On 11 Mar 2004 at 18:46, Joseph Tainter wrote: > Overall I prefer the Pentax conversion. > > When I first looked at this I thought "Oh, ****, I will have to get > Windows XP and PS CS." Looking at the images more closely, perhaps I > don't need to after all.
I just managed to have a quick look at the large composite image, I'm amazed. To my mind the Pentax convertor image (left) looks like it was taken with an inferior lens. I see loss of detail and micro-contrast. Look at the detail in the lips, the eyes, and cheeks it's virtually filtered out in the Pentax version. Then in the Pentax image there is an hideous over sharpened look which can clearly be seen on the boarder of the jacket and background foliage and on the light blue to dark blue transition on the hood. The background foliage also seems to have acquired strange blotches of colour which look reminiscent of jpg low compression artifacts. My vote goes to the CS convertor (right image) I think it's got far more pleasing attributes technically. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
