No, I didn't mean pixel peeping at 1:1 but with a full-sun, 400x400 JPEG
image you couldn't tell if it was taken with a top-of-the-line DSLR or
$99 point and shoot.
And I wouldn't call what you did "normalizing" or "dumbing down" but
rather screwing around with the image. A "normal print", especially an
11x14 or larger (which, IMHO, is all that counts in this comparison) is
very much different than a "normal screen display" so I don't understand
how your 400x400 image can represent either one.
I don't understand your continuing fascination with trying to show that
film is as good digital. I gave up on film (mostly) when the digital
got to be as good as or better than the film because the digital gave me
better results via the ability to do post-processing without the bother,
time and expense of film and scanning. But I still find a simple film
camera to be very valuable when you need something light and compact and
can't be bothered with batteries and backups.
AG Schnozz wrote:
> Dr Flash wrote:
>> Based on a 400x400 pixel image? Surely you jest.
> Nope, I'm serious. I "normalized" the images as much as possible to
> mimick the end result of a normal print or screen display. Some would
> say "dumbed down" and that isn't too far out.
> If you want to "pixel-peep", that's your business. But this
> comparison was the opposite of "pixel-peeping", but more in line with
> the typical output.
> I will probably put together a pixel-peeper comparison, but to what
> end? Unless the end result is a print at maximum possible size, it
> really doesn't matter. For anything 11x14 and smaller, I can get the
> output of film and the E-1 to be virtually indestinguishable.
> Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all
> the tools to get online.
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx