Amazing software, Herb. Not too expensive either.
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 9. juli 2004 02:56
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *istD anti-aliasing?
USM isn't a deblur
Find my replies interspersed, gringo.
I can produce files as sharp as anything with my istD and photoshop CS.
You're obviously a better photographer than me, then. Care to show some pics?
You are probably the type that
Thanks for bringing this discussion up to a personal level.
I
Know Jostein his photography well, do you?
It may be a case of the way things read on the internet, but you did
come across as very nearly attacking Jostein and his photography
personally - especially with the tripod comment etc.
Don't get me wrong, I hear what you are saying - and I am
Yeah, the 10d produces much sharper/nicerimagesIMO. I guess it all comes
down to a personal preference. Every tool is different.
Antonio Russell
On 9/7/04 12:11 am, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And who is
Hey Rob, El Gringo wasn't attacking anyone, he was just making some
valid points about sharpness and the *istD and peoples perception of
it. A tripod may well help. What is the camera slap like on those
things?
Antonio Russell
Rob Brigham wrote:
Know Jostein his photography well, do you?
It
on 09.07.04 11:57, Antonio Aparicio at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Rob, El Gringo wasn't attacking anyone, he was just making some
valid points about sharpness and the *istD and peoples perception of
it. A tripod may well help. What is the camera slap like on those
things?
No, I have the
is not.
I am still hoping that it is just the way that emails distort the
meaning behind what someone is trying to say.
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 July 2004 10:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *istD anti-aliasing?
Hey Rob, El
that it is just the way that emails distort the
meaning behind what someone is trying to say.
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 July 2004 10:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *istD anti-aliasing?
Hey Rob, El Gringo wasn't attacking anyone, he
Mark (or anyone else),
Do you know of a good reference (or could you explain) how these three
properties in the unsharp mask work. I've made some guesses based on
experimentation, but I'd like to be sure I'm doing it right.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/08/04 08:30PM
JosteinPx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 09.07.04 15:40, Steve Desjardins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark (or anyone else),
Do you know of a good reference (or could you explain) how these three
properties in the unsharp mask work. I've made some guesses based on
experimentation, but I'd like to be sure I'm doing it right.
I didn't want to get involved again in the endless *ist D sharpness
discussion, but...
Mark Roberts wrote:
All the reports I've seen indicate than, rather than put in more
softening (a lower frequency anti-aliasing filter, in other words),
Pentax has just applies less sharpening in camera.
I
, etc.
-el gringo
-Original Message-
From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 5:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *istD anti-aliasing?
Find my replies interspersed, gringo.
I can produce files as sharp as anything with my istD and photoshop CS
as the
competition, and personally don't really care.
-Original Message-
From: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 July 2004 16:26
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *istD anti-aliasing?
Well this thread went nuts... Anyhow...
It's not because I'm a better
explorer.
-el gringo
-Original Message-
From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *istD anti-aliasing?
Yeah - sorry about the nuts all that.
However, Jostein had already stated in the thread that he had used CS
RAW
- Original Message -
From: cbwaters
Subject: Re: *istD anti-aliasing? not anymore!
Careful Bill,
Remember the I beat people up and the I've got my lawyer on the
case
threads. You could be smacked with a defamation case! literally!
Defamation requires an identifiable victim
Antonio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry Rob, I don¹t buy into this nonsense about Josteins opinion being more
valid than anyone else's because he has a website and has written this or
that.
That isn't the *reason* his opinion is more valid than yours.
Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I couldn't agree more on your comments about Photoshop, and I'd like to add
one more reason; the filter inside the camera is nowhere near as good as the
ones in Photoshop. :-)
That's really the point I was trying to make. Guess I didn't do it well
enough!
I
On 9 Jul 2004 at 21:21, Jostein wrote:
I guess my complaint with the *istD is that I feel bereft of control over the
degree of anti-aliasing applied. Btw, I'm not entirely sure if it's correct to
call it an anti-aliasing filter when it's implemented in front of the CCD...
I imagine
this also makes it the most predictable and amenable to sharpening using a
true deblurring filter and not just an unsharp mask.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: *istD anti-aliasing
You guys know a lot more about these things than I do, but I can't help but
thinking that since the *istD is softer than other 6 Mpx cameras, and even
softer than other cameras using the same chip, there must be some
differences around. Do we know fer sure that there's _one_ optimal degree of
Jostein wrote:
You guys know a lot more about these things than I do, but I can't help but
thinking that since the *istD is softer than other 6 Mpx cameras, and even
softer than other cameras using the same chip, there must be some
differences around. Do we know fer sure that there's _one_
- Original Message -
From: Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My understanding (and I have no site to confirm this) is that all chips
are
inherently soft. Pentax chose to be very conservative with its in-camera
sharpening. While this gives a softer image, there is less chance of
On 2004-07-08, at 22:49, Jostein wrote:
I'm not sure about the chips being soft. Each sensor in the matrix is a
discrete dot, and putting them all together should create an image
where one
dot equals one pixel. This is true even after the Bayer interpolation,
since
the only thing interpolation
- Original Message -
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And who is right??? ;-)
:-)
From a technical pov, it's always hard to argue with the real experts. I
remember that statement from last autumn, and I'm not going to dispute
anything...
Still, I find the *istD raw files
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 22:49:36 +0200, Jostein wrote:
So far, my impression is that the USM mask is less effective on
slightly soft images.
That doesn't match my experience, but I'm coming at it from film.
Scanned at 4000 dpi, a lot of my film shows up what appears to be grain
aliasing, which is
Um..? Seems like folks here think USM sharpens images. Un-Sharp Mask, AFAICT,
does about the same thing as anti-aliasing does, only it does it at the ass end
of the the process. I think you can compare it to softening a portrait. You can
use a soft filter on the lens, or you can soften when
JosteinPx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You guys know a lot more about these things than I do, but I can't help but
thinking that since the *istD is softer than other 6 Mpx cameras, and even
softer than other cameras using the same chip, there must be some
differences around. Do we know fer sure that
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: *istD anti-aliasing?
You can
use a soft filter on the lens, or you can soften when enlarging.
While the
effect is similar, they certainly do not give exactly the same
results.
In fact, the results pf these two softening methods
I can produce files as sharp as anything with my istD and photoshop CS. I
don't know how you could perceive a difference large enough to be frustrated
by it Maybe it is a case of the grass is always greener... With the
proper lens on the istD, and the right raw converter, I personally feel
Isnt this the way they (DSLRs) all work? Except the full frame Kodak
jobbie which has no AA filter (and has problems with moire etc as a
result I believe).
-Original Message-
From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 July 2004 15:54
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: *istD
On 6 Jul 2004 at 16:53, Jostein wrote:
Gang,
After a chat with a pentax guy today, I got the impression that the *istD
doesn't use much firmware antialiasing, but rely on a softening filter in front
of the CCD to avoid jagged edges. Does anyone have any other info on this?
There is
-Original Message-
From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 July 2004 16:03
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *istD anti-aliasing?
Isnt this the way they (DSLRs) all work? Except the full
frame Kodak jobbie which has no AA filter (and has problems
with moire etc
Thanks, Rob,
I too suspected most DSLR's except the Kodaks to be that way.
Not having seen how a 6 Mpix image would look without anti-aliasing, it makes me
wonder. Nikon has apparently implemented a middle way with D70, doing some of
the anti-aliasing in software instead.
Here's a quote from
Message-
From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 July 2004 17:21
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: *istD anti-aliasing?
Thanks, Rob,
I too suspected most DSLR's except the Kodaks to be that way.
Not having seen how a 6 Mpix image would look without
anti-aliasing
On 6 Jul 2004 at 18:20, Jostein wrote:
Thanks, Rob,
I too suspected most DSLR's except the Kodaks to be that way.
Not having seen how a 6 Mpix image would look without anti-aliasing, it makes me
wonder. Nikon has apparently implemented a middle way with D70, doing some of
the
in the absence of other information, it's not possible.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 7:29 PM
Subject: RE: *istD anti-aliasing?
Their understanding of sampling and aliasing differs from mine
i don't know of anyone doing firmware antialiasing. it's the filter or
nothing.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 10:53 AM
Subject: *istD anti-aliasing?
After a chat with a pentax guy today, I got the
37 matches
Mail list logo
