On 3/31/2013 11:55 PM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Moose wrote inter alia
>> Digital sampling ALWAYS softens edges - ALWAYS. The original capture of a
>> subject, scanning an analog source and
> In reply I merely point out that it is not usually permissible in scientific
> analysis to extrapolate beyond the bounds of data.
>
> My comments were mainly about the past and present performance of just
> ONE E-3 coupled with the same DZ 14-54 lens, hand-held and with IS on.
Perhaps I am obtuse. I did not at all get that this was about possible
deterioration of a particular E-3 and lens.
I did, however, cover that possibility as first one:
"1. Your equipment is faulty, in need of repair or calibration. "
> Same computer gear used for both past and present images, and same
> operator except for an unquantifiable age factor..
This seems, as others have suggested, something relatively easily tested.
Sample shots of things shot before should be
relatively easily arranged, as should comparisons with and without IS and
tripod vs. hand held.
Also, easily, if perhaps not inexpensively, remedied.
A bit more reading reveals that the E-3 has a strong AA filter, so optimal
pixel level detail will require post
processing, ideally deconvolution.
I stand by my contention that the apparent sharpness of web images, which
started this thread, is more a result of
proper processing than of pixel level sharpness in the original.
Entropy Abides 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/
|