tashley Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share #61 Posted March 21, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) You lost me from this mess when you uprezed, sharpened and had some third party scan. Not a valid comparison. I know. Outrageous, isn't it...? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Hi tashley, Take a look here Friday. Time for an outrageous comparison.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
garyvot Posted March 21, 2008 Share #62 Posted March 21, 2008 FYI, bicubic sharper typically is used when down-sampling images. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted March 21, 2008 Share #63 Posted March 21, 2008 Great thread!.............But scanning ... boy, what a can of slippery random-motion worms that is. So operator dependent. I'd say the thing to do there is buy the best scanner you can afford and spend the time ..... ....it's all colorful and puts up a good pretense of detail.... [the Canon]....looks not-quite real, somehow. Especially the texture.... Kent - I agree. I got that sense about the Canon file too. 'Not quite real' seems a good description. As I suggested earlier; when buying a scan [unless you buy another one elsewhere for comparison] you may have no idea how far from optimum quality the scan is. Scan-monkey inadequacy and file tinkering can play havoc with the quality of the resultant file. Tim deserves high quality, I too can see him begrudging scanning fees and ending up controlling the scanning himself, [and like all normal people - hating every damned minute]. Happy days. Happy days. ................ Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted March 21, 2008 Share #64 Posted March 21, 2008 I don't get some of these comments. First, he is clearly a good photographer, second he made a reasonable attempt to equalize the processing on the images and while it wasn't a scientific exercise, the fact is that after processing by a reasonably skilled individual the Canon shot came out better for a large scaled image. I see no point in trying to diminish the facts by making statements like the Canon image doesn't look real. Well the other images look far less 'real' unless you have bad eyesight. This in no way diminishes that the M8 can and does produce some excellent files under the right conditions, in fact better than its 10 MP gives it a right to have. I suppose if you had enough time and put enough effort into it you might get a file that uprez'd sufficiently to match the Canon shot but why would you bother if you could just take the Canon shot and be done with it? Good and interesting comparison and if it is repeatable, then you know what to do to get the job done. (I still prefer the size of the M8 to the Canon) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted March 21, 2008 Share #65 Posted March 21, 2008 I don't get some of these comments. First, he is clearly a good photographer, second he made a reasonable attempt to equalize the processing on the images and while it wasn't a scientific exercise, the fact is that after processing by a reasonably skilled individual the Canon shot came out better for a large scaled image. I see no point in trying to diminish the facts by making statements like the Canon image doesn't look real. Well the other images look far less 'real' unless you have bad eyesight. I beg your pardon? "Diminish the facts"? " ... the other images look less real unless you have bad eyesight"? My opinion about the Canon image is my opinion, and it stands as such. You are trying to present your _opinion_, which you are welcome to, as fact while stating unequivocally that anyone who disagrees has bad eyesight. Personally I'd much rather have bad eyesight than a bad attitude. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted March 21, 2008 Share #66 Posted March 21, 2008 Uh ... pssss ... where's the sample from the Nikon D3? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted March 21, 2008 Share #67 Posted March 21, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ok, I'll accept that to you blurry soft images look more real than sharply focused ones. They don't to me, even without my glasses You are right..my opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 21, 2008 Share #68 Posted March 21, 2008 Which "looks more real" is subjective and subject to opinion and interpretation. But the Canon and Wista have more resolution -- that's factual and can be measured. The comparison photos show the difference, and that's not at all surprising. I don't see any problem with any of the photos. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted March 21, 2008 Share #69 Posted March 21, 2008 As I just finished teaching a class to medical students on this subject, I can't resist saying this Tim, please take it in context. But the M8 shot is a great example of a "negative" placebo response. People do get serious side effects from placebos as well as benefits. Expectation and matter are codependent. best....Peter ...a gentle dig at your delicious quote expectation and matter, with ref. to the m8 and users become independent:rolleyes: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 21, 2008 Share #70 Posted March 21, 2008 Tim - after much analysis, some algorithmic tests and bicubic computation, I think I've pinpointed the precise part of your test which is the problem for the critics on the forum: the M8 didn't win. best! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share #71 Posted March 21, 2008 Uh ... pssss ... where's the sample from the Nikon D3? I couldn't be bothered to wait for it to get dark... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share #72 Posted March 21, 2008 Tim - after much analysis, some algorithmic tests and bicubic computation, I think I've pinpointed the precise part of your test which is the problem for the critics on the forum: the M8 didn't win. best! I think I'd already extrapolated that one before I posted! Today I will, horror of horrors, set the might 50 Lux and M8 against the Canon. Just to pitch the very best Leica setup I can muster against the gorilla. Stand by... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoersch Posted March 21, 2008 Share #73 Posted March 21, 2008 I read a wildly interesting comparison once between a bicycle, a Porsche, and a 20 ton truck. It's a pity I can't remember which came out best... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share #74 Posted March 21, 2008 I read a wildly interesting comparison once between a bicycle, a Porsche, and a 20 ton truck. It's a pity I can't remember which came out best... Did any of them float? ;-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 21, 2008 Share #75 Posted March 21, 2008 Ok, I'll accept that to you blurry soft images look more real than sharply focused ones. They don't to me, even without my glasses You are right..my opinion. Without my glasses, all these images look the same. They are portraits of Tim's dog, right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted March 21, 2008 Share #76 Posted March 21, 2008 You really can't see. You can't tell the difference between a cat and a dog? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted March 21, 2008 Share #77 Posted March 21, 2008 I read a wildly interesting comparison once between a bicycle, a Porsche, and a 20 ton truck. It's a pity I can't remember which came out best... Yeah, but you don't spend $5000 on a bike... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted March 21, 2008 Share #78 Posted March 21, 2008 Mark, I think we can all agree it's the strong sunlight in the Canon shot that makes the holes visible. But that doesn't explain why the weave of the blue nylon rope has completely disappeared in the M8 shot. I'm really surprised by this. I'd still be interested in seeing a crop of the same area without the uprezzing, just to see what information was there before processing... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 21, 2008 Share #79 Posted March 21, 2008 You really can't see. You can't tell the difference between a cat and a dog? :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FotoABC Posted March 22, 2008 Share #80 Posted March 22, 2008 Is there something you're not telling us? This is also what I want to know. Claude Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.