This sounds rather like the runners coming up to the line at a major
track meet for the finals of the 100m dash, being handed gunny sacks and
forced to do it as a sack race.
It is a race, in that it produces a winner. The down side is that it
only determines who is the best sack racer, not who is the fastest sprinter.
So if your intent is to find which imaging system creates the best
results under arbitrary constraints that keep them from producing the
best results of which they are capable, that's fine.
I won't see what it has to do with which is better, E-3 or film, in any
general sense.
To say that JPEGs are unprocessed is simply untrue. They are processed
in-camera according to the parameters you set or the defaults you
accept. If you shoot RAW, then post-process "as-shot", you will get the
same general results, although the quality may be better, as the
computer has much more processing power than the camera, so the software
may take fewer shortcuts. And, of course, you can change your mind when
the defaults weren't the best choice for a particular shot.
Shooting JPEG also means compromise in dynamic range. The E-3 sensor and
processor are 14 bit; JPEG is 8 bit. This means there is inevitable loss
of tonal data. Depending on camera settings, particularly Contrast, some
highlight and shadow detail will be clipped and some will be compressed
in toward the middle.
Shooting in Fine simply means even more compromise in subtle tonal
detail, as it is compressed.
I'm not saying you shouldn't shoot this way, only that you are not using
all of the camera's capabilities.
Scans of films on CD by processors range from mediocre to awful. I
simply gave up on them long ago. The effect is much like what I just
described for digital - only often even more extensive in losing the
quality of the image on film. They are 8 bit, so again, the dynamic
range of the film is compromised. At least you shot slide film, so the
range is limited to begin with.
And yes, I've recently worked with some processor scans, not my images,
and things haven't gotten better. Off colors, poor local contrast,
strange tonal distributions, and so on. They can take a LOT of work to
make decent looking. Again, if you are intending to test the quality of
cheap processing and scanning, this will do it. If you want to know what
image quality is on the film, it won't.
Seriously, if you have been making do with such scans, I'd be happy to
scan a couple of shots and send you back the film and scans.
"OK folks, we're nearing the finish of the Extreme Olympics 1,500
meters. And it looks like we WILL have a winner! Two or three of the
competitors look as though, in spite of the gunshot wounds in their
feet, they will be able to collapse over the finish line. More good
news! Only one of the competitors who collapsed earlier has died and it
appears that only one other is in really serious condition!"
Seriously, Bob, I don't mean to make fun of your tests. They will be of
value to you, but I'd guess not to many others. I wonder, if you are
going to compromise the E-3's capabilities so much, why you didn't just
buy an E-510. Even it's slightly lesser dynamic range is greater than
JPEG can contain. Any difference in resolution will be undetectable, it
will give the same overall results in JPEGs (same in-camera processing)
and it's a lot lighter and cheaper.
A. Tough Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|