1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Progressiveabsolution, Apr 27, 2006.

  1. Funny you should say that. I was in Chile a couple of weeks ago. During
    one hike we took in the Atacama desert, Mount Lascar, a volcano a few
    km away, had a modest eruption.

    David
     
    David Littlewood, May 3, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yes, my experience has been that, of all my cameras, the one with which
    I can most reliably expect sharp shots at slow speeds is my Mamiya 6 -
    feather-light leaf shutter, but still a large-ish and heavy-ish camera
    and thus having large inertia.

    David
     
    David Littlewood, May 3, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Progressiveabsolution

    Scott W Guest

    Well I can't resist posting one of my hand held photos. I believe that
    if you know what you are doing you can get a fairly sharp image with a
    hand held camera, sharper then most people get when using a tripod.

    Whereas I like to use a tripod when I can there are a lot of cases
    where I can't. My wife and I are going to Alaska soon and I will not
    always be able to have my tripod with me, so I'm am working on my
    techniques for shooting sharp photos without it.

    This is a test shot from this morning, I think it is not too bad.
    http://www.sewcon.com/temp/16mp.jpg 8MB

    I can get a sharper photo if I use a tripod, but this photo has enough
    detail for a very sharp 12 x 18 inch print, which is my current
    favorite size.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 4, 2006
  4. I didn't mean to imply the image was sharp or not sharp.
    I was mainly commenting that the noise limits the "apparent"
    sharpness, however you perceive it to be.

    My question: is that a 100% crop? If so, then it is
    pretty good. If that is the whole frame, then it is
    ok for a screen image, but not is not critically sharp
    for a decent print.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 4, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Honestly...nothing here is very sharp.
    -But especially the spire...which I assume is the main interest in this
    shot.

    The entire scene itself is illuminating in another sense...
    ....That is--it is SO incredibly noisy, jaggy, and full of other optical
    problems that I can see now why you might not have been thinking so much
    about sharpness. This image shows a high level of color fringing (bright
    red off the edges of the spire features...bluish-purple off the left edges
    of the rounded portion where it meets the sky). When you impose these sort
    of problems on an image, sharpness becomes rather hard to focus on (no pun
    intended). :)

    I'm sorry that this seems to have turned into harsh critique. That was/is
    not my intent. Its just that you have remained so insistent that this shot
    is not only sharp, but also insistent that it provides some sort of evidence
    that a tripod is unnecessary...so long as you follow the "hand-held rule."

    From the looks of this image from your camera...there are so many problems
    present...it seems to me that sharpness becomes only one of many factors for
    consideration.

    This whole "argument" may well come down to not only your definition of
    sharpness, but I can only assume that you have (perhaps) not experienced
    truly sharp images. I don't claim to always produce pin-sharp images, but I
    can tell you without contradiction that this shot doesn't fit any definition
    I would ever use for "sharp..." -unless you're talking about a relatively
    tiny enlargement--where there's wiggle-room for
     
    Mark², May 4, 2006
  6. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    The image I posted was a 100% crop from his full image.
     
    Mark², May 4, 2006
  7. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

     
    Mark², May 4, 2006
  8. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Before you resort to silly "5 year old" comments...think.
    Think, Alfred!
    A 100% crop provides the exact same analysis.
     
    Mark², May 4, 2006
  9. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    I don't think anyone is disputing that critically sharp images can be
    capture hand-held.
    The issue in this case is whether the hand-held "rule" (1/60th at 60mm)
    holds up compared with a tripod shot of the same.

    Your shot was taken uner full brightness, right? That's an entirely
    different matter.
    With a fast enough shutter, you can get away with all sorts of hand-holding.
    Most people who are picky about landscapes don't like shooting under
    conditions bright enough to allow for this.
     
    Mark², May 4, 2006
  10. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    "Mental typo."
     
    Mark², May 4, 2006
  11. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    If you're talking about the crop of the spire...that isn't blown up. That
    is a 100% crop of the full image he posted. I didn't enlarge it at all...or
    do anything other than simply post a crop of the central interest point of
    the shot.
     
    Mark², May 4, 2006
  12. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    If you're referring to the crop I posted here:
    http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/59601718/original
    That is not an enlarged anything. It is merely a crop.
    Browsers rarely enlarge images to fit teh window. They often do reduce
    them...but don't enlarge.
    I posted that after simply viewing the image full-size (in an image viewer)
    and then cropping the spire portion. I then posted that 100% crop. There
    is no enlargement at all...rather merely a 100% crop--in order to avoid
    having to post the full image.

    -Mark²
     
    Mark², May 4, 2006
  13. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    I think that's part of the problem, yes.
     
    Mark², May 4, 2006
  14. Progressiveabsolution

    Scott W Guest

    I would agree with this, with a 60mm I would want to be shooting at
    least 1/120 sec if I was shooting hand held and I would be happer yet
    if I could shoot at 1/250.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 4, 2006
  15. Scott,
    What was that taken with? 16.6 megapixels: either your new
    1Ds Mark II, or a digital mosaic. My guess is mosaic.

    Here are a some images that show full pixel details
    (cropped portions so page load time is not long):

    On tripod, 300mm:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lorikeet.c04.07.2005.JZ3F8962.b-700.html

    Hand held, 500 mm:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/road.runner.c11.29.2005.JZ3F5598.b-700.html

    Full frame on tripod, 500mm:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_4925.b-600.html
    small section of the above frame:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_4925.b-chicks-1-600.html

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 4, 2006
  16. Yes, and I found the original full image. At 100% view,
    it is quite sharp. I see some small issues with some lens
    aberrations, but overall the image is very nice and quite
    sharp for a handheld image. You can tell the image
    is sharp by the ~1 pixel changes from shadows to full light,
    especially at the bottom of the full frame. I think what
    some people are calling the spire as unsharp are seeing
    what looks like purple fringing or chromatic aberration.
    For example, the bottoms of the balls on the spire appear
    purple, but the issues are very small indeed. There may
    also be some blooming in the CCD causing some of the apparent
    softness, but again, it is quite small. The digital noise
    tends to hide some of it. Personally, I think people are
    being pretty critical. An image this sharp, at 10 MP
    could make very nice 16x20 inch prints that appear extremely
    sharp, especially after a little Richardson-Lucy image
    restoration is applied to the upsampled image.

    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 4, 2006
  17. Progressiveabsolution

    Scott W Guest

    Yup mosaic, 5 photos, a 2 x 2 matrix and one right in the center. This
    kind of grouping is very fast to
    shoot hand held and easy to align, you pick one detail and put it in
    the four corner for the four shots then right in the center for the
    last shoot. I used the fairly cheap 28-200mm Canon lens and shot using
    a Rebel XT. As far as I can tell the Rebel it pretty close to the 20D,
    but a bit slower.

    I sized it to match the 1Ds Mark II since that is about the most pixels
    that a close to affordable camera has. From what I have seen I think
    my mosaic will be a bit sharper then the 1Ds Mark II, of course I have
    a lot of limits on what I can shoot.
    That is a very impressive image indeed.


    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 4, 2006
  18. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    "I think that's part of the problem, yes." -- Mook²
     
    ASAAR, May 4, 2006
  19. Ok, I don't see what you define as not sharp.

    In the full image, http://www.molon.de/P4150676.jpg

    look at pixels:

    lower left corner
    X Y Green value
    117 3551 96
    118 3551 62
    119 3551 15
    120 3551 16

    Spire:
    991 499 230
    992 499 146
    993 499 1

    Three to 4 pixel transitions are about the best you can do with
    random sampling of an edge.

    I do see lens aberration issues and possible CCD blooming, but that
    is not the question regarding sharpness due movements from hand holding.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 4, 2006
  20. Progressiveabsolution

    l e o Guest


    You are either a tout or you need to get around to learn about
    commercial photography. You may find a need for MF, LF or a digital back!
     
    l e o, May 4, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.