If I never see them at 33% they don't exist. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/27/2012 3:05 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Secondly, your comparison of the 5MP E-1
>> and the 5D's 12MP (not 16) is not an output measure.
>
> I was actually referring to the 16MP sensor in the latest/greates
> Pansonic and Olympus Micro Four-Thirds cameras. 12MP is a waste, as
> far as I'm concerned. It's outdated.
>
> I do edit at 100% pixels. Output sharpening is viewed at both 100% and
> at 33%. Unlike some people, I really dislike "crunchy". Without
> zooming in, we have no idea that we're getting halos and other
> artifacts. What Bruce wrote was a good guideline, but definitely not
> gospel. Especially, considering that your ability to understand what
> is there is entirely dependent upon the resizing algorithm used by the
> software for displaying the reduced image. I'm not that trusting and
> for good reason.
>
> When studying what a lens or imaging system is doing, you really do
> need to view the file at 100%. If there is fringing, aberrations and
> so forth you may never see them at 33%. Which brings up the argument
> that the 300ppi requirement is a myth anyway.
>
> ;)
>
> 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/
|