brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On
|
 p.9 #7 · 5DmkII less sharp than 5D! | |
hhski wrote:
When I read the OP post I didnt understand what the purpose of the post was. Well stupid me. I cannot believe people making a decision on a camera over a 200%-300% crop they looked at on their monitor. I agree completely with you(thejavaman) pick your print size and have at it. Which camera wins. I made some comparison shots with my 5DmkII and 1DmkIII full size at full screen they are close and out of the camera I liked the 1D3 better. Start cropping the 5D is the winner. I printed these at 8x12 and conclusion confirmed. Im tired of the noise at 200% comments what do those people buy cameras for status or pictures.
There is a direct correlation between how much noise you see on screen, the number of pixels, and how much noise you will see in print. If two files are displayed on screen at the same magnification, and one is noisier than the other by a discernible amount, then it is overwhelmingly likely that the noisier file on screen will produce the noisier print. People are so keen to highlight the differences between screen and print, that you would think the two have nothing in common, and that adding red in photoshop will make a print greener. Our systems are designed to make screen and print representations as close as possible, and it is generally true that if you see a difference between two files on screen, that difference will also be visible in some (large enough) print. In many ways a good monitor is just as good a representation of the image data as a print is, especially considering you can look very closely at the data by zooming. That's why I always use analysis of images on screen in order to choose which camera to buy. BUT, I am always careful to display images from different cameras at identical magnification, so that scrutiny is fair. To do this I uprez the lower megapixel file to the same number of pixels as the higher, and sharpen optimally. This method gives the most accurate way of assessing a camera's file quality independently of any deviant printing system, and believe me, they are all deviant, and more so than most well-calibrated monitors.
The argument that only a print is a reliable way to compare image quality from two cameras completely ignores the fact that printers and prints vary enormously, and unreliably, and next year you are as likely to change your printer as your monitor. In fact, it is quite possible to favour a camera that has a tendency to produce green shadows simply because you are testing it using a printer which prints pink shadows. Monitors can err in this way too, but the point is that printing is a no more reliable way to test cameras than careful on-screen assessment. One common reason why so many mistrust on-screen assessment is that they have failed to compare files at identical magnification, and have therefore been surprised when prints reverse an apparent superiority which only arose due to on-screen assessment at highly unequal magnification.
Calibrate your monitor, and trust it, even to choose a camera, but do be sure to compare cameras at identical magnification, even if that means uprezzing the sparser file.
|
