On 4/18/2012 3:32 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> > From time to time one or two of us state that it is impossible to gauge the
> actual resolution of an image, from its copy shown on screen.
>
> The top image on this page is one made by a friend of mine and posted on
> FB. It was made using a Phase One camera - which has image files that are
> 80 MB in size.
>
> Even though the file size is relatively minute, i contend that this image
> reveals its origin through the amazingly fine detail that can be discerned.
I'm going to disagree here. Others have already pointed out many factors,
including differences in MF vs. 35 mm lenses,
tone curves, and so on.
Just as to the original point, apparent resolution in a small web image, which
I'm going to treat as simply detail
visible, I think you are being fooled by expert processing and the resulting
visual clues that increase the detail we
notice, as opposed to that actually in the image.
If the contrast at an edge is too low, we simply don't see it as a detail. With
only an increase in the contrast or
steepness of an edge, it becomes visible detail, even though there has been no
increase in actual information in the
image itself.
Even in the case of the image you posted, it is possible to increase the
apparent detail slightly without it becoming
too obviously overdone.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Misc/Andris-Apse-Merino%20sheep-Phase-one-camera2.htm>
I'm sure the Phase One camera is wonderful, as are the lenses he uses. He is
also very good in choice of subject, light,
framing, etc. Nevertheless, what you are seeing and being impressed by is the
way the image has been processed for web
display.
I do think his image is apparently sharper than the one Joel posted, but that
it has less to do with camera and lens
than processing.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wilcox/E060313001w.htm>
> My E-3 and factory-tuned DZ 14~54 lens could never make an image as good as
> this one.
Again, I have to disagree. You resist using better exposure techniques, rely on
old, slow computers and old, cheap
and/or obscure apps for image processing, etc. Clearly, your friend spends the
time, effort and money to get the best
tools and learn how to use them to best advantage.
I believe that the same shot, taken with E-3 and 14-54, exposed properly and
processed with the same skill and care
spent on the Phase One shot, would look just as good at the 750x582 image size.
Stubborn As A Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|