The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox

Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow"
factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The
film "looks better" even if the digital image has as much detail or
perhaps more. I have been experimenting with a number of cameras and I
find that my recently acquired Sigma SD10 produces "wow" factor jpegs
(after conversion) and for me its 3.4 megapixel images are better to
look at than the 10.2 megapixel images coming out of my Sony DSC-R1
although they print the same. I read somewhere that Sigma will be
dropping use of the Foveon sensors and going for the more usual Bayer
pattern sensor. I think this is a shame. They recently brought out the
Sigma SD14. Just think if they continued down that path and brought
out an SD22. They would be getting into the realms of MF photography
if they did with their photos having the same "wow" factor as film.

I'll try to web the Sigma SD10 and the Sony DSC-R1 images on www.pbase.com
until the free subscription runs out so you can see what I mean about
the "wow" factor of the Sigma image.

On 20 Aug, 10:05, RolandRB wrote:
Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow"
factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The
film "looks better" even if the digital image has as much detail or
perhaps more. I have been experimenting with a number of cameras and I
find that my recently acquired Sigma SD10 produces "wow" factor jpegs
(after conversion) and for me its 3.4 megapixel images are better to
look at than the 10.2 megapixel images coming out of my Sony DSC-R1
although they print the same. I read somewhere that Sigma will be
dropping use of the Foveon sensors and going for the more usual Bayer
pattern sensor. I think this is a shame. They recently brought out the
Sigma SD14. Just think if they continued down that path and brought
out an SD22. They would be getting into the realms of MF photography
if they did with their photos having the same "wow" factor as film.

I'll try to web the Sigma SD10 and the Sony DSC-R1 images onwww.pbase.com
until the free subscription runs out so you can see what I mean about
the "wow" factor of the Sigma image.

This image typifies the "wow" factor for me. This is from an SD14.
http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-pho...d14-la-012.jpg

"RolandRB" wrote:
On 20 Aug, 10:05, RolandRB wrote:
Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow"
factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The
film "looks better" even if the digital image has as much detail or
perhaps more. I have been experimenting with a number of cameras and I
find that my recently acquired Sigma SD10 produces "wow" factor jpegs
(after conversion) and for me its 3.4 megapixel images are better to
look at than the 10.2 megapixel images coming out of my Sony DSC-R1
although they print the same.

Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then downsample
(using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing
artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images.

This image typifies the "wow" factor for me. This is from an SD14.
http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-pho...d14-la-012.jpg

Yep. I just love the snap-to-grid effect. Not.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 20 Aug, 10:37, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"RolandRB" wrote:
On 20 Aug, 10:05, RolandRB wrote:
Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow"
factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The
film "looks better" even if the digital image has as much detail or
perhaps more. I have been experimenting with a number of cameras and I
find that my recently acquired Sigma SD10 produces "wow" factor jpegs
(after conversion) and for me its 3.4 megapixel images are better to
look at than the 10.2 megapixel images coming out of my Sony DSC-R1
although they print the same.

Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then downsample
(using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing
artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images.

A very interesting claim. It so happens I don't have any suitable
downsampling software for the task you describe so I was wondering if
you had time to do this and send me the resulting image. I will then
web that with the other two.

This is the Sigma SD10 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original

This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495


This image typifies the "wow" factor for me. This is from an SD14.
http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-pho...d14-la-012.jpg

Yep. I just love the snap-to-grid effect. Not.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"RolandRB" wrote:

Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then
downsample
(using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing
artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images.

A very interesting claim. It so happens I don't have any suitable
downsampling software for the task you describe

Photoshop or any other software will do it...

so I was wondering if
you had time to do this and send me the resulting image. I will then
web that with the other two.

This is the Sigma SD10 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original

This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495

That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of aliasing
artifacts.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original

David J. Littleboy

Tokyo, Japan

On 20 Aug, 12:18, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"RolandRB" wrote:

Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then
downsample
(using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing
artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images.

A very interesting claim. It so happens I don't have any suitable
downsampling software for the task you describe

Photoshop or any other software will do it...

so I was wondering if
you had time to do this and send me the resulting image. I will then
web that with the other two.

This is the Sigma SD10 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original

This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495

That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of aliasing
artifacts.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original

David J. Littleboy

Tokyo, Japan

Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
for the Sony image.

"RolandRB" wrote:

This is the Sigma SD10 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original

This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495

That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of
aliasing
artifacts.

Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building to the
right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as
_equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width.
If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more
examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the
Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma
loses it pretty badly on the roofs.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original

Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
for the Sony image.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 20 Aug, 13:44, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"RolandRB" wrote:

This is the Sigma SD10 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original

This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495

That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of
aliasing
artifacts.

Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building to the
right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as
_equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width.

I agree with that. The Sony does that better.

If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more
examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the
Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma
loses it pretty badly on the roofs.

I agree with that again but the Sony image looks bad even though it is
holding more details. There are a lot of distracting effects that
spoil the image. The rendering on the walls on the building behind
looks unreal rather than like a true texture. The rooves look better,
that is true, but maybe only because I have oversharpened. If you look
at the corner on the wall of the Sony image of the building behind to
the left of the TV mast then the Sony image makes it look like there
is a drainpipe running down the corner edge when there is not. The
lower roof of the rear building where the bird is standing looks as
though it had a black edge with a white line on top. The people
standing and sitting in front of the Brötlibar restaurant look vague
and unreal. They are too large and their lack of detail is
distracting. The foreground wall on the right with the public seating
in front has an unreal texture. The "Tel 06" on the blue bin behind
this wall does not show the "06" clearly while the Sigma photo does.
The six "BAR" red lettering in the top windows below the "don't worry
- be happy Bar" neon sign look more like red curtain material in the
Sony photo, though downsized it looks better. The people sat below the
"TicketCorner" notice in the tram shelter look unclear. The people in
the posters to the left of the blue bin look unclear as do the real
people in front of the Rio Bar and the Zum Braunen Mutz. The Sony
picture is too big for the amount of detail it is showing and to me
the image looks bad. Printed out, it might look a bit better than the
Sigma photo, but to look at it on a computer screen then to me the
Sigma photo looks more like a print than the Sony photo does and is
easier on the eyes. It draws my view rather than repelling it.

