Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Look ma, no jaggies...

Reply
Thread Tools

Look ma, no jaggies...

 
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2003
After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users worst
nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...

http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this great
shot down)
http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the shadows)
http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but to
no avail)
http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that hip
"digital noise" patten?)
http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the really
bad CA)

I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost can't
see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack sharp
CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204

And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the lack of
detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552

Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack of
total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033

After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
2/3rds the sensor count.






 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Azzz1588
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2003
In article <bqcklc$em0$(E-Mail Removed)>, "George Preddy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one




Just another poor sd9 shot. But you seem to post pic's that
show how bad the sigma's are. Good for you !!!



>After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
>convert.



Bout Fing time...................
























"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2003


George Preddy wrote:
> After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users worst
> nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
> hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
> definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...


George, I'm not sure exactly what your point is on these samples, but
you are definitely obsessing over all this. Most of us just select a
camera, take pictures, and enjoy the result. Sometimes we look at other
cameras for upgrade, but it is not a life obsession. You seem to be
happy with your camera, so what's your problem? Being misunderstood? The
rest of the world doesn't understand how great the Foveon is? Well, so
what? THe technology will take care of itself, if it actually is
superior. Just show us a few of your pix every once in a while, but not
to the extent of Annika.

I am fascinated by the SD9 and the Foveon, it does seem to produce some
really great stuff, but it does at times exhibit some problems, as do
all cameras. It will be interesting to see whether brute force (i.e.
megapixels) wins out over more sophisticated chip technology and image
processing. It would also be very interesting if the SD10 had more
pixels than the current chip, to get under the aliasing threshold at
higher resolutions, but probably hard to do.

I think the standards for judgement of digital imaging are fairly
obvious - resolution would be foremost, with more megapixels producing
the capability of larger images, to a certain point. Beyond that, I
believe that the noise factor is the most important, because digital
imaging has the potential for grain-free imaging that film finds very
difficult, except with very large format, heavy cameras. It is these
creamy smooth, super sharp images that are so compelling about digital.
And also low noise is very important in dredging out the last bit of
detail from the darker areas of the images. On top of those two
requirements, add dynamic range as the final frontier, and you've got
yerself a camera!

Let's talk honestly and straightforwardly about these factors and not
get into hyperbole about our favorite camera or technology. For example,
I love my Oly E20 but I am a little disappointed in the new E1 for its
noise control. If you have some statements about your SD9 w respect to
the above points, state them in a calm, objective manner, and I would be
willing to listen. But don't get into these bitch slapping sessions any
more - it doesn't help anything and ****es off more people than
convinces them.

Gary Eickmeier

 
Reply With Quote
 
jriegle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2003
Nice shots! If your comparing cameras to one another, your comparison is
flawed. The "original" sized shots are much larger with the 10D, around
3,000 pixels on the long axis. The SD9 shots are only 2268 pixels. The
images should be sized the same for a better representation. The cameras
really need to be side by side shooting at the same subject for the best
comparison.

The Tiger Woods shot seems to have some side to side motion blur. The shots
you call blurry were shot at f/22. Shooting at such small apertures will
cause an optical phenomenon called diffraction to be prominent and blur the
image.

You comment on the 10D's dynamic range, yet you show us a SD9 image with
blown out whites (see the shot ending in 204). Also, the SD9 or its user was
afraid to show the blacks correctly in most of the images. Everything is
murky grey. In any case, the dynamic range of digital is like that of slide
film. It is easy to blow out highlights or lose detail in dark areas if one
is not careful.
John

>"George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

news:bqcklc$em0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users

worst
> nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
> hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
> definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this great
> shot down)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the

shadows)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but to
> no avail)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that hip
> "digital noise" patten?)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the

really
> bad CA)
>
> I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost

can't
> see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack

sharp
> CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
>
> And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the lack

of
> detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
> http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552
>
> Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack of
> total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033
>
> After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
> convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
> 2/3rds the sensor count.
>
>
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Hans Kruse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2003
Also I'm not sure what you try to prove. I would agree that the examples you
found were not the best quality, maybe the lenses were poor quality.
See this one from my 10D and a Sigma 15-30mm EX DG lens. Although this lens
has some weaknesses and do produce blurry imnages at certain focal lengths
and aperture, like close to 30mm and each end of the aperture range, I find
it a quite excellent lens. So look at this one here i original format.
http://www.pbase.com/image/23755970/large If you browse through my galery
from Yosemite and Mono Lake you will find a mix of quite sharp pictures and
some that are not completely sharp. Some actually taken at 30mm with the
Sigma lens.
Cheers and have fun,
Hans

"George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bqcklc$em0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users

worst
> nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
> hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
> definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this great
> shot down)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the

shadows)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but to
> no avail)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that hip
> "digital noise" patten?)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the

really
> bad CA)
>
> I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost

can't
> see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack

sharp
> CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
>
> And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the lack

of
> detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
> http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552
>
> Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack of
> total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033
>
> After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
> convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
> 2/3rds the sensor count.
>
>
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
MikeWhy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2003
'jaggies' is now on the list of bad words.

