thanks Chuck but not only is the sensor not that of the x10 but your
message doesn't explain why the photo has to "pop" when the preview is
displayed :-(
Thanks al the same :-)
Ph
Le 2 mai 13 à 14:50, Chuck Norcutt a écrit :
> From DPReview's review of the Xpro-1
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Sensor • 23.6mm x 15.6mm (APS-C) X-Trans CMOS sensor
> • 16.3 million *effective* pixels
> • Primary colour filter (RGB color filter array)
> ----------------------
> Image sizes 3:2
> • 4896 x 3264
> • 3456 x 2304
> • 2496 x 1664
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Note maximum image size occurs at 3:2 aspect ratio and is 4896 x 3264.
> Emphasis placed on *effective* is mine.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 5/1/2013 6:35 AM, philippe.amard@xxxxxx wrote:
>> I also notice that loss in LR with the x10 - the previews suddenly
>> seem to "plop" as a cold slide would in the projector ...
>> I attributed it so far to a sort of hidden lens adjustment.
>> Yet Moose's explanation also makes much sense to me.
>> What I don't understand is the 0.5 sec delay for the conversion to
>> take place on screen
>>
>>
>> Amitiés
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ========================================
>>
>> Message du : 01/05/2013 00:47
>> De : "Moose " <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>> A : "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Copie à :
>> Sujet : [OM] LR vs. Aperture image sizes [was LR5 beta}
>>
>>
>> On 4/29/2013 4:47 AM, SwissPace wrote:
>>> I had a quick look at some of my Xpro-1 raw files ... quite a bit
>>> of border is missing from the
>>> LR files which I have just discovered from viewing the aperture
>>> version.
>>
>> Have you checked the image pixel sizes? I imagine you will find
>> that LR delivers all the camera claims.
>>
>> If I recall correctly, camera specs and most converters ignore a
>> few pixels along each edge. This is because they cannot
>> be fully converted for accurate color, as some of the other,
>> surrounding pixels needed for full decoding of the Bayer
>> array are not there.That little set of border pixels are used in
>> decoding color for those next further in, but not used
>> directly as part of the image.
>>
>> Soooo, they need to include them in the Raw files, for use by
>> converters, but they are not intended to be in converter
>> output.
>>
>> DCRaw offers the option to produce these extra, edge pixels, so any
>> GUI converter/editor using it underneath has that
>> option, if desired. It's not really many pixels. On the A650,
>> 3000x4000 becomes 3024x4032. I used DCRaw some time ago. I
>> couldn't see anything wrong with the color of the extra pixels, but
>> I only look closely at a very few images.
>>
>> I can see why the camera makers would not include them in their
>> specs and most converters don't include them in their
>> output. All it takes is one yahoo blogging about false colors at
>> the edge of the image to cause endless trouble.
>>
>> Assuming this is what you are seeing, I'm not sure why Apple would
>> include it.
>>
>> Edgy 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/
>
One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible
to the eye. Antoine de Saint Exupéry in Le Petit Prince.
NO ARCHIVE
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|