Yes, I didn't use RAW for the 10D image, but you can try to make two shot
with your D100, one in RAW and one in highest JPEG, see how much different
you will get in terms of resolution. I bet you will hardly found any
significant different, at least I didn't see it in the 10D. I believe the
artifacts on the 10D image was sharpening distortion but looking at the
original non enlarged image you can see the sharpen setting was very low.
You cannot avoid any sharpening with non 3 layer CCDs. I admit the shots
were taken in different days but both were overcast and with clear sky,
especially the film shot, it was in very early morning.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Winsor Crosby" <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I am going to have to argue with you a little bit. If you look at the
> building panel with the Chinese characters the characters are distorted
> by digital artifacts that look like jpeg and/or sharpening distortions
> that are absent in the scanned photo. I suspect that you did not do a
> raw file here and used the in camera processing with settings for
> sharpening and jpeg which are always cruder than their application in
> Photoshop. Even so, if you look at the wall on which the characters are
> mounted you can clearly make out the shape of the individual stone
> blocks in the digital picture and not at all in the scanned film
> picture.
>
> In the first set of pictures with the walkway, and a flagpole in one,
> but not the other, I have to notice the difference in the lighting.
> Obviously from the difference in progress of construction the pictures
> were taken on different days with different lighting. In the walkway
> picture by the 10D the light is nearly overhead and it illuminates the
> small ledge on the supporting beam for the walkway making a white
> stripe in the middle of the beam as well as lighting the the top of the
> handrail, the supports for the handrail and even some light on the beam
> face so that it lighter than the shadowed areas behind it. In the film
> picture on the other hand the rail is back lit so that although it is
> lit the supports are not. The ledge is no longer illuminated and no
> longer looks like a white stripe in the middle of the beam. Here you
> have dark shadowed rail supports and beam silhouetted against a light
> colored wall. Of course it looks like there is more detail than in a
> picture which has a white rail and supports in front of a light colored
> wall.
>
> Those are the reasons I have to disagree. However I thank you for a
> most interesting exercise.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California
> USA
> On Aug 15, 2004, at 5:51 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|