AG Schnozz wrote:
>One thing that jumped out at me is the noise-reduction in the
>Canon picture used in the last comparison frame. Looks a little
>heavy. That smooth watercolor look is NR at work. I'm assuming
>in-camera NR.
>
>
Nope. The other 300D images are with default in camera sharpening, 25%,
whatever that means. The one that is upsampled was separately processed
from RAW with sharpening set to zero. That's what FM's camera specific
upsampling software requires to work best, and you have seen how much
better than other alternatives it is. So what you are seeing is a combo
of upsampling, mostly, and some post sharpening in PS. Sharpening that
was best for the foliage was different than what worked best for the
shingles. I went somewhere in between
>As to resolution, well, a 6MP camera with good technique is able
>to match 35mm in most cases. However, much of that "noise" is
>probably film choice. An equal application of NR to the film
>shot would result in similar noise characteristics.
>
>
The film scan is also sharpened. I tried to find the best level so
enhance detail without oversharpening the grain.
>I've taken 35mm scans of grainy films, applied NR and then
>downsampled them to the 6MP size. Amazingly enough, they are
>almost dead knockoffs of the digital shots.
>
>
That wouldn't surprise me, although I haven't yet tried that alternative.
>My question is, which looks better PRINTED? Typically a little
>random noise is necessary to give a picture life. I've even been
>known to add HSV noise to the final picture to get the print to
>look right. To the WALTs in the world, the Canon shot is the
>one that produces those "underwater" pictures.
>
>
Well, I haven't printed either one yet. Still playing around in bitland.
I do have a pretty good idea how they will look printed. Before getting
into the full pixel detail comparisons, the two images are a lot more
similar than different, and that's how 8x10s would be, I think.
>As to pleasing color rendition, I'll keep my comments to myself,
>other than to say that nobody has Velvia figured out yet.
>
>
I made the mistake of not taking a shot of an IT8 target with the Agfa
before leaving, so the film scan without profile was pretty off. The
300D image, while perhaps not perfect, pretty well matched my memory of
the subject, so I just roughly color matched the film image to digital
in PS. Getting the final color just right wasn't part of the exercise.
Also, I'm not such a big fan of Velvia. If I want my image to look
"better", well lots different anyway, than the subject, PS is fine. I've
been to meetings of a small group of MF shooters, a couple of whom are
addicted to Velvia. Some of their shots, all wet prints, are wonderful
and some look like they were taken on another planet with different
color light, foliage, sky, etc.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|