Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I use GF, and it does a good job of preserving sharp edge definition when >you extrapolate images. > >You can't take a thumbnail and blow it up to full size with decent results, >but taking a good sized scan and enlarging it by 50 works OK, and I've >taken 3.3 mexapixel shots and blow them up to 12x18 - a huge increase in >size - and they have held their own. > >I recently read something about acuity (the sharpness of edges) vs >resolution (the ability to pull out fine detail.) It occurred to me that >digital cameras are hi acuity / low resolution devices (relatively >speaking.) Since GF cannot compensate for a lack of resolution (it the >detail isn't there, it can't be extrapolated) but does a great job keeping >sharp edges sharp, it is particularly well suited for digital shots.
That is confirmed by my experiences. I found GF worked extremely well on the *ist-D shots I took a couple of weeks ago, and on 1125 dpi scans (the highest resolution available on my Minolta Scan Multi II) from medium format film, which are similarly high-acuity/low-resolution. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
