Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Comparing OM to E-3 - Part I

Subject: [OM] Re: Comparing OM to E-3 - Part I
From: Nathan <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 07:04:23 +0200
I had the same thought. You call a 4 mp JPG "an unprocessed digital  
image". On the contrary, it is very much a processed image, the  
processing being done by a not very powerful computer.

I do not think a test where you deliberately handicap the equipment  
is very meaningful.

Nathan

On 30-mei-2008, at 12:49, Chuck Norcutt wrote:

> I don't understand the rationale for the small JPEGs, especially  
> the 2MP
> film scans and even the 4MP digital images.  The 2MP film scan is  
> enough
> resolution to produce an excellent 4x6 and a pretty good 5x7.  The 4MP
> digital image is enough to make a pretty good 8x10.  But nowhere in  
> your
> process is there sufficient resolution for a 20x24 or 20x30.  Even
> starting from the negative I think an analog 16x20 is still about as
> large as you'd want to go for 35mm.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Bob_Benson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> As I said in the first note,  I'm comparing the OM and E-3.   This  
>> note
>> states my method.
>>
>> Note that I'm not interested in technical or scientific comparisons !
>> Rather,  I'm a pretty simple-minded shooter, and I've become pretty
>> comfortable with OM technologies.  The question for me is, given  
>> my level
>> of interest in picture-taking (which is high) and my (probably less
>> rigorous than you folks) methods -- exactly what does it all  
>> mean?  When I
>> point my camera - what can I expect?
>>
>> I decided to take duplicate digital and film pictures, with the  
>> following
>> groundrules.
>>
>> a.      On the E-3, I bracketed 3 shots, the .3 choice.  I chose  
>> fine etc.
>> JPEG,  producing a 4-meg image.  I used all “normal” settings, though
>> towards the end I used spot metering a lot more.
>> b.      On the OMs (I took 4 – 4ti,  2s, 2n, 2),  I used both  
>> UC400 and
>> UC100.  For many shots I used the trusty 35-105 (I know, I know,   
>> not the
>> best, but still pretty good.)  For others I used the 100 f2 and 21  
>> f2.  In
>> some cases I did some 1-stop bracketing.
>> c.      On both,  I used polarizing filters.
>>
>> I’m now through the 2 week trip.  I ended up with about 1200 digital
>> images (that is, about 400 bracketed images) and about 250 film  
>> shots (the
>> disparity is explained later.)  My plan is to choose around 20  
>> “identical”
>> shots and do the following which will produce 5 images for each
>> "identical" shot.
>>
>> a.      Digital:  pick the best of the 3 bracket shots for each of  
>> the 20.
>>                 1)  Use an unprocessed digital image (4 meg JPEG)
>>                 2)  Run the digital image thru simple processing  
>> (e.g.,
>> Picasso, sharpening, some modest processing like adjusting contrast)
>> b.      Film:  use the equivalent shot for each of the 20.
>>                 3)  Use the negative image
>>                 4)  Use the CD provided by the film developer  
>> (about a 2
>> meg JPEG)
>>                 5)  Scan the negative image (Epson 700),  highest
>> resolution.
>>
>> This should give me 5 images:  four digital (which includes the  
>> scanned
>> negative and the provided CD) and one film.
>>
>> I want to establish how these 5 images compare.  (Again, at this  
>> point,
>> you serious photographers can cringe and stop reading here.)  To  
>> do so,
>> I’ll have my trusty Sams Club produce 1) an 8 by 10 for each,  and  
>> 2) a 20
>> by 24 or 20 by 30 for each.  Then we’ll see.
>>
>> What I'm interested in is:
>>
>> a.  Sharpness.  I of course used the image stabilization,  but I'm
>> interested in how sharpness survived thru the various steps above.
>> b.  Color, contrast, etc.
>> c.  Overall satisfaction
>>
>> As I said,  I’ll report the outcomes to you.
>>
>> Again, I'm interested in what you'd be interested in.
>>
>> Bob Benson
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ---
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date:  
>> 5/29/2008 7:53 PM
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================

Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com

Book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/128276
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Image licensing: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog




==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz