Am I oversharpening
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Tetractys on 30 May 2005 16:57 <george_preddy(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... How could an 8MP recording not look > horrid with only 2M pixels worth of actual > full color optical data? So "2M pixels worth of ... data" = "horrid." And ... > At 2MP, image quality is sharp, 3D, and life like. You sure are a confused fellow, George.
From: Bart van der Wolf on 30 May 2005 18:21 <george_preddy(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1117486367.148808.280940(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... SNIP > Like it or not, well focused Foveon images don't need sharpening > in post processing. Don't need? They wouldn't allow it, if you don't want to enhance aliasing artifacts. > Why? Because the images are recorded at the sensor's > optical resolution--one dedicated RGB tiple for every RGB recorded > pixel. Nonsense, aliasing will add artifacts. Finer detail than the sensor can resolve will be imaged as larger detail, which cannot be undone after the fact. > Bayers record a 400% upscale by default, [...] Nonsense, again, as usual. > My 1DMkII, for example, is a 2MP camera. Nonsense, again, as usual. Bart
From: C Wright on 30 May 2005 19:03 On 5/30/05 3:42 PM, in article 1117485741.612985.156090(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "george_preddy(a)yahoo.com" <george_preddy(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > My point stands. Digital sharpening ruins images because it plows > through every pixel blindly, instead of leaving sharpness/blur to > optics. That is why film lovers hate digital, the result is flat and > lifeless, often even inverted. > > If you sharpnen digitally, you are simply exceeding the capabilites of > your camera at the expense of quality. The only proper way to handle > digital images that are breaking down is to print them at the size they > were intended. There are no acceptable algorithmic crutches that can > substitute for sensor count. > George (if that is your name) you are a piece of work! Any digital sharpening that I have done does not plow through every pixel blindly. Sharpening that I am familiar with is adjustable according to threshold, radius and degree or amount. Millions of images taken by thousands of digital photographers, and sharpened digitally, disprove your assertion that they are all exceeding the capabilities of their cameras at the expense of quality. Of course there are some flat and lifeless digital images out there but, there were/are an equal degree of flat and lifeless film images as well!
From: george_preddy on 30 May 2005 19:27 Tetractys wrote: > <george_preddy(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > ... How could an 8MP recording not look > > horrid with only 2M pixels worth of actual > > full color optical data? > > So "2M pixels worth of ... data" = "horrid." At 8MP recorded, yes. 2MP isn't enough to support that, which is why 1DMkII images look so flat and blurry right out of camera. When downsized to the sensor's actual RGB data gathering apability (2MP), the images look great. > And ... > > > At 2MP, image quality is sharp, 3D, and life like. > > You sure are a confused fellow, George. You can see Foveon's 10.3MP clarity advantage over the 1DMkII here... http://www.pbase.com/sharpness Applying fake sharpening to a 2MP image recorded at 8MP is obviously not the answer.
From: george_preddy on 30 May 2005 19:41
Bart van der Wolf wrote: > <george_preddy(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1117486367.148808.280940(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > SNIP > > Like it or not, well focused Foveon images don't need sharpening > > in post processing. > > Don't need? They wouldn't allow it, if you don't want to enhance > aliasing artifacts. Any optically sharp digital image will show the same degree of stair stepping where there is a sharp edge. 10MP, 100MP, 1000000MP, it doesn't matter--pixels are rectangular, not vectorized. > > Why? Because the images are recorded at the sensor's > > optical resolution--one dedicated RGB tiple for every RGB recorded > > pixel. > > Nonsense, aliasing will add artifacts. Finer detail than the sensor > can resolve will be imaged as larger detail, which cannot be undone > after the fact. Foveon doesn't have any such problem, because the image isn't upscaled beyond it's optical resolution. Every dot in every image is optical. > > Bayers record a 400% upscale by default, [...] > > Nonsense, again, as usual. Only if you were fooled into thinking a 1DMkII has 8MP of full color sensors. Most buyers, no doubt, were fooled like you. A 1DMkII only is only 8MP-monochrome, not 8MP-full-color. That's why it isn't competitive in terms of optical full color resolution with a 3.5MP-full-color Foveon image. See... http://www.pbase.com/sharpness But as I said 8MP-monochrome, 2MP-color, isn't all that bad. A sharp 8x10 is finally doable. Though 8MP-monochrome, assuming low noise and decent 35mm optics, is the bare minimum Bayer I'd entertain. |