DSLR v Consumer Image quality

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by oink, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. The human eye performs more like a video camera in the manner that it
    collects and presents data. You're not taking a single sample over a
    small time period and calling it your field of view at a moment - you're
    taking many samples and averaging the output.

    Every pause a VCR or DVD? Pretty crappy, eh? Yet when you play the VCR
    at normal speed, your brain interprets the data just fine and you see a
    clear picture.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Feb 23, 2005
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. oink

    bob Guest

    Interesting. I still can't find any situation where the bottom photo
    looks better.

    What accounts for the hazy effect? Is it actual haze?

    If you "difference" the bottom image onto the top image, and manipulate
    the levels, the differences appear mostly (exclusively) ouside highlights.

    The differences also fall on rather obvious 8 pixel blocks -- if those
    aren't .jpg artifacts, then what kind of artifacts are they?

    Bob
     
    bob, Feb 23, 2005
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. oink

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Are you saying that it has 6 million cell sites, like so?:

    o o o o
    o o o
    o o o o
    o o o
    o o o o
    o o o

    If that's the case, you're losing data taking 6 MP JPEGs as opposed to
    12.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 23, 2005
    #83
  4. oink

    Chris Brown Guest

    It probably can, but we're not clever enough to write it that well.

    Still, never say never, and watch this space.
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 23, 2005
    #84
  5. oink

    Chris Brown Guest

    I gather there are more ways to get things wrong with LF than to get them
    right. ;-)
    I'm pretty sure they're OK with 4*5 E6 - it's the place that other labs take
    the stuff they can't deal with. I've struck up a rapport with them, and they
    do a really great job with my 120, it has to be said.
    The quick/readyload stuff does appeal. Will give darkslides a go for the
    time being though, and see how I get on.

    It does amuse me that I have a friend who shoots 35mm, and finds my 120 gear
    (mostly TLRs and folders) intimidating. He hasn't seen "Snapper" yet, but
    the look on his face when he does is going to be priceless. ;-)
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 23, 2005
    #85
  6. oink

    Chris Brown Guest

    [I bought a large format camera - silly me]
    Will do, but I don't promise to do anything actually *good*. I do recognise
    that the equipment doesn't make the photographer, and I may never take a
    really great picture with it, but damnit, I'm going to have fun trying.
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 23, 2005
    #86
  7. oink

    JPS Guest

    In message <421ca83d$0$39273$>,
    The best way to view detail on a monitor, IMO, is to enlarge the image
    to 200 to 500%, and stand back about 10 to 20 feet. Then, all the
    effects of the monitor, spatially, are pretty much gone. Viewing an
    image downsized with the red over here, the green over there, and the
    blue over there, all bleeding to the others of the same color, doesn't
    really show you what you've captured.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 23, 2005
    #87
  8. oink

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    The top image "looks sharper" at a reduced size because it has higher
    contrast.

    For example, at smaller sizes, there isn't enough darkness in the cabin
    windows, nor is the white of the boat as bright as the top image.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 23, 2005
    #88
  9. oink

    JPS Guest

    In message <1l5Td.29337$>,
    I can clearly see the detail between the cabin windows on the bottom
    one. That's at 100%, on a 1408*1056 desktop on a viewsonic pf790.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 23, 2005
    #89
  10. oink

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Do you mean chromatic aberration?
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 23, 2005
    #90
  11. oink

    bob Guest

    I didn't say I couldn't see differences between them. I said the bottom
    one never looked better.

    At 100% on my Sony E540 at 1600x1200 I cannot see the white between the
    windows. Well I can see a few of them if I look really closely. At
    1280x1024 I can see the whites. It still doesn't look better. Or sharper.

    Bob
     
    bob, Feb 23, 2005
    #91
  12. oink

    Larry Guest

    In actual practice I shoot Highest resolution, but Im shooting RAW and
    Photoshop cs' raw converter lets me chose to render it as a 6mp picture
    instead as a 12mp picture.. Thats what I usually do. (I keep the raw file
    though so I can change my mind later, if I wish.

    There have been times when the 12mp picture seemed to have more detail, but
    not often, and not much.
     
    Larry, Feb 23, 2005
    #92
  13. oink

    Larry Guest

    Sometimes its C.A. (lens) and sometimes its Sensor Bloom.
     
    Larry, Feb 23, 2005
    #93
  14. oink

    Stacey Guest

    The big =IF= is =IF= you know what to look for. Someone who can't see any
    difference between a cheap consumer cam and a dSLR might need to make a
    print to see the difference.. If they make a print on the same printer from
    the current camera and this new one and can't see any difference, then
    there isn't much reason to "upgrade" is there?
     
    Stacey, Feb 23, 2005
    #94
  15. oink

    chrlz Guest

    By your argument, one only needs a small patch
    No, I didn't say that at all. (Although, if you were to hold your eye
    stationary, and just get one tiny look - which is what a camera does -
    that is quite true!) I was trying to point out that attempting to
    measure the eye's 'resolution' in the same way as you do a camera, is
    meaningless. Because by its nature, the eye is continually scanning in
    new information and adding to it's built-up picture. In fact your
    example of standing outside is a good one. Just by scanning around,
    you can build up a picture that is not just 100's of Mp, but thousands,
    or more. But at any instant and when pointed just in one particular
    direction, the eye's resolution is in fact quite poor overall, with
    very high acuity only in one very small area. If you allow me to take
    my camera and move it around and take lots more pictures, it will have
    potentially huge resolution too!

    Similarly, if you put up a 500Mp-equivalent large format image, i would
    argue that you could put 100 of those images together in a huge print,
    and just let me stand close and wander around to give my eye time to
    look carefully at the whole thing... It's just a silly concept.

    The eye really isn't that much like a camera at all, in that respect,
    and I think applying a Mp equivalent is not sensible.
     
    chrlz, Feb 23, 2005
    #95
  16. oink

    Stacey Guest

    Show me a monitor that can display a dSLR image at full resolution.
     
    Stacey, Feb 24, 2005
    #96
  17. oink

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    So which picture of the ocean liner do you like better? I strongly
    prefer the top picture at 100% and the bottom picture at 200% zoom.
    Didn't want to waste money printing it out, but I assume the top
    would look better on an inkjet and much better with offset printing.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Feb 24, 2005
    #97
  18. oink

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    I'm not sure. With old film cameras and telephoto lenses,
    chromatic aberration usually expressed itself as green/cyan
    on one side of objects and purple/red on the other side,
    especially objects near the corners.

    Purple fringing with digital cameras also occurs primarily
    in corners, but at wide angle, and usually it's just purple.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Feb 24, 2005
    #98
  19. oink

    paul Guest


    How did you filter it? Sounds like an unsharp mask. The bottom pic is
    clearly sharper and a bit of a halo around the bright parts such as the
    two white 'balls' in the middle. Those same round features become flat
    looking in the bottom, spherical in the top.

    How does all this change in a print?
     
    paul, Feb 24, 2005
    #99
  20. oink

    Stacey Guest

    Exactly why I don't bother to ever post images to this group. People with
    something to prove will FIND artifacts that never show up in print to "make
    their point"..

    Why they find depends on which camera made the images and what they need to
    prove. I've had two different people say the same image looks noisy and was
    too smooth with too much noise reduction at the same time because it was a
    brand neither of them use. No one ever makes a print from different cameras
    and compares using that, guess they are too lazy? They all want to look at
    200% blowups looking for things they'll never see and that don't mater as
    far as "image quality" in the final result anyone would ever normally use.
    Yes if you're making 5X8 foot prints it might matter but who does that?
     
    Stacey, Feb 24, 2005
    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.