Bicubic resize averages for each pixel the surrounding pixels, smearing the image. So it's not a question of altering or not altering - it's a question in which way you alter it. - ENLIGHTENMENT!!!
I blamed facebook image upload for not entirely its fault.
mMontag wrote:
With the Zeiss costing $1,000 more than the Canon w/ auto & IS - that Canon is looking pretty good - PP, sharpness and colors are relative - bokeh will of course be subjective. Post this over on the Canon Forum for opposing "point of view".
Really? I think the difference is pretty dramatic. For instance the difference between the 100L and my 70-200/II zoom is much smaller than that and then we are comparing a zoom (albeit an excellent one) to a prime lens.
To me at least the difference seems pretty dramatic. If you look closely you'll see that the resolution is there with the Canon - it does pick up the detail but the micro contrast is so weak that you barely notice it and the image looks much softer. Of course this is relative. Without seeing the Zeiss image in comparison we would have all agreed that the Canon image was sharp.
Hehe, it was for me as well when I discovered it. To give you an idea of what a difference it makes, take a look at these two samples (open in separate tabs and flip between them):
One is the standard PS bicubic and the other one is using a multiple-step sharpen & resize.
TAGfan wrote:
Wow, that difference is definitely noticeable. If the Canon is indeed focused correctly, I would have thought it would be sharper than that.
The Canon is very sharp, it's just that the local contrast is so low that it is difficult to see. It could certainly be improved upon in PP (bumping clarity and USM). The software tricks won't of course bring it to the level of the real thing, but still it can be improved a lot in PP.
By the way, that was shot on my balcony with an overcast sky so light was completely flat - that reduces the apparent sharpness as well.
more than canon vs zeiss I feel. Can you write the steps to do this multi-step sharpen and resize more explicitly. This is something everyone should know I feel and there would be many ignorants like me who can be benefitted by this. Thanks for showing me the light!!!
jfreak wrote:
more than canon vs zeiss I feel. Can you write the steps to do this multi-step sharpen and resize more explicitly. This is something everyone should know I feel and there would be many ignorants like me who can be benefitted by this. Thanks for showing me the light!!!
Sure, I have a couple of scripts for different resolutions. The basic photoshop action for the images I post here looks like this (landscape photos):
1. Sharpen
2. Sharpen
3. Image Size, Width=3000px
4. Unsharp Mask, 150%, Radius 0.5 Pixels
5. Image Size, Width=2000px
6. Smart Sharpen, Amount 77%, Radius 0.3 Pixels
7. Image Size, Width = 1024px
If I feel that I need to, I add a Smart Sharpen 100%, radius 0.2 pixels at the end as well. Obviously in the comparison 100L/100MP samples no additional sharpening was added - I just used the standard script.
By the way, you should not take my script too literally and you should experiment yourself. I just put it together in five minutes and have not bothered to optimize it. I really should as sharpening has a significant impact on the look of the final image.
jfreak wrote:
Can you write the steps to do this multi-step sharpen and resize more explicitly. This is something everyone should know I feel and there would be many ignorants like me who can be benefitted by this. Thanks for showing me the light!!!
I was just about to shoot over a PM as not to detract from the thread, but since the OP asked I wouldn't mind reading your workflow on this too.
At the risk of sounding ignorant, when it comes to PP I only know what I've stumbled into. Typically on the full res image I use Photoshop smart sharpen, usually 150-200% @ 0.5 radius. Then I resize for the web and smart sharpen again usually 30-60% @ 0.3-.4 radius. The results look ok to me I guess... but there is always room for improvement. I notice Flickr always has some effect as well... but it's much better than posting images on Facebook.
edit: oops, guess I should have refreshed before posting. Some of you guys are too fast.
TY. This is new to me. I had just been using the LR for the sharpening and with a guilt that I am adding sharpening. I feel so much better now. Thank you denoir and everyone.
jfreak - it seems that you need to spend a bit more time with your 100 MP ZE and a bit less time switchings lenses.
Just use the Zeiss for a good two weeks, just so you get use to it. Then start looking at your images.
It's hard to explain but I find when I switch lenses it takes me a while to retune myself to the lens, as you mentally approach subjects differently depending on your intuition from knowing your lens. I suspect right now you're in tune with the canon lens, so your brain is working to find ways to make your 100L images shine. That and every time you do a comparison shit you probably do it with a slight defeatist attitude, which effects your possible great shot.
I know this sounds a bit crazy, but try it out. If the lens doesn't work for you, it'll sell...
BTW it's my favorite of the 5 ZEs I own. Though I like photographing people, so obviously my wides don't stand a chance.
I chose the canon over the zeiss for versatility and so far I love the colours then again I haven't used the zeiss before and if I did I know it would leave me wanting.
The price is just honestly too steep for a 100mm 1:2 macro lens..
