This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Kodak SLR Image Thread
p.4 #1Kodak SLR Image Thread
Paul Yi wrote:
I will try to do that tomorrow morning.
However, I won't be using tripod.... I have one that is way too bulky to carry around.
I hope it's sunny tomorrow though, because SLR/c excels in good daylight setting.....
Cool! Can you post 100% crops too? If you can upsize the SLR/C to the same size as your 5d2 shots and then generate the 100% crops that would be ideal.
I will try to do that tomorrow morning.
However, I won't be using tripod.... I have one that is way too bulky to carry around.
I hope it's sunny tomorrow though, because SLR/c excels in good daylight setting.....
Cool! Can you post 100% crops too? If you can upsize the SLR/C to the same size as your 5d2 shots and then generate the 100% crops that would be ideal.
Apr 21, 2010 at 05:32 PM
p.4 #2Kodak SLR Image Thread
Hm.... 100% crop shouldn't be any problem, but I don't know how to your latter part of request.
I mean.... About the upsizing thingee.....
I am not too good with photo editing .....
I mean.... About the upsizing thingee.....
I am not too good with photo editing .....
Apr 21, 2010 at 05:43 PM
p.4 #3Kodak SLR Image Thread
In photoshop bring up the two shots in two different windows.
Then use image-size tool to see the xy pixel size of the 5d2 shot and then use those xy pixel numbers in the image-size tool on the SLR/C shot and select upsize box and bicubic smoother, the one recommended for upsizing. Then zoom in 100% on both shots and then using the crop tool with the command bar fields blank, then select the same part of the image in both shots which is roughly 800x600 pixels.
Hope this makes sense.
Then use image-size tool to see the xy pixel size of the 5d2 shot and then use those xy pixel numbers in the image-size tool on the SLR/C shot and select upsize box and bicubic smoother, the one recommended for upsizing. Then zoom in 100% on both shots and then using the crop tool with the command bar fields blank, then select the same part of the image in both shots which is roughly 800x600 pixels.
Hope this makes sense.
Apr 21, 2010 at 06:20 PM
p.4 #4Kodak SLR Image Thread
Okay..... I'll try that tomorrow..... Thanks...
Apr 21, 2010 at 07:10 PM
p.4 #5Kodak SLR Image Thread
I've shot them side by side, and the Kodak has edge accutance and colors that the Canon 5DII can't match. It also has (IMO) a nicer tone curve for landscape and skin tones.
Apr 21, 2010 at 11:40 PM
p.4 #6Kodak SLR Image Thread
Vivitar S1 90/2.5:
http://www.imaginenature.com/audio/90macro_2xno_ext.jpg
http://www.imaginenature.com/audio/90macro_2xno_ext.jpg
Apr 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM
p.4 #7Kodak SLR Image Thread
This is one of the first shots I took with the SLR/c (Tamron 28-75/2.8):
http://www.imaginenature.com/audio/FL2C0551small.jpg
http://www.imaginenature.com/audio/FL2C0551small.jpg
Apr 21, 2010 at 11:49 PM
p.4 #8Kodak SLR Image Thread
From what I've seen, the output from the Kodak SLR reminds me of that of the Sony A900. There's something about the colors and overall look that I find very nice and sort of lifelike. Great.
Apr 22, 2010 at 03:52 AM
p.4 #9Kodak SLR Image Thread
While they might have similar color/contrast tone curve at base ISO, the SLR/x's have better edge detail because they don't have an anti-alias (AA) filter.
Apr 22, 2010 at 04:28 AM
p.4 #10Kodak SLR Image Thread
I think the Kodak shot was little shaken ... