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