It's really nice to shoot 1/30 a second handheld in dusk or morning light
My first ZE will be the 35mm f/2 which I will be comparing to my 35 1.4 (one of the most popular high end canon primes I'm sure I'd have no trouble selling either).
Apples and Oranges indeed
Yakim Peled wrote:
I wish I could say the same. Bad eyes I guess.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim, are you kidding me? You really can't see the difference?
I think he's screwing around guys!..
I mean maybe you can't see $1k worth of difference, that would be fine with me. Because that would be personal opinion, and I would respect that, and to some extent I'd even agree with you. Though to say you can't see a difference at all, that's down right crazy. Are you using a 256 color monitor hahah... {Nervous laugh as I worry for Yakim's sight, and hope the above mentioned surgery goes well}
BTW, this is the type of difference that when shooting a not so mundane object, you really see the lens shine. Don't even think about it on a macro point of view, but you see so much more detail in the mug, in it's textures, it really gives the mug some life. Now image that, but shooting a flower, animal, or even a person (as I shoot) or trees, its just the lens gives so much more life to the images.
Well that's my opinion on the matter...
adamdewilde wrote:
Yakim, are you kidding me? You really can't see the difference?
I think he's screwing around guys!..
I mean maybe you can't see $1k worth of difference, that would be fine with me. Because that would be personal opinion, and I would respect that, and to some extent I'd even agree with you. Though to say you can't see a difference at all, that's down right crazy. Are you using a 256 color monitor hahah... {Nervous laugh as I worry for Yakim's sight, and hope the above mentioned surgery goes well}
BTW, this is the type of difference that when shooting a not so mundane object, you really see the lens shine. Don't even think about it on a macro point of view, but you see so much more detail in the mug, in it's textures, it really gives the mug some life. Now image that, but shooting a flower, animal, or even a person (as I shoot) or trees, its just the lens gives so much more life to the images.
Well that's my opinion on the matter......Show more →
Of course I see the difference, but IMHO it is far from dramatic. Marginal is the word I'd use. And when you combine it with the 1:2 magnification ratio, with the lack of AF and with the added cash and the Canon looks like the lens to buy. FWIW, I'd forego the AF issue but the 1:2 magnification ratio is the real deal breaker for me. Humble apologies to all Zeiss lovers but it looks like a bad deal to me. I would not consider buying it even if it was priced the same as the Canon.
Again, good for you - you'll save some cash. I think you will find that you are the holder of a minority opinion on how dramatic the difference is. Not that it matters - your own lens preferences are the only important thing.
If the difference in performance here doesn't seem dramatic to you then the 100L would have been a bad choice as well. A Canon 18-135 super has a fairly small MFD and is much more versatile and cheap. The difference between it and the 100L is about as dramatic as the one between the 100L and the Zeiss 100MP.
To me on the other hand the Zeiss is a very good deal - the closest lens in terms of performance is the Leica 100 APO - priced at about €4,000. So it could have been a lot more expensive.
Two pics of many I shot yesterday to see the zeiss look in 100 MP ZE. Can you tell which one is zeiss and which one is canon. These are not same images but shot on similar settings(not same), same camera and couple of minutes after each other. converted with photoshop and sharpened using the great info provided by denoir. (many thanks, I can't say enough).
You can always see the exif but that is not the point here and it is no exam. Also I know this is a poor way to find out what I am asking but I have not tried to change any image to look like other or anything of that sort.
Not easy. The third one is definitely the Zeiss. You can see the spatial ('3D') quality if you open it in a new tab. Looking at the detail and color of his hair, I'd say that #1 is also Zeiss and therefor #2 is Canon. I think
sharpened using the great info provided by denoir. (many thanks, I can't say enough).
No need to thank me, just spread the gospel - there are too many unsharpened resized images in the world
Ah this is fun. And I'll be happy if I guess right or wrong... If 'm right, then I will be worthy of the Zeiss (just gotta find a way to afford the dough, too!).
If I'm wrong, well I'll save a lot of money and be as content as others when they own a Zeiss
1. Clearly is the best pic, large amount of detail and contrast, while at fairly large aperture. ZEISS!
2. Stopped down and still looks kinda washed out (I thought it was missed focus at first). CANON!
3. Stopped down similarly to (2) but much better contrast and detail rendition again. ZEISS!
Turns out I've come to the same conclusion as denoir
I think I am not worthy of zeiss coz I can see the things only once pointed out by people. Pls dont tell my wife because if she came to know of my abilities in seeing those things that I tell her (and impress her with my keen understanding of photography), I will never ever be allowed to buy any more lens ( Well, I am still now allowed but I have hopes alive ).
hahah... {Nervous laugh as I worry for Yakim's sight, and hope the above mentioned surgery goes well}
