 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / August 2007The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox
Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow" factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The film "looks better" even if the digital image has as much detail or perhaps more. I have been experimenting with a number of cameras and I find that my recently acquired Sigma SD10 produces "wow" factor jpegs (after conversion) and for me its 3.4 megapixel images are better to look at than the 10.2 megapixel images coming out of my Sony DSC-R1 although they print the same. I read somewhere that Sigma will be dropping use of the Foveon sensors and going for the more usual Bayer pattern sensor. I think this is a shame. They recently brought out the Sigma SD14. Just think if they continued down that path and brought out an SD22. They would be getting into the realms of MF photography if they did with their photos having the same "wow" factor as film. I'll try to web the Sigma SD10 and the Sony DSC-R1 images on www.pbase.com until the free subscription runs out so you can see what I mean about the "wow" factor of the Sigma image. > Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow" > factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > until the free subscription runs out so you can see what I mean about > the "wow" factor of the Sigma image. This image typifies the "wow" factor for me. This is from an SD14. http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/landscape/img/sd14-la-012.jpg >> Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow" >> factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> look at than the 10.2 megapixel images coming out of my Sony DSC-R1 >> although they print the same. Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then downsample (using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images. > This image typifies the "wow" factor for me. This is from an SD14. > http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/landscape/img/sd14-la-012.jpg Yep. I just love the snap-to-grid effect. Not. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >> Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow" > >> factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing > artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images. A very interesting claim. It so happens I don't have any suitable downsampling software for the task you describe so I was wondering if you had time to do this and send me the resulting image. I will then web that with the other two. This is the Sigma SD10 image: http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original This is the Sony DSC-R1 image: http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495 > > This image typifies the "wow" factor for me. This is from an SD14. > >http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/landscape/img/sd14-la-012.jpg [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan >> Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then >> downsample [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A very interesting claim. It so happens I don't have any suitable > downsampling software for the task you describe Photoshop or any other software will do it... > so I was wondering if > you had time to do this and send me the resulting image. I will then [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This is the Sony DSC-R1 image: > http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495 That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of aliasing artifacts. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original David J. Littleboy davidjl@gol.com Tokyo, Japan > >> Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then > >> downsample [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > davi...@gol.com > Tokyo, Japan Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher for the Sony image. >> > This is the Sigma SD10 image: >> > http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> aliasing >> artifacts. Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building to the right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as _equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width. If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma loses it pretty badly on the roofs. >> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original > > Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not > quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher > for the Sony image. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >> > This is the Sigma SD10 image: > >> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as > _equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width. I agree with that. The Sony does that better. > If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more > examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the > Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma > loses it pretty badly on the roofs. I agree with that again but the Sony image looks bad even though it is holding more details. There are a lot of distracting effects that spoil the image. The rendering on the walls on the building behind looks unreal rather than like a true texture. The rooves look better, that is true, but maybe only because I have oversharpened. If you look at the corner on the wall of the Sony image of the building behind to the left of the TV mast then the Sony image makes it look like there is a drainpipe running down the corner edge when there is not. The lower roof of the rear building where the bird is standing looks as though it had a black edge with a white line on top. The people standing and sitting in front of the Br?tlibar restaurant look vague and unreal. They are too large and their lack of detail is distracting. The foreground wall on the right with the public seating in front has an unreal texture. The "Tel 06" on the blue bin behind this wall does not show the "06" clearly while the Sigma photo does. The six "BAR" red