Am I oversharpening
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Skip M on 9 Jun 2005 07:57 <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote in message news:vkjfa1116s6lgdp07a5pahr97m7cd052h0(a)4ax.com... > In message <DwPpe.1164$Cr.947(a)fed1read07>, > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>Most decidedly not Foveon: >>http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44534847 > > ... but it has all the "pop" of a SD9 image, if you use bicubic to get > the image to 4536*3024, and then down to 2268*1512 (to mimic the SD9's > undersampling), with good color to boot. > -- > > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> > John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ?? I'm not sure what you mean, here... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
From: JPS on 9 Jun 2005 16:56 In message <j8Wpe.1176$Cr.1059(a)fed1read07>, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher(a)cox.net> wrote: ><JPS(a)no.komm> wrote in message >news:vkjfa1116s6lgdp07a5pahr97m7cd052h0(a)4ax.com... >> In message <DwPpe.1164$Cr.947(a)fed1read07>, >> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>Most decidedly not Foveon: >>>http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44534847 >> ... but it has all the "pop" of a SD9 image, if you use bicubic to get >> the image to 4536*3024, and then down to 2268*1512 (to mimic the SD9's >> undersampling), with good color to boot. >?? I'm not sure what you mean, here... The characteristic that Preddivanella calls "pop" in the SD9 images can actually be achieved by dropping data from a bayer image, especially if it has content both in and out of focus. Resampling to twice the resolution of an SD9 image with bicubic, and then halving it to 2268*1512 (SD9-size) with nearest neighbor simulates the "missing data" of the SD9's focal plane, with its lack of an AA filter and a 30% fill factor. The only way to tell the difference (besides EXIF data) is that the colors are more accurate in the aliased bayer image. -- <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
From: Skip M on 9 Jun 2005 22:57 <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote in message news:loaha1hr510dhglubc7tk34jpdcfi7st18(a)4ax.com... > In message <j8Wpe.1176$Cr.1059(a)fed1read07>, > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher(a)cox.net> wrote: > >><JPS(a)no.komm> wrote in message >>news:vkjfa1116s6lgdp07a5pahr97m7cd052h0(a)4ax.com... >>> In message <DwPpe.1164$Cr.947(a)fed1read07>, >>> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>>>Most decidedly not Foveon: >>>>http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44534847 > >>> ... but it has all the "pop" of a SD9 image, if you use bicubic to get >>> the image to 4536*3024, and then down to 2268*1512 (to mimic the SD9's >>> undersampling), with good color to boot. > >>?? I'm not sure what you mean, here... > > The characteristic that Preddivanella calls "pop" in the SD9 images can > actually be achieved by dropping data from a bayer image, especially if > it has content both in and out of focus. Resampling to twice the > resolution of an SD9 image with bicubic, and then halving it to > 2268*1512 (SD9-size) with nearest neighbor simulates the "missing data" > of the SD9's focal plane, with its lack of an AA filter and a 30% fill > factor. > > The only way to tell the difference (besides EXIF data) is that the > colors are more accurate in the aliased bayer image. > -- > > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> > John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Ah, ok, that's what I thought, but that early in the morning, who's to tell? ;-) -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
From: george_preddy on 11 Jun 2005 18:46 Tetractys wrote: > George Preddy wrote: > > > In general, if you are sharpening at all then > > you are oversharpening. > > This is an untrue statement. Sharpening is part > of any proper digital workflow. "Bayer" images require artificial sharpening, digital does not.
From: Tetractys on 11 Jun 2005 22:44
George Preddy wrote: > Tetractys wrote: >> George Preddy wrote: >> > In general, if you are sharpening at all then >> > you are oversharpening. >> This is an untrue statement. Sharpening is part >> of any proper digital workflow. > "Bayer" images require artificial sharpening, > digital does not. This is, I believe, prima facie evidence of ... what, non compos mentis? You also wrote, in another post: > ... Apples and oranges are both fruit. And you, sir, are a vegetable. |