Perhaps if I could send you the Sony photo jpeg as it came out of the
camera and you did a careful downsizing then the downsized Sony photo
might look better. As you rightly said, the downsized Sony photo was
showing some horrendous artifacts in places, though I thought overall
it looked better.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original

Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
for the Sony image.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 20 Aug, 14:39, RolandRB wrote:
On 20 Aug, 13:44, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"RolandRB" wrote:

This is the Sigma SD10 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original

This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495

That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of
aliasing
artifacts.

Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building to the
right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as
_equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width.

I agree with that. The Sony does that better.

If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more
examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the
Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma
loses it pretty badly on the roofs.

I agree with that again but the Sony image looks bad even though it is
holding more details. There are a lot of distracting effects that
spoil the image. The rendering on the walls on the building behind
looks unreal rather than like a true texture. The rooves look better,
that is true, but maybe only because I have oversharpened. If you look
at the corner on the wall of the Sony image of the building behind to
the left of the TV mast then the Sony image makes it look like there
is a drainpipe running down the corner edge when there is not. The
lower roof of the rear building where the bird is standing looks as
though it had a black edge with a white line on top. The people
standing and sitting in front of the Brötlibar restaurant look vague
and unreal. They are too large and their lack of detail is
distracting. The foreground wall on the right with the public seating
in front has an unreal texture. The "Tel 06" on the blue bin behind
this wall does not show the "06" clearly while the Sigma photo does.
The six "BAR" red lettering in the top windows below the "don't worry
- be happy Bar" neon sign look more like red curtain material in the
Sony photo, though downsized it looks better. The people sat below the
"TicketCorner" notice in the tram shelter look unclear. The people in
the posters to the left of the blue bin look unclear as do the real
people in front of the Rio Bar and the Zum Braunen Mutz. The Sony
picture is too big for the amount of detail it is showing and to me
the image looks bad. Printed out, it might look a bit better than the
Sigma photo, but to look at it on a computer screen then to me the
Sigma photo looks more like a print than the Sony photo does and is
easier on the eyes. It draws my view rather than repelling it.

Perhaps if I could send you the Sony photo jpeg as it came out of the
camera and you did a careful downsizing then the downsized Sony photo
might look better. As you rightly said, the downsized Sony photo was
showing some horrendous artifacts in places, though I thought overall
it looked better.



http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original

Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
for the Sony image.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was looking at the slats next to the Apotheke building on the floor
above. Today, looking at them, they were not regular. maybe the Sony
was showing false details that human eyes would prefer to see and the
Sigma was showing it more accurately. I will go back there now and
photograph a more detailed image.

On 20 Aug, 16:12, RolandRB wrote:
On 20 Aug, 14:39, RolandRB wrote:





On 20 Aug, 13:44, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"RolandRB" wrote:

This is the Sigma SD10 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original

This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495

That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of
aliasing
artifacts.

Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building to the
right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as
_equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width.

I agree with that. The Sony does that better.

If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more
examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the
Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma
loses it pretty badly on the roofs.

I agree with that again but the Sony image looks bad even though it is
holding more details. There are a lot of distracting effects that
spoil the image. The rendering on the walls on the building behind
looks unreal rather than like a true texture. The rooves look better,
that is true, but maybe only because I have oversharpened. If you look
at the corner on the wall of the Sony image of the building behind to
the left of the TV mast then the Sony image makes it look like there
is a drainpipe running down the corner edge when there is not. The
lower roof of the rear building where the bird is standing looks as
though it had a black edge with a white line on top. The people
standing and sitting in front of the Brötlibar restaurant look vague
and unreal. They are too large and their lack of detail is
distracting. The foreground wall on the right with the public seating
in front has an unreal texture. The "Tel 06" on the blue bin behind
this wall does not show the "06" clearly while the Sigma photo does.
The six "BAR" red lettering in the top windows below the "don't worry
- be happy Bar" neon sign look more like red curtain material in the
Sony photo, though downsized it looks better. The people sat below the
"TicketCorner" notice in the tram shelter look unclear. The people in
the posters to the left of the blue bin look unclear as do the real
people in front of the Rio Bar and the Zum Braunen Mutz. The Sony
picture is too big for the amount of detail it is showing and to me
the image looks bad. Printed out, it might look a bit better than the
Sigma photo, but to look at it on a computer screen then to me the
Sigma photo looks more like a print than the Sony photo does and is
easier on the eyes. It draws my view rather than repelling it.

Perhaps if I could send you the Sony photo jpeg as it came out of the
camera and you did a careful downsizing then the downsized Sony photo
might look better. As you rightly said, the downsized Sony photo was
showing some horrendous artifacts in places, though I thought overall
it looked better.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original

Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
for the Sony image.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was looking at the slats next to the Apotheke building on the floor
above. Today, looking at them, they were not regular. maybe the Sony
was showing false details that human eyes would prefer to see and the
Sigma was showing it more accurately. I will go back there now and
photograph a more detailed image.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here are the slats as photographed today. The Sigma appears to have
done a better job at reproducing them than the Sony.

http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84205472