lettering in the top windows below the "don't worry - be happy Bar" neon sign look more like red curtain material in the Sony photo, though downsized it looks better. The people sat below the "TicketCorner" notice in the tram shelter look unclear. The people in the posters to the left of the blue bin look unclear as do the real people in front of the Rio Bar and the Zum Braunen Mutz. The Sony picture is too big for the amount of detail it is showing and to me the image looks bad. Printed out, it might look a bit better than the Sigma photo, but to look at it on a computer screen then to me the Sigma photo looks more like a print than the Sony photo does and is easier on the eyes. It draws my view rather than repelling it. Perhaps if I could send you the Sony photo jpeg as it came out of the camera and you did a careful downsizing then the downsized Sony photo might look better. As you rightly said, the downsized Sony photo was showing some horrendous artifacts in places, though I thought overall it looked better. > >>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan > > >> > This is the Sigma SD10 image: > > >> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I was looking at the slats next to the Apotheke building on the floor above. Today, looking at them, they were not regular. maybe the Sony was showing false details that human eyes would prefer to see and the Sigma was showing it more accurately. I will go back there now and photograph a more detailed image. > > > >> > This is the Sigma SD10 image: > > > >> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Here are the slats as photographed today. The Sigma appears to have done a better job at reproducing them than the Sony. http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84205472 Recently, RolandRB <rolandberry@hotmail.com> posted: >>>>>>> This is the Sigma SD10 image: >>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84205472 Very interesting, and just the kind of difference I would expect from a Bayer-pattern vs. Foveon comparison! Neil > Recently, RolandRB <rolandbe...@hotmail.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Me too but both methods have their strengths and weaknesses and both methods are let down by the practicalities of using that method. A Bayer 10.2 megapixel sensor should beat a Foveon 3.4x3 megapixel sensor hands down in terms of its black & white resolution. The color guessing should be a minor problem but would depend any case on the interpolation software. The problem I see with using the Bayer pattern is that an anti-aliasing filter is required to stop color Moiré patterns. The Foveon sensor also has a regular array and so will suffer Moiré patterns as well but less often and indeed, the Sigma SD10 does not use an anti-aliasing filter. It is this introduced blur of the anti-aliasing filter needed by the Bayer sensor that causes a problem in that to undo the effects of the blur is not being handled well in the software and perhaps it can't be. And where they try to sharpen the blur then "unreal" detail come in that is annoying to look at. But the the Foveon sensor has its faults as well. Colors are not clearly distinct and two sensors can detect the same light freqeuncy if the frequency falls between colors. Reds on the Foveon sensor are not good because of this but then at the same time it gives a better resolution for reds as red squares are only one quarter of the Bayer pattern -- same as blue. My own personal preference is that I want digital images to look good on a computer monitor and to print the same. The Foveon sensor images suit this although their colors can be misleading. It's a case of "swings and roundabouts". Recently, RolandRB <rolandberry@hotmail.com> posted: >> Very interesting, and just the kind of difference I would expect >> from a Bayer-pattern vs. Foveon comparison! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is that an anti-aliasing filter is required to stop color Moiré > patterns. That is the common line of thinking, but in practice I don't think it is a major issue. Leica's DMR lacks an anti-aliasing filter, and as a result can resolve a scene better than cameras with 50% more pixels. The number of times that Moiré issues ruin the shot is probably less than those ruined by the loss of resolution. [...] > My own personal preference is that I want digital images to look good > on a computer monitor and to print the same. The Foveon sensor images > suit this although their colors can be misleading. It's a case of > "swings and roundabouts". Or, TANSTAAFL... Neil > Recently, RolandRB <rolandbe...@hotmail.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of times that Moiré issues ruin the shot is probably less than those > ruined by the loss of resolution. I agree although there will be situations where it would be a waste of time to even try taking a shot without an anti-aliasing filter. With an anti-aliasing filter you can take that shot but like you say, the downside is the lack of resolution. It is a shame this filter can not be switched in and out and so only used as the need arises. I don't know why manufacturers haven't implemented this in some cameras although I guess moving parts near the sensor would give rise to abrasion and perhaps specks on the sensor. > [...]> My own personal preference is that I want digital images to look good > > on a computer monitor and to print the same. The Foveon sensor images [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Neil > A very interesting claim. It so happens I don't have any suitable > downsampling software for the task you describe so I was wondering if [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This is the Sony DSC-R1 image: > http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495 Irfanview has a great one, just use the " Lanczos " algorythm in the drop down to the lower right of the rezise dialog box, you'll get fine results, download it for free. AAvK Ever heard the term " sigmatism "? I think you have a perfect case! AAvK |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.