Henry Henry wrote: > > Hi Keith, > > I just report what I saw with my eyes, which of course is not a scientific > way to judge the image quality.
We take photos for our and other's eyes, so what better criteria? > I saw horrible noise and artifects at the children's faces, at 100% view > from my Sony LCD monitor which is set at 1024x768 pixels. I watch it pixel > by pixel. "Horrible noise and artifacts!?" Those problem pixels locations are lost on me! My .27 mm dot pitch cathode ray tube monitor CAN be set at 1280 x 1024, but IS set at 832 x 624, so I can make out the pixels and other little items on the screen, and the kid's blemishes do not stand out for me! Maybe I should save up for a new Sony LCD monitor, and get some new eyes? ;^) > I have done a crop on the original large photo and put it on my web server: > > http://www.irenhenry.com/imgp0125-crop.jpg That crop, with both kids, displays at a little over 10" wide, on my screen, while the same area (width) from the original jpg measured at about 12" or a shade over, as I recall. But, that's beside the point, as I _still_ can't discern any gross problems with your crop of that image! Now, I blew it up to 200 and then 400% of the original 2048 x 1536 image, so as to make the boy's head measure 5.5" top of cap to chin, and now I start to find pixellation at the top of the boy's ears (highlights?) and top of her turtleneck fabric. Maybe having to blow it up that far to see it is a good thing! When I get my Optio 550... or will it be the OptioS ? I'll just have to hope they display as well at the same resolution. > If it is the problem of my monitor, I probably have to buy another one > before my *ist-D arrive. Let's hope it isn't, and you get to keep it! keith > Cheers! > > Henry > 16/3/2003 > > >From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Disappointing test samples of Optio S > >Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:50:54 -0800 > > > >Henry, > > > >I have a 17" monitor, and I viewed the children's .jpg in "Expanded > >View," which turns out to be 30" wide (roughly 2 1/2 screen widths for > >my monitor) and looked carefully at the children's faces. > >From 30" viewing distance, I found it very hard to discern any degradation. > >With prior notice, like you gave us, I might be persuaded that there > >might be some, but would casual viewing notice it? Not at all... > >If I got up to within 11" of the monitor screen, I noticed some areas > >where the skin tone MIGHT be degraded, but it could also be smudges on > >the cheek or forehead. Nothing like what I expected from your description. > > > >I particularly liked the detail in the shadows of the shrine > >structure. > > > >Overall, not bad at all in my humble opinion. > > > >If one expects to produce National Geographic quality images, you'll > >have to buy a 12 or 16 Mpixel camera, not a 3 Mpixel one! > >For what it _is_, I think it did a quite commendable job. > > > >keith whaley > >_ _ _ _ > > > >Henry Henry wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > The Taiwanese website Photosharp has posted two test samples of Optio S: > > > > > > > >http://www.digital.idv.tw/dc-test/Pentax/OptioS/intro/index-optioS-intro.htm > > > > > > http://www.digital.idv.tw/spec/dgpentax/OptioS/imgp0087.jpg > > > http://www.digital.idv.tw/spec/dgpentax/OptioS/imgp0125.jpg > > > > > > The colour rendition is on the saturated side and image noise is on the > > > high side (on the shadow of the Chinese roof at photo 1 and on the > > > faces/clothes of the children in photo 2). A bit disappointing... > > > > > > My desire for *ist-D has cooled down a bit... > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Henry > > > 15/3/2003
