And unless I'm missing something here, you're doing it with an image that you retrieved from the web, not took yourself, and have manipulated after that to prove some point about pixels worth of data... am I wrong? If so, please let me know.
Tom C.
From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:23:39 +0200
I don't call it a test of the camera. I call it a visible demonstration of
the information stored in original image file and how poor and unnatural the
outlines are rendered by the Pentax RAW conversion software (this was
already known).
Should you want to keep your eyes closed, you're free to do that, of course.
Somebody else could be interested in knowing and understanding something
better.
No offense intended, just plain straightforward words.
Dario Bonazza
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:55 PM Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
> You can't screw with the picture in Photoshop and call it a test of the
> camera!
>
> Tom C.
>
>
> >From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
> >Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:39:40 +0200
> >
> >Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dario,
> > >
> > > Your posts always make sense and your photographs even more so. I fear
> > > you read too much into my "looks like it's out-of-focus" comment; I
> > > never thought you would be furnishing us with such a picture. I was
> > > criticising the lens performance.
> >
> >Hi Kostas,
> >
> >No, no. My comments are not based on your comment on the F 70-210 lens.
> >They come from 6-months experience with the *ist D and being disappointed
> >in seeing 4-5MP digital compacts allowing larger prints.
> >
> >*ist D folks, do you want me to shock you all?
> >
> >I resized that DA 14mm picture down to 4MP and saved it as best jpeg
> >(Photoshop quality=12), then I closed the file for being sure not to
retain
> >6MP info in Photoshop memory. Then I opened the 4MP file again and I
> >resized
> >it up to 6MP.
> >You can find the result here:
> >http://www.dariobonazza.com/tests/istD_4to6MP.jpg
> >Compare any detail between the original picture and this one (both images
> >side by side on your monitor at 400% or so). You'll see that there are
few
> >if any details lost, while the bad outline interpolation of the Pentax
RAW
> >converter has been fixed, so that the image looks more natural (slanted
and
> >curved lines are smoother, showing less pixelation).
> >
> >Conclusion? The original *ist D picture featured more or less 4MP
> >information in it.
> >For that reason, I consider the *ist D to be a 4MP equivalent camera, at
> >least in RAW/Pentax Lab converter workflow. Hopefully, a decent RAW
> >converter could do something better.
> >
> > > Keep writing and keep showing us your pictures.
> >
> >Of course!
> >
> >Dario Bonazza
