I did increase the exposure on the digital shot and rez-up the image to
double its size. The picture of the girl is much improved but you still
can't quite see the stripes as in the film image. But, of course, if
the 5MP E-1 was uniformly superior to 35mm film AG wouldn't be pining
for 10MP. Maybe it would be better starting from the raw image but I
don't think so.
Chuck Norcutt
ScottGee1 wrote:
> Very likely.
>
> This is the problem inherent to 'tests' done outside of a strictly
> controlled environment. Outdoor scenes like these are much more
> interesting and can present a myriad of possibilities for comparison,
> but if the light changes a bit or a subject moves, the value of the
> test is compromised. Stationary subjects improve the chances of
> getting useful shots.
>
>>From what I'm seeing on screen, there is a difference in exposure.
> Can't do it right now, but someone might want to open these in an
> image editing program and compare values for a couple of the same
> points in the pix.
>
> ScottGee1
>
> On 10/4/06, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>I think the difference is just exposure.
>>
>>
>>Winsor
>>Long Beach, CA
>>USA
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|