On 7/27/2011 6:04 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Thanks, Moose, for your excellent explanation.
My pleasure!
> Use what ever buzz-words you like; but you were on the same page; at the
> same wave-length, singing from the same hymn sheet, as me.
>
> What I was trying to get across but apparently failed to do, is that Yes, I
> understand that digital images need sharpening, and sometimes other
> enhancements as well, depending on the desired outcome. BUT there has
> to be a start-point, and for me I prefer to start with an as near to unaltered
> image out of the camera, doing all post-processing later. That way, if post-
> processing goes awry, you can go back to the neutral beginning.
Yup, we are in agreement in principle.
> It looks as though I have made a less-than-optimal choice for camera;
> however, for the foreseeable future that is the bed I must lie in.
Weeeellll, perhaps not as bad as you think. Take a look at what I posted about
the Nikon D200 AA page. Then thin how
often you are either making 30x40" prints or cropping to near pixel level. If
you only pay attention to the results at
the scale at which you are using your images, you may find that the E-3 is fine.
My recently acquires 60D pleases me in many, many ways. But at the pixel level,
images from the smaller sensor just
aren't as clean as those from the 5D. But then again, they are 18 MP images.
How much does pixel level perfection
matter. I'm not sure yet, but still using the camera extensively, so maybe
that's an answer in itself.
> The http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/page32.asp was very
> telling. As far as I know I had not seen it before now.
It was mentioned in at least one post here at the time. Although less than
perfect, and sometimes with wrongheaded
conclusions, dpreview's extensively detailed tests are invaluable for finding
out important details of performance one
would only otherwise find out the hard way. That's why some of us photo nerds
spend what might seem to be too much time
perusing them in careful detail before a purchase.
> Interesting that they came to the same conclusion as me; no advantage in
> using RAW if the only goal you have is to make an image seem sharper.
Except for Chuck's important caveat.
> In the page Olympus E-3 Pixel Level Resolution, what do the numbers in the
> boxes represent?
The steps I took, as represented by the levels generated. As best I can
figure/remember:
1. FM Out Of Focus correction = 1 pixel.
2. FM Out Of Focus correction = 2 pixels, 50% opacity.
3. Shadow/Highlight tool, settings not recalled.
4. Brightness -15
5. LCE, 20 or 30%, 50 px, 0
6. Curves, settings not recalled.
7. Sharpening with Fred Miranda IntelliSharpen II
> Did you make any changes to saturation / hue?
Not directly. Steps 3-6 change apparent saturation and sometimes hue quite a
bit. I use those tools seldom.
> I'm pretty happy with the demonstration; when you realise that the diameter
> of many of those smaller twigs situated some 400 yards - metres distant is
> approximately 0.5 - 1 cm; 1/4 - 1/3 inch, the best sharpness showed them
> individually pretty well.
As I've said, I'm not sure you have a serious problem.
O. O. F. Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|