Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS Resolution Tests! |
We are drifting a bit off topic, but it still has some relevance to lens sharpness.
I am familiar with the sharpening techniques you mention. Normally, I would sharpen more for print, but this example was meant both for display presentation and for print testing. If I presented a crop that was sharpened more, I would expect comments the other way, that it looked oversharpened.
And my ppi numbers are not multiples of 60. They are fractions of 720. It has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that the printer driver for mye Epson 3800 interpolates the image to 360 or 720 (if \"finest detail\" is checked) ppi using Nearest Neighbour interpolation before sending it to the printer. I don\'t know if you printer drives does that. If I print directly from resolutions that are not fractions of 720, I get jaggies and interference patterns.
It has also been suggested that interpolation in software followed by sending the interpolated image to the printer results in interpolating the image twice rather than only a single time in the printer. There have been some test of prints made both ways (e.g. allowing the resolution to end up being whatever it is, such as maybe 325.76 versus interpolating to get 240 or 300 or 360 or whatever) and the results have included a) the former looks better than the latter, b) the latter looks better than the former, and c) no one can see the difference in the print.
For my part, I don\'t interpolate in software unless the resolution will fall to quite low levels, though I do a test print to check and then try both approaches if there is a question.
It sure would be fun to look at prints rather than speculating about what one another\'s prints look like! Maybe we or the FM forum could consider some sort of local meetups where some of us who print and so forth could share prints and actually meet real people!
Ah Dan, my point; guess your analysis missed this, is that your regular joe \'doesn\'t give a flying flock about distortion and or image degradation\' they don\'t have \'print centered\' critical eyes, they don\'t care, it\'s just a pretty picture and the easier viewed the better. That was my point...basic pixel/monitor knowledge would reveal this...but again the average Joe \'don\'t care\', has not clue of resolution.
Due try not to over analyze or take prose out of context simply to fuel your continue diatribe...it looks silly.
I can\'t persuade you, perhaps, to consider that trying to take a thoughtful and analytical look at something is not equivalent to \"diatribe,\" so that will be what it will be.
I think that if you look at what I write from a slightly different perspective you will figure out that I agree about how the \"average joe\" would look at all this stuff. I agree with you more or less completely that the stuff we are discussing here is insignificant in normal viewing of photographs, especially as a whole on a monitor.
There is an obvious trap in forum discussions of stuff, and I think this topic illustrates it well. Some issues are technical and they raise some occasionally arcane questions. There are two possible responses to those, leaving aside for the moment the possibility of simply not participating.
One response is to try to address the technical (or aesthetic) question in an analytical and thoughtful manner. Of course, if you do that, someone will remind you that the average joe doesn\'t care and might even describe this discussion as a \"diatribe.\"
A second response is to respond to the technical question by making the case that the issues doesn\'t really affect the photographs that people are producing in any real way - a sort of thoughtful and analytical \"average joe\" response, if you think about it. Of course, if you do that, someone will come back with some sort of technical point.
Do you see the irony here? I think I do. ;-)