Do a fella favor. Please tag the subject lines with [preddy] so I can ignore
this nonsense more efficiently.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2003
Congratulations - you too can spot a poor photograph. Though for some
reason, only when the poor ones come from a non Sigma.



"George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bqcklc$em0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users

worst
> nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is no
> hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
> definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this great
> shot down)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the

shadows)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but to
> no avail)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that hip
> "digital noise" patten?)
> http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the

really
> bad CA)
>
> I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost

can't
> see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack

sharp
> CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
>
> And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the lack

of
> detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
> http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552
>
> Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack of
> total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033
>
> After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
> convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
> 2/3rds the sensor count.
>
>
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Giorgis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2003
OK OK ... I propose a final and definative test.

We put a whole bunch of cropped digital photos.
George Preddy and he alone will tell us which have the best colour
rendition.

Then we reviel the exif info proving if they are from a Sigma or another
camera.


Your thaughts

How about a double blind, how about we wend the original photos to
George in a password protected file so he cannot claim we doctored the exif
after he chose all the sigma photos.

George



"<Enter Your Full Name>" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jgDyb.8740$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Congratulations - you too can spot a poor photograph. Though for some
> reason, only when the poor ones come from a non Sigma.
>
>
>
> "George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bqcklc$em0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > After almost an hour of searching, I finally found the Canon 10D users

> worst
> > nightmare, someone who posts full size images on pbase. This post is

no
> > hit on him, to the contrary he took some very nice shots, and there are
> > definitely no jaggies, even with loads of sharpening artifacts...
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/16335686 (having just 6M sensors let this

great
> > shot down)
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925835 (love the dynamic range in the

> shadows)
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/18925838 (loads of sharpening artifacts, but

to
> > no avail)
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/20302439 (where'd Tiger find pants in that

hip
> > "digital noise" patten?)
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/16623130 (so blurry you can barely see the

> really
> > bad CA)
> >
> > I love the nice blurry CA in the last shot, it's so blurry you almost

> can't
> > see anything at all, much nicer than the way the SD9 always shows tack

> sharp
> > CA, like in this quick hand held snapshot...
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/23211204
> >
> > And the detail in the 10D shots is amazing, definitly highlights the

lack
> of
> > detail in SD9 shots, like these quick hand held snaps...
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/19293065
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/21042147
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/23010761
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/22632552
> >
> > Or the awful aliasing in SD9 shots like this one, just look at the lack

of
> > total blurry fuzziness, it's awful even in near darkness...
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/23541033
> >
> > After finally finding a pbase site with full sized 10D images, I'm a
> > convert. The blurrier, the better. I wish I paid double for less than
> > 2/3rds the sensor count.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2003

"Giorgis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3fcb0241$0$20488$(E-Mail Removed) u...
> OK OK ... I propose a final and definative test.
>
> We put a whole bunch of cropped digital photos.
> George Preddy and he alone will tell us which have the best colour
> rendition.
>
> Then we reviel the exif info proving if they are from a Sigma or another
> camera.
>
>
> Your thaughts


I think you're dreaming, there is no way our resident Bayer DSLR owners
would ever, under any circumstances agree to a fair resolution or sharpness
test, they won't even post a full sized image--I had to hunt for an hour on
pbase just to find those.

Nice idea, but you are making the erroneous assumption that they don't
really understand that the 10.3MP SD9 blows 6MP DSLRs out of the water and
off the beach. They know it full well, they just don't like it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2003
> Nice idea, but you are making the erroneous assumption that they don't
> really understand that the 10.3MP SD9 blows 6MP DSLRs out of the water and
> off the beach. They know it full well, they just don't like it.
>


On the contrary. The 3.4MP SD9 blows monkeys. We can't help it if you are
colour blind as well as edge-obsessed.







 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can I use a look-ahead and a look-behind at the same time? dan.j.weber@gmail.com Perl Misc 4 04-09-2008 10:25 PM
HEXUS.review - Scan Cool Chameleon - A First Look Silverstrand Front Page News 0 07-01-2005 07:15 PM
Why do look-ahead and look-behind have to be fixed-width patterns? inhahe Python 3 01-28-2005 12:50 PM
<tr> with a 1x1 image as a filler on a table with padding of 2 look thicker in netscape but they look ok in IE. Serial # 19781010 HTML 1 08-10-2003 09:05 PM



Advertisments