Not exactly right, JCO. I can't process my film scans in exactly the same manner as my digital work, because I sharpen my *istD images in the RAW converter. It does a much better job with fewer artifacts than using Unsharp Mask in photoshop. On the other hand, I'm not sure I've fully mastered all the intricacies of Unsharp Mask.
> False. You can process the film scans the same way you process digital > captured images > to get the same edge sharpness as the digital AND detail from fine grain > 35mm film scans. > > And regarding the edge sharpness, it looks bad on a large print when the > edges > are overemphisized. Very "fake" looking compared to a true high > resolution image > without the phony edges. Overdone edge sharpness and lack of details > only looks > good on small images, blow them up and they look terrible compared to a > true high > resolution image without the phony overdone edges...(sorry for repeating > myself but > I aint deleting!) > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: *istDs samples are here! > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote on 22.10.04 16:13: > > > I have never seen anyone claim that 6MP ( non-foveon ) > > DSLRS are capable of "considerably sharper" or even as > > sharp images than 35mm full frame fine grain film. Lower noise/ grain > > yes, sharper or as sharp as fine grain FF film, no. > You've mistaken sharpness with resolution... Photos from DSLRs have far > better edge sharpness than the ones from 35mm and thanks to this they > just look sharper on prints despite they are not able to show as many > fine detail as good low-grain film... > > -- > Best Regards > Sylwek > >
