On 11/06/2007 Berry Ives wrote:
> When you say "the image itself has far lower spatial frequencies...",
> I
> guess you mean the image arriving at the film post optics?
Yes.
> As Oly says, it's not all about pixels.
I totally agree.
> When I went to the
> Steves-digicam
> site, I compared the E-1 5mp image of the hotel to the E-500 8mp
> image,
> comparing the hotel/marina café images on a 23" Apple Cinema display
> with
> both images sized identically. Yes, I know the better comparison is
> to
> print them at say 12x16, since the print is the real test. I just
> didn't
> want to use the ink and paper to do that.
>
> It is hard to say whether the 8mp is better than the other.
Yes, that's why I think printing the images is worthwhile - it provides a
clearer comparison, as you can evaluate the print against what you know a
decent print can look like. It's much harder on screen to achieve a
holistic judgement.
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
