Let's all remember that this is basically a P&S digital for Joe and Jane Sixpack, not a "flagship" for enthusiasts.
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 4:44 AM Subject: Re: Disappointing test samples of Optio S > > I agree with Henry that the pixel structure looks bad when viewed at > >400%, but the tones in the pixels all together, eg. in the girl's > face, are all pretty close to each other. No pixels with stray > colours. > > However, I think the camera soft/firmware has room for improvement > when it comes to smoothening the tonal gradations between pixels. I > don't think the colour depth is an issue here, only the distribution > of tones. For all I know, this might be possible to amend with a > soft/firmware upgrade. > > Given the peculiar sliding lens construction, I'm more worried about > the obvious chromatic aberrations in the upper left corner of the > image. > > Jostein > > Btw, I use a 19" Eizo monitor at 1280x1024 and 32 bit colour. It's > calibrated with Adobe Gamma loader. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 5:38 AM > Subject: Re: Disappointing test samples of Optio S > > > > > > > > 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 > > >
