on 09.06.04 1:34, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, everyone knows that in camera sharpening even on the highest
setting does practically nothing. All the image settings in camera make
very slight changes actually, and the sharpness is the most slight of them
all.
There are a few web pages showing people doing just that.
Many even attempt to clean the scanner's mirror.
Me, I ain't got the nerve.
Andre Langevin wrote
Dust ON the film sure is a problem with scaners but has dust inside
the scanner ever been pointed as part of that problem? If so, would
it be
RS Herein lies the key to our differences in the perception of what's sharp and
RS what's not I guess. Did you notice that all the images were made with the
RS contrast on hard, the saturation high and the sharpening on hard? Even
RS discounting the CA they are dreadful examples IMHO.
Well,
They are already here:
http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/35mm/ist-d/ex.html
--
Best Regards
Sylwek
On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:59, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
on 08.06.04 14:49, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Considering it's a dedicated digital only lens I'm quite surprised that the
chromatic aberrations are still not great at the edges and both images were
shot at f8.
Well, they
On 8 Jun 2004 at 15:14, Dr. Heiko Hamann wrote:
I don't have any ultra-wide-angle comparison, but I would have expected
less distortion (first picture) for a digital optimized prime lens. Look
at the vertron building on the right - seems as it will fall over
soon. Really strange... Or am I
on 08.06.04 15:21, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herein lies the key to our differences in the perception of what's sharp and
what's not I guess. Did you notice that all the images were made with the
contrast on hard, the saturation high and the sharpening on hard? Even
discounting
on 08.06.04 15:37, Sylwester Pietrzyk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, indeed, I didn't noticed this, now I can see this in Photo Browser. But
I wrote seems' as we don't have samples from other lenses made in the same
place and identical parameters to compare with...
Well, anyway it is stupid.
Hi Rob,
on 08 Jun 04 you wrote in pentax.list:
That's just natural perspective distortion as the lens was pointed
downwards, it could have been largely avoided if the shot was set up
more skilfully.
Thanks Rob, that calms me down ;-)
Cheers, Heiko
-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Samples from DA14/2.8!
On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:07, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
They are already here:
http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/35mm/ist-d/ex.html
Considering it's
actually, and the sharpness is the most slight of them
all.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Samples from DA14/2.8!
On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:59, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote
: Samples from DA14/2.8!
SK On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:07, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
They are already here:
http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/35mm/ist-d/ex.html
SK Considering it's a dedicated digital only lens I'm quite surprised that the
SK chromatic aberrations are still not great at the edges
Perhaps Pentax need to do an IR scan of the sensor surface and try to do
some ICE work - LOL!
Man, that would be cool though...
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 June 2004 20:14
To: Shawn K.
Subject: Re[2]: Samples from DA14/2.8!
Yeah
After having scanned about a thousand rolls, I can tell you that the
dust on the sensor feels like a bit less of a problem than the film
damage.
Bruce
Dust ON the film sure is a problem with scaners but has dust inside
the scanner ever been pointed as part of that problem? If so, would
it be
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 3:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[2]: Samples from DA14/2.8!
After having scanned about a thousand rolls, I can tell you that the
dust on the sensor feels like a bit less of a problem than the film
damage.
Bruce
Dust ON the film sure is a problem
On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:03, Shawn K. wrote:
I have to disagree with you here Rob. The 16-45 has CA problems worse than this
that I've seen, so it doesn't surprise me, especially since this lens is 14mm,
and that alone is a difficult thing to accomplish...
I'm not so sure. The difficulty in
One of the little bits of wisdom I have picked up along the way is
that for a lens to have optimal correction, it needs to have the rear
nodal point somewhere in the vicinity of the lens.
With the 40 something millimeter flange to focal plane distance that
most 35mm SLR's have (this includes the
Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Samples from DA14/2.8!
One of the little bits of wisdom I have picked up along the way is
that for a lens to have optimal correction, it needs to have the rear
nodal point
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Samples from DA14/2.8!
On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:03, Shawn K. wrote:
I have to disagree with you here Rob. The 16-45 has CA problems worse
than
On 8 Jun 2004 at 21:52, Shawn K. wrote:
Rob, please now, spare your BS,
No problems, I'll spare you directly from now on, you best set up a mail filter
otherwise.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
20 matches
Mail list logo
