On 9/12/2016 4:48 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
CFM writes;
<<<<My experimenting with the HR mode and some highly enlarged, careful
comparison test prints by Ctein show it only adding much in rather specialized situations
Hmm, would have though might be useful just for improved color accuracy at
times.
Indeed, that's a greater advantage than the resolution, in some ways.
I guess you or Ctein did not find that the case.
In fact, that's how I ended up in an email conversation with him. I pointed out how the color aspect was much ignored or
misunderstood by reviewers and others on the web. He mentioned a particular problem he was having with an ongoing
project. At Christmas, he photographs light installations and was having a hard time with dark blue/violet. He was
getting a sort of black hole effect around the lights themselves.
So I shot the lights on our Christmas tree and some in close-up and sent him ORFs both normal and HR and layered PSDs. I
may have posted some of this stuff here, too?
The upshot was that he bought an E-M5 II and, thank goodness, likes it. We've discussed a couple of other things in
sporadic emails and I ended up visiting him at home in July. The comparisons I referred to are not on-line. We stood in
his printer room and looked at physical prints under special lighting. He had taken some careful test pictures of his
back yard and made comparison prints. Yes, if one looked very closely, one could make out very subtle differences.
As he put it, it's not so much that there is more visible detail as that they look more like LF prints. So, at huge
magnification, peering at a print close-up, I could see that the grain of a piece of wood had a smoother, more natural
look in the HR image. But honestly, if one were only to see one print, it would just be wow, with no sense of anything
missing.
As a long time master printer, who makes part of his living at it, his orientation is all to the print. So his point was
that whatever else HR does, it isn't visible in prints of everyday subjects, unless perhaps wall size. And I have to
agree. The differences in resolution of detail seen pixel peeping don't show up in a print. So where are they of use to
folks like us? Pixel peeping 100% crops proving mine is bigger . . .?
Yes, the colors are more accurate, but for most photography, absent the original subject and lighting at hand, that
doesn't matter. Where there is a big difference is in fine repeating patterns, where the E-M5 II does not have the moire
problems of cameras with very high resolution sensors. The comparisons in the IR reviews and addenda make that clear.
But I might take a handful of shots where that would make a difference in a year. And, of course, it does bright dark
blues against black-ish background much better.
And it's quite useful for lens tests. :-)
Do you have a link by chance? Super res algorithms also available for other
platforms using Photoacute software. Not as elegant or easy as Oly's
incarnation.
http://www.photoacute.com/
At least temporarily moribund.
I suspect even a few shots focus stacked for some landscapes may result in a
better image than super res algorithm. Could use both techniques if nothing is
moving, I suppose, if a really LARGE print is required.
For me, focus stacking has turned out to be a MUCH more important ability than
HR.
Hmm, why not a HR mode, HDR, focus stacked, multi row pano?
Life's too short - AND - where, how 'ya gonna show it?
N. H. R. Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|