If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Scott W wrote:
http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg The bottom photo does not suffer from jpg artifacts. The two photos have been filtered to have different MTF curves, the top photo has no detail past a certain point but has high contrast below that, the bottom photo has a longer tail on the MTF curve but has lower contrast at lower spatial frequencies. So which picture of the ocean liner do you like better? I strongly prefer the top picture at 100% and the bottom picture at 200% zoom. Didn't want to waste money printing it out, but I assume the top would look better on an inkjet and much better with offset printing. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Scott W wrote: http://www.sewcon.com/300dpi_test/IMG_3302.jpg The bottom photo does not suffer from jpg artifacts. The two photos have been filtered to have different MTF curves, the top photo has no detail past a certain point but has high contrast below that, the bottom photo has a longer tail on the MTF curve but has lower contrast at lower spatial frequencies. How did you filter it? Sounds like an unsharp mask. The bottom pic is clearly sharper and a bit of a halo around the bright parts such as the two white 'balls' in the middle. Those same round features become flat looking in the bottom, spherical in the top. How does all this change in a print? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Scott W wrote:
rafe bustin wrote: I disagree that you need a print to properly see or judge a digital image. There have only been a few situations (in my experience) where a print revealed flaws that were not evident on-screen. It is not so much that a print will reveal flaws that you can not see on the screen as the other way around, flaws that you see on the screen will often not be visible on the final print. Exactly why I don't bother to ever post images to this group. People with something to prove will FIND artifacts that never show up in print to "make their point".. Why they find depends on which camera made the images and what they need to prove. I've had two different people say the same image looks noisy and was too smooth with too much noise reduction at the same time because it was a brand neither of them use. No one ever makes a print from different cameras and compares using that, guess they are too lazy? They all want to look at 200% blowups looking for things they'll never see and that don't mater as far as "image quality" in the final result anyone would ever normally use. Yes if you're making 5X8 foot prints it might matter but who does that? -- Stacey |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
Larry wrote: There have been times when the 12mp picture seemed to have more detail, but not often, and not much. Yeah, I guess with the zoom lens you need optimal aperture and the sweetest part of its range, perhaps, plus a shake-free exposure to get the last bits of sharpness out of the lens. The concept I was endorsing probably applies more to the 3MP/6MP models. -- John P Sheehy |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
Larry wrote: Sometimes its C.A. (lens) and sometimes its Sensor Bloom. I would not call CA "purple fringing". -- John P Sheehy |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"Stacey" wrote: rafeb wrote: Owamanga wrote: Agggh! but the whole point of capturing the image (in *most* people's use of a DSLR) is to PRINT IT. Well, actually a lot of folks claim that they're not interested in prints, but rather in seeing their images on a CRT. Show me a monitor that can display a dSLR image at full resolution. You've missed the point: lots of people use their cameras only for email and web display. They always downsample. Presumably many people do it in the camera. Most of such people don't need a dSLR. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Epson R800 versus 2200 image quality | Ben Kaufman | Digital Photography | 0 | December 31st 04 05:26 AM |
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams | Richard Lee | Digital Photography | 21 | August 23rd 04 07:04 PM |
Sigma wins image quality challenge. Bayer user in disbelief. | Georgette Preddy | Digital Photography | 3 | August 7th 04 01:48 PM |
digital cameras and flash = poor image quality?? | michaelb | Digital Photography | 25 | July 3rd 04 08:35 AM |
still image quality | paul flynn | Digital Photography | 1 | June 28th 04 11:07 PM |