> > From: "Bob Rapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/06/26 Mon PM 12:03:07 GMT > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Print sizes and megapixels > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Based on Print sizes and Megapixels, I made a little test with my film > >> scanner. I scanned an image that had a huge amount of detail. First at > >> 5400 > >> dpi and then 2700 dpi. The 2700 was downsized to match a 6mp image and > >> then > >> upsized to match the original. You can see the results here: > >> > >> > >> http://www.users.on.net/~bobrapp/test/pictures.html > > > > I'm not sure what this test does. If you don't start with two images of a > > scene, one film, one RAW sensor data, what is the point? > > > > I see the "home" link really _does_ mean "home". 8-) > > > > I was trying to demonstrate that detail cannot be restored or created > when upsizing an image. Only additional data (higher resolution image) can > create that. Apart from that, the upsized image can make the scene look like > a plastic model. > When I increase a RAW file with ACR, chromatic aberrations become a real > problem - especially in areas of high contrast. I don't find that a problem > with film.
OK. Still not convinced about your methodology, though. 8-) The cartoon effect is one of the things I don't like about present day digital imaging. I wonder if it's a cultural thing as so many other people seem not to see it. It's quite odd for me, as I really like the painterly look of early Kodachrome. Are you saying that ACR increases CA disproportionately or that it is introducing it? mike ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
