Tom Fenwick wrote:
> You're right. I dunno - it wasn't even that late... I've corrected
> it now; thanks.
>
And now you get your roll-over!
My primary interest is in the ability of the original out of the camera
to be worked into a quality final image. So for me, the JPEG is of only
minor interest, as it obviously loses much compared to the RAW.
The roll-over shows seven versions.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/E-400/GasWorks1cr/Gasworks1cr1.htm
1. The HQ JPEG image.
2. The JPEG image after post processing. I was a little sloppier with
this than the RAW ones.
3. The RAW image.
4. The RAW image after post processing and NR at the end.
5. The RAW image with NeatImage of 100 chrominance and 15 luminance applied.
6. The RAW image with NR after post processing. (I know, I let something
funny happen in the blown highlight area, didn't care.)
7. The full original image from #6 at web display size.
At full size, #6 seems the best overall balance of noise, detail and
tonal smoothness.
I'm quite impressed with the E-410 @ iso 1600. With proper exposure and
a reasonable brightness range in the subject, it's really there in a way
none of its predecessors have been.
It's not up to the very best, but a good rebuttal to those who have said
that the 4/3 sensor couldn't get to low enough noise at higher pixel
counts for pro results.
With the FF sensor in the 5D, one could likely shoot for the highlights
and still pull up the shadows without too much noise. With the E-400,
capture of the full range of this subject would require combining two
shots at different exposures.
Thanks for such a great subject for comparison. Sure makes the E-510
look like a serious contender with the IS added!
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|