Am I oversharpening
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: jennifer.wilson2 on 25 Jun 2005 11:18 KennyJr wrote: > I've spent the last several days reading up on the foveon image sensor > and I've got to say that I like the idea. One pixel site reading all > three colors. It's a good idea with a lot of promise. > > I've also spent the last several days looking at pictures from Sigma SD9 > and SD10 cameras. So far I haven't been impressed. I did the same thing today and I was extrememly impressed. Such high quality reproduction! Digital photography isn't considered ready for prime time by most, if not all photography afficionados, but I doubt many of them have seen what Foveon has to offer or realize how differently their digital technology has developed.
From: jennifer.wilson2 on 25 Jun 2005 11:18 KennyJr wrote: > I've spent the last several days reading up on the foveon image sensor > and I've got to say that I like the idea. One pixel site reading all > three colors. It's a good idea with a lot of promise. > > I've also spent the last several days looking at pictures from Sigma SD9 > and SD10 cameras. So far I haven't been impressed. I did the same thing today and I was extrememly impressed. Such high quality reproduction! Digital photography isn't considered ready for prime time by most, if not all photography afficionados, but I doubt many of them have seen what Foveon has to offer or realize how differently their digital technology has developed.
From: jennifer.wilson2 on 25 Jun 2005 11:30 Stacey wrote: > C Wright wrote: > > > Many, many images benefit from sharpening and to say > > that "In general, if you are sharpening at all then your are > > oversharpening." is just plain wrong! As far as the rest of your > > statement about sharpening tending to tending to "flatten" or "invert the > > 3D nature" of an image - huh! > > > Ditto, george is clueless once again about anything related to photography, > nice post.. Stacey, as a woman I'm sure you can see the disadvantages George is talking about. He is right that digital sharpening cannot be equated to sharp lens optics and sharp camera sensors. Digital Photoshop actions are blind to the scene.
From: jennifer.wilson2 on 25 Jun 2005 11:37 Bart van der Wolf wrote: > It was already clear that you don't understand the difference between > monochrome (single color), and spectral band. Each sensel is natively > sensitive to a spectrum of roughly 350 to 1000 nm, and filters > restrict that to 3 (sometimes 4) slightly overlapping spectral bands. George is right, Bayers sensors use monochrome devices. Monochrome is not "one color" as you like to say. Monochrome means grayscale, or no color data, only levels of brightness. Bayer sensors all use monochrome devices that cannot read color data.
From: Skip M on 25 Jun 2005 12:01
<jennifer.wilson2(a)lycos.com> wrote in message news:1119713439.076822.260710(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > Stacey wrote: >> C Wright wrote: >> >> > Many, many images benefit from sharpening and to say >> > that "In general, if you are sharpening at all then your are >> > oversharpening." is just plain wrong! As far as the rest of your >> > statement about sharpening tending to tending to "flatten" or "invert >> > the >> > 3D nature" of an image - huh! >> >> >> Ditto, george is clueless once again about anything related to >> photography, >> nice post.. > > Stacey, as a woman I'm sure you can see the disadvantages George is > talking about. He is right that digital sharpening cannot be equated > to sharp lens optics and sharp camera sensors. Digital Photoshop > actions are blind to the scene. > Just what the heck does gender have to do with it? -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |