Joe Gwinn wrote:
One can always apply this kind of test. If the camera uses aggressive
sharpening, the test will show lots of noise (because sharpening emphasizes
high frequencies, such as white noise), but this is correct, as one will see
that same increased noise in one's photos. So, even if the DC test site tests
are not quite right, there are tests that do work.
In practice, the DC testers are not fools (nor, oddly enough, are the
people who design the camera hardware and software), and carefully
choose and document which levels of sharpening are in use in their noise
tests. Take a look, for example, at the tests of the Can*n 10D and 300D,
which use the same sensor and what appears to be a feature crippled
version of the same processing. One of the first things discussed in the
test of the 300D is the different default settings for sharpening and
other processing controls.
Of coure, I undersand that it's my fault if I use 'de faults. (Ugh!)
BTW, I share C.H.'s surprise that you don't read the DC reviews. This is
where theory meets practice with test resources I don't even want to
have. There is a great deal to learn there about how all the theory
interacts with the rather complex and not fully understood human vision
system. If a black box comparison says A is better than B, but I find B
to look better than A, the test is at fault, not my eyes (positing that
my eyes, for the purposes of this, are perfect avatars of those of all
careful photographers). Remember that all this stuff is only useful for
photography to the extent that it accords with the human vision system,
and even the tastes of the humans receiving the images.
Moose
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|