----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> I agree. Altough these images aren't quite a fair test, as Winsor
> pointed out, with a known great prime against a zoom.
>
Actually, from the MTF posted by Olympus 11-22 is very high resolution lens,
the 21/2 is great but in my experience a good zoom is very close to prime,
just like the Zuiko 35-105 and 35-70/3.6.
> Again, I agree. But I think the difference is less than one might
> suppose from just looking at your 2 examples. There are differences in
> other image qualities that affect the sense of sharpness. Also, the
> local contrast and sharpening are different between the 2 images. For
> example, the higher contrast and higher color saturation in the yellow
> print at the top of the poster would give the iimpression of greater
> sharpness in the film image even if the sharpness were identical. It's
> impossible to make any objective comparison of sharpening and edge
> contrast for images of such different sizes which were acquired in such
> different ways. However, I did find that the E-1 image improved much
> further in PS before starting to look over sharpened than did the
> film/scanner image.
>
I was talking about resolution not sharpness, somehow they are related but
in fact very different. You can use software to sharpen the image and yes I
agree digital image works better with sharpen tool due to the film grain.
> Here is a comparison of the scanned image and the E-1 image where the
> E-1 has been upsampled 200%, to about the same size as the scanned
> image. The first version is the poster from the E-1, unchanged. The
> second is the original from the scanner. The third is the E-1 image
> after LCE and sharpening and the fourth the LCE/sharpened film scan. The
> comparison is difficult because of the artifacts introduced by the
> upsampling. I think it is clear that the enhanced E-1 image is actually
> sharper in the picture part of the poster, although poorer from
> upsampling artifacts in the text portions. Although I used quite a bit
> less processing on the enhanced scanner image, I got a little carried
> away from an artistic perspective. It does show pretty clearly the
> greater detail available from the scanned image
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Postcompb.jpg>. As with the later
> samples, you must set your browser to 100% to get the right view, don't
> look at images sloppily downsampled by the browser.
>
Thanks for the modified samples, the result is very clear, on the film you
can read the characters but you can't do that with the E-1 shot. I hate
heavy sharpening, it affect the faithful reproduction of the actual scene. I
like slide more than negative since it is easier to get accurate color
reproduction, of course digital work best in this area.
> I did another set of samples by downsampling the scanned image to the
> size of the E-1 image. This is a size that gives an 8x10 print at
> 260ppi. In this comparison, the enhanced E-1 image is clearly superior
> to the untouched scanned image and the text is as clear as in the
> enhanced scan image. Again, I overprocessed the 4th version in the sense
> that it is probably punchier than the original the poster came from, but
> I couldn't resist seeing how much detail I could coax out even
> downsampled <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Postcomps.jpg>.
>
Downsampling is not my way to do resolution comparision but I do agree that
E-1 can make very good 8x10 or even higher if for non critial image like
portrait and flower shoots. I have seen excellent sharp portrait at 20x24
but for landscape or street scene you can't beat slides.
> that the effect is not just sharpness. Further, look at the incandescent
> lights in the shop windows, both front and left side. They have bloomed
> in size in the film/scanner image and are much more accurate in the E-1
> image. I think these differences aren't related to inherent sharpness,
> but the the reaction of different sensor systems to light of different
> spectral makeup. I don't know which green cross is more true to the
> original subject. I do think the brighter image is slightly better
> looking, especially in the smaller size.
Please look at them carefully, the incandescents are mini spot lamp with
cone housing. The film image makes faithful reproduction of the lamps and
you can even seen where they are pointing to! The E-1 image is just a light
spot but nothing, it is the weakest point of all DCs.
> Beyond the lower hassle level of getting the image ready to view/print,
> there is simply a different "look" to images from the 2 sources. Take a
> look at the front stone facade of the Farmacia in my samples. The
> greater sharpness of the scanned image and the grain combine to make it
> look less appealing to me than the E-1 image in both sizes. In the case
> of the big sign on the front, if I look close, I can see the sharpening
> artifacts in the enlarged E-1 image and that the other is actually
> sharper. But in the smaller images and if I sit back in my chair so the
> sharpening artifacts aren't obvious, I like the appearance of the E-1
> image better. There is a sort of smoother, less granier look to the E-1
> image. It's not as sharp, but has other endearing qualities. Come to
> think of it, that's true of people in a lot of cases.
>
I know many people perfer the smooth creamy look of digital image, it is
just a matter taste.
C.H.Ling
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
