Am I oversharpening
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: JPS on 26 Jun 2005 20:18 In message <1119817411.496804.182600(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com wrote: > > >KennyJr wrote: >> In article <1119712736.084304.159520(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com says... >> > I did the same thing today and I was extrememly impressed. Such high >> > quality reproduction! Digital photography isn't considered ready for >> > prime time by most, if not all photography afficionados, but I doubt >> > many of them have seen what Foveon has to offer or realize how >> > differently their digital technology has developed. >> > >> >> Your easily impressed. Please post some links to these great >> Sigma/Foveon images. > >Here is an SD-10 picture with unbelievable dynamic range. >http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/image/25617798/original Well, actually, you can't *see* the dynamic range as presented; dark shadows can be noisy and/or posterized; it's not until you boos the shadows that you see what lurks there. Luminance-wise, I agree, the dynamic range is excellent here, and the deepest shadows (when boosted in software) are posterized (as is the case with all 12-bit capture) but almost noiseless. The problem is, the green and blue levels in the shadow rocks vary, in large clumps, so the color is a bit off. If the shadows were of blue/green subjects, they would be much worse. Great greyscale dynamic range, though, for 12-bit capture. >There is nothing >harder to capture than intense sunshine illuminating bright white snow >next to deep dark shadows. Well, actually, the snow is blown (255,255,255) in many areas. >The camera perfectly exposed the details in >both conditions inthe same image. It could be a trick photo, I guess. The snow is blown in many areas. The bright snow areas just happen to be thin, so you don't see large expanses without detail. *that* is the trick. -- <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
From: jennifer.wilson2 on 26 Jun 2005 23:50 KennyJr wrote: > In article <1119817411.496804.182600(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com says... > > > > > > KennyJr wrote: > > > In article <1119712736.084304.159520(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com says... > > > > I did the same thing today and I was extrememly impressed. Such high > > > > quality reproduction! Digital photography isn't considered ready for > > > > prime time by most, if not all photography afficionados, but I doubt > > > > many of them have seen what Foveon has to offer or realize how > > > > differently their digital technology has developed. > > > > > > > > > > Your easily impressed. Please post some links to these great > > > Sigma/Foveon images. > > > > Here is an SD-10 picture with unbelievable dynamic range. > > http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/image/25617798/original There is nothing > > harder to capture than intense sunshine illuminating bright white snow > > next to deep dark shadows. The camera perfectly exposed the details in > > both conditions inthe same image. It could be a trick photo, I guess. > > > > I wouldn't consider that an example of good dynamic range. Most of the > image is under exposed. It depends. If you compare to film maybe not. However, all digital cameras are famous for bad dynamic range. Until Foveon cameras, apparently. > > > Amazing how much better the pictures from the > > > under $200 A510 compared to the $1200 SD10. > > > > Pbase's web site let me search by camera. I couldn't find a gallery > > with original size A510 images but this one shows the difference in > > dynamic range. More than enough to expose your bad comparision. Few > > details here and noise in shadow > > http://www.pbase.com/image/41018560 > > > > This definitely isn't an original image. Every image from an A510 > includes EXIF data of which this file doesn't have. There is no telling > what was done to this image aside from being resized, but one thing is > sure, it isn't an image directly from the camera. I said that. The down sizing should improve pixel quality per capita. The only reasonable conclusion is this camera is not in the same quality plane.
From: jennifer.wilson2 on 26 Jun 2005 23:54 Frank ess wrote: > I am a confirmed Preddy-and-his-issues ignorer, but here I backslide. > > Such a blatant broadcast of fecal-derived matter as follows "I did the > same ... " must be challenged. Jennifer.Wilson2 is a pitiful, pathetic > grasping-at-straws as the maelstrom sucks Sigma and George into > oblivion. > > If I were Sigma, or even a stockholder, I'd petition the Court for a > Cease and Desist order against GP and his socks, as they are > detrimental to the welfare and progress of an otherwise worthwhile > entity. Do you usually have a problem satisfying women?
From: Ken Tough on 27 Jun 2005 02:54 JPS(a)no.komm wrote: >The problem is, the green and blue levels in the shadow rocks vary, in >large clumps, so the color is a bit off. If the shadows were of >blue/green subjects, they would be much worse. The objective tests at dpreview show that at high ISO the SD10 loses saturation and hue accuracy. I suppose this shows up as performance in the shadows too. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/page13.asp -- Ken Tough
From: KennyJr on 27 Jun 2005 07:19
In article <1119844225.127601.65360(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com says... > > I wouldn't consider that an example of good dynamic range. Most of the > > image is under exposed. > > It depends. If you compare to film maybe not. However, all digital > cameras are famous for bad dynamic range. Until Foveon cameras, > apparently. > I should have been more specific and I thought of that after I got offline. Yes, I comparing this image to my days of 35mm cameras. I haven't see ANY digital camera with great dynamic range this INCLUDES the Sigma. > > > > Amazing how much better the pictures from the > > > > under $200 A510 compared to the $1200 SD10. > > > > > > Pbase's web site let me search by camera. I couldn't find a gallery > > > with original size A510 images but this one shows the difference in > > > dynamic range. More than enough to expose your bad comparision. Few > > > details here and noise in shadow > > > http://www.pbase.com/image/41018560 > > > > > > > This definitely isn't an original image. Every image from an A510 > > includes EXIF data of which this file doesn't have. There is no telling > > what was done to this image aside from being resized, but one thing is > > sure, it isn't an image directly from the camera. > > I said that. The down sizing should improve pixel quality per capita. > The only reasonable conclusion is this camera is not in the same > quality plane. > The photographer did more than downsize this image. I've taken hundreds of shots with my wife's A510 and have never seen a shot anywhere near as bad as this one. This isn't an example of a bad camera, it's an exapmle of either poor editing or a poor photographer. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |