Yeah, I missed the subject line until after I'd pressed the send key.
"crop" was a brain fart. What I meant was resizing the image.
Regardless of any other considerations the resizing took the image to
0.5MP and threw out lots of data.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/31/2012 12:12 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 5:48 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Yes, at a marked f/11 (and affectively well beyond that at close focus)
>> all of these lenses were way, way into diffraction territory on a 4/3
>> 10MP sensor.
>
> Read the subject line. FF on 5D
>
>> I would estimate theoretical maximum resolution is limited
>> by diffraction to about 2MP. Not nearly that bad if he used the 5D
>> instead of the E-3(?). But, in the end, the diffraction and sensor size
>> doesn't matter since he overrode all of it with the crop
>
> Whoa! Where did that come from? There's no mention of cropping, the format is
> perfect 3:2. All the care given to moving
> the tripod for equal framing with different lenses would certainly suggest no
> need post capture cropping, in fact, the
> reverse.
>
>> and drastic downsizing. We can't see what was left regardless of its size.
>> :-)
>
> I've already posted that it's not a very good test without some unreduced
> samples. And yet ... Both Chris and I in some
> way saw the first one as in some way less sharp.
>
> I think maybe even with the considerable downsizing, perhaps particularly
> without resharpening, there is still something
> subtle that those with good eyes can pick up on.
>
> Eagle Eye 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/
|