TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] E system metering was Dpreview Challengesbeta: Firstwinners

Subject: Re: [OM] E system metering was Dpreview Challengesbeta: Firstwinners
From: "Sue Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:46:10 -0600
As I understood it w hen I used an Epson printer, you fed it 360 because 
that was easily multiplied up to the printer resolution and sped up the 
process, and eliminated some possible artifacts as the printer rip worked on 
the file. It didn't have anyt hing to do with resolution.

My HP takes 300 dpi files and does just fine, as does my printer's four 
color press.

Bill Pearce
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] E system metering was Dpreview Challengesbeta: 
Firstwinners


>
> You can also use Early stage noise reduction feature. It
> ´s like modifying E-1 AA filter effectiveness. As you know, it´s very
> common to see labyrinth maze patterns in cameras with weak AA filters
> when sharpening in Raw Processing Workflow.



With Olympus RAW files, the maze patterns are frequently encountered because
the bayer conversion isn't RGBG, but RGGB in the mapping. You usually don't
see the patterns unless you're dealing with saturated reds, oranges and
yellows.



> After wasting some weeks
> fine tuning the software options, now I can say without any doubt that
> Olympus Studio weren´t taking E-1 to the limit. I also processed E-3
> images with this software using a Zuiko Digital 14-35 and I am still
> shocked ;) Resolving power is higher than medium format cameras. Crystal
> clear images with unsurpassed clarity.
>


We are battling the sliding scale of acceptability. What was outstanding
yesterday is now garbage today.  In reality, if I presented you a
reasonably-sized print which I told you was taken with the 5Dmk2, but
instead was taken with the E-1, there are few, if any, who will be able to
recognize that it' a lie.

In his D3X review, Thom Hogan wrote:

"Finally, a word about "size." One reason a lot of people get excited about
the 24mp number is that they envision "printing bigger." At the 360 dpi that
you would normally give an Epson inkjet printer (Canon's and HP's prefer 300
dpi, I believe), the maximum size of a D3x image before you have to start
resizing is ~11x17". On a D3, that number would be ~8x12"..."

Oh, for crying out loud.  I cannot believe that ANY reasonable thinker
honestly believes that you have to go 1:1 for a quality print and that you
need 24MP to print larger than 11x17". This is beyond moronic and doesn't
even come close to being scientifically defendable.  Whether Thom personally
believes this garbage, I don't know, but his typing it has put credence to
it.  Shame on you, Thom.

I can scientifically prove that this 1/360 resolution requirement is bogus.
Anybody can prove that it's bogus if they just get their heads out of their
spec-sheet reading rear-ends.

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1893 - Release Date: 1/14/2009 
6:59 AM

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>