Am I oversharpening
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: JPS on 7 Jun 2005 19:10 In message <F5QiSjBbLTpCFwph(a)objectech.co.uk>, Ken Tough <ken(a)objectech.co.uk> wrote: >It isn't an issue of how much of the surface is sampled, it's >the sampling itself that's at issue. If there is no AA filter or microlens, then the fill factor determines the severity of the aliasing. -- <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
From: george_preddy on 8 Jun 2005 00:44 Crownfield wrote: > george_preddy(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > No it doesn't. Digital has a very bad reputation among no-comprimise > > photographers, because the overwhelming majority of people who use > > digital don't understand that their Bayers take 3 very small RGB > > exposures, then combine them while upscaling by 400%. > > you ignorant twit. > they do not upscale them. the images are large to start with. The image size is exactly the same, obviously, as the lens format is the same. Minus small cropping differences even within APS. You are confusing P&Ss and DSLRs. Color resolution certainly changes, espicially when you've got 10.3MP packed into APS. Think about that, the only competive Bayers on MPs are FF, making them all A LOT lower resolution just wider FOV. Foveon is quite unique in that respect, nothing is as powerful on the tele end. A bit wanting on the wide end, but 10.3MPs count for even when you weigh in the exponential, optical superiority of center glass as lenses widen. So even at equiv, effective, wide angles, you get much higher quality wide imagery from the SDs as compared to FF--as long as a 1.7x wider lens is available. That takes you down to about 15mm, while retaining an image quality advantage over FF at the same effective focal length, while enjoying domination on the tele end along with 1.7x longer reach.
From: george_preddy on 8 Jun 2005 22:40 JPS(a)no.komm wrote: > >> George Preddy wrote: > >> > In general, if you are sharpening at all then > >> > you are oversharpening. > >Only Bayer workflow needs artificial sharpening. That is one of > >several reasons why "digital" (read: Bayer) images are always paper > >flat. > They're not "paper-flat" if you downsize them to 2268*1512 with point > sampling (nearest neighbor algorithm), but then they develop other > problems, just like the SDx images. Downsizing to quarter-size will get rid of most interpolation artifacts, but it won't cure the fundamental optical flaw of inexpensive 2D mosaics: widely varying resolution/blur by color channel instead of lens optics. As a result, images are flat and lifeless and there really isn't anything you can do about it. Foveon... http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/image/40530426/original Not Foveon... http://www.pbase.com/infiniteposse/image/37369465/original
From: Skip M on 9 Jun 2005 00:25 Most decidedly not Foveon: http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44534847 -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com <george_preddy(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1118284820.510929.301330(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > JPS(a)no.komm wrote: > >> >> George Preddy wrote: >> >> > In general, if you are sharpening at all then >> >> > you are oversharpening. > >> >Only Bayer workflow needs artificial sharpening. That is one of >> >several reasons why "digital" (read: Bayer) images are always paper >> >flat. > > >> They're not "paper-flat" if you downsize them to 2268*1512 with point >> sampling (nearest neighbor algorithm), but then they develop other >> problems, just like the SDx images. > > Downsizing to quarter-size will get rid of most interpolation > artifacts, but it won't cure the fundamental optical flaw of > inexpensive 2D mosaics: widely varying resolution/blur by color > channel instead of lens optics. As a result, images are flat and > lifeless and there really isn't anything you can do about it. > > Foveon... > http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/image/40530426/original > > Not Foveon... > http://www.pbase.com/infiniteposse/image/37369465/original >
From: JPS on 9 Jun 2005 00:30
In message <1118284820.510929.301330(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, george_preddy(a)yahoo.com wrote: >Foveon... >http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/image/40530426/original Foveon, ISO 100, focused, and reasonable shutter speed for magnification, contrasty lighting. >Not Foveon... >http://www.pbase.com/infiniteposse/image/37369465/original Not foveon, ISO 1600, unfocused, shutter speed too long for magnification, contrast-less lighting. You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever met. You are a pathological liar. -- <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |