AlanG Posted November 21, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted November 21, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't see the point of other people posting "sharp eyes" photos. One major problem with the comparison set is we don't know if the original images were accurately shot to the same scale - relationship of the subject size to each format. Thus we don't know if the images that are cropped to the eye really compares anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 21, 2007 Posted November 21, 2007 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Bigger IS Better. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rubenkok Posted November 21, 2007 Share #22  Posted November 21, 2007 You all have to wait to see the pictures when there is a sensor for this camera :D:D Ruben Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/38552-bigger-is-better/?do=findComment&comment=408630'>More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share #23 Â Posted November 22, 2007 Profifoto made these pictures available individually, it was me who stacked them up for a face-off. Â If you still don't believe your eyes, here are the originals: Â Hasselblad H3D-31 Â Sinar eMotion 75 Â Canon EOS 5D Â Leica M8 Â Panasonic L1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Flatline Posted November 22, 2007 Share #24 Â Posted November 22, 2007 These pictures are meaningless. They are massively compressed JPGs, and barely indicative of the actual resolution and final image that can be attained. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted November 22, 2007 Share #25  Posted November 22, 2007 if you want to see skin detail Im not at all sure it needs to be bigger, from Sigma's SD14 foveon dSLR Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/38552-bigger-is-better/?do=findComment&comment=408922'>More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 22, 2007 Share #26  Posted November 22, 2007 If you are going to bother with a comparison make sure the exposure and color balance is properly adjusted. You put up an M8 photo that is underexposed, flat and color shifted a nasty green compared to a balanced, properly exposed 5D image and then say can't you believe your own eyes? Here is a one 1:1 crop of the original jpegs with the M8 adjusted so it has a full contrast range and a similar color balance to the 5D. I also posted a reduced file so you can compare the flesh tones and modeling. This should have been done in raw conversion and if done properly the M8 file would look better then just adjusting an improperly processed jpeg. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/38552-bigger-is-better/?do=findComment&comment=408931'>More sharing options...
Venkman Posted November 22, 2007 Share #27 Â Posted November 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Riley, Â that's plastic, right? Please say it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 22, 2007 Share #28 Â Posted November 22, 2007 ...Here is a one 1:1 crop of the original jpegs with the M8 adjusted so it has a full contrast range and a similar color balance to the 5D... If you compare 100% crops they cannot be the same size at a given resolution if the files are not the same size either. Is this what you mean when you say that the original M8 jpeg is adjusted or are your M8 and 5D files the same size actually? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 22, 2007 Share #29 Â Posted November 22, 2007 ...that's plastic, right?... Funny that we are so used to watch those plasticy pictures that they may look natural sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 22, 2007 Share #30 Â Posted November 22, 2007 errrr, so a Hasselblad HD can take a more detailed photo than a Panasonic digicam. Right, thanks for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venkman Posted November 22, 2007 Share #31 Â Posted November 22, 2007 Funny that we are so used to watch those plasticy pictures that they may look natural sometimes. Â I mean, come on...I've seen CGI that's been looking more natural than this one. Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 22, 2007 Share #32 Â Posted November 22, 2007 If you compare 100% crops they cannot be the same size at a given resolution if the files are not the same size either. Is this what you mean when you say that the original M8 jpeg is adjusted or are your M8 and 5D files the same size actually? Just curious. Â The eye on the 5D file is bigger because it is 12MP not 10MP. The 1:1 crops are just that - showing the full pixel detail. No adjustment for size has been made. Â The adjustment to the M8 file was to color balance it more neutral (like the 5D) and increase the contrast as the histogram of the M8 file showed underexposure and an improperly set raw conversion. The way the files where originally presented sdai might as well have taken a piss on the M8 file and posted it and said -O look the M8 looks worse! You would want to compare two neutral color balanced, properly exposed full range files if you expect to make any useful comparison. As these were taken in a studio with strobes there is no excuse for the state of the M8 file. The color balance could have been set and the histogram checked during image capture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 22, 2007 Share #33 Â Posted November 22, 2007 I'd add one more thing. You really have to know the respective cameras to be able to compare them. I would not use the same lighting to get the same result with an M8 and a Canon 1 series camera. I'd use a reflector that had more specularity for the Canon and a little softer light for the M8. Â The Canon tends to fill the tiny highlights on the texture of the skin smoothing it out. This can be a good thing or it can make the skin look like plastic or like its been smoothed with retouching. With the M8, maybe because of it's lack of AA filter you must be careful of these tiny borderline specular highlights. A bit more matte powder and a less specular light might be needed -depending on the look you want. You can also fill these tiny highlights on the texture of the skin in post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 22, 2007 Share #34 Â Posted November 22, 2007 I mean, come on...I've seen CGI that's been looking more natural than this one.... He he so you did not see my did you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 22, 2007 Share #35 Â Posted November 22, 2007 100% crops are a good way to compare yet, better than a loupe and a negative IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 22, 2007 Share #36 Â Posted November 22, 2007 The eye on the 5D file is bigger because it is 12MP not 10MP... OK i did not recall the size of 5D files thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venkman Posted November 22, 2007 Share #37 Â Posted November 22, 2007 He he so you did not see my did you. Â I never pay attention to details. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share #38 Â Posted November 22, 2007 Perhaps next time when I post something like this, I should label it as "for entertainment only". Â But seriously, if I post some lab test numbers it would be a crushing blow to your mind ... if my memory serves correctly, the M8 resolves about 1300 line pairs per picture height, the 1Ds Mark II can do about 1600 lp/ph ... the H3D-31? man, you'd wish I were wrong, that number is about 2300 lp/ph. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 22, 2007 Share #39 Â Posted November 22, 2007 I looked at the first four images full size. The two MF shots were tigher than the 5D and M8 images so this is pretty useless for comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share #40 Â Posted November 22, 2007 I've said (I think) 3 times in this thread already ... these pictures were not shot for comparison purposes, it was me who put them together. Â But, let's put it this way, if you take two identical shots using two different cameras ... at the same view angle both pictures will cover the same stuff, same information, right? the same image projected on a larger sensor will no doubt have more line pairs resolution than on the smaller one. Easy math. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.