it is tiny), but is worth being aware of. "
> If I saw the right one and got the left from a film scan, I'd throw in
> the towel and get an E-1 or -x :-)
>
>
That particular illustration probably is not an issue of mapping the colors
correctly, but literally an issue of where the IR cut frequency kicks in and
how the red channel sensors see in the near UV. The Kodak CCD sensors have a
slightly wider spectral response as the IR cut is at longer wavelengths AND
the red detectors have a secondary hump down below blue. Hence, what happens
is that the Kodak sensor'd cameras actually see what we think are purples
(which are usually blue and near IR, or sometimes actually a real purple) as
purple. I'll not name names to avoid controversy, angst and general
hand-wringing, but not all cameras are able to capture those flowers as
purple but will render them as blue.
No amount of bit-bending will bring them back--it's not an issue of
white-balance, color-space or RAW converter as this is as basic as it
gets--the sensor just doesn't see the colors as the eyes see them if the
UV/IR cut filters are too aggressive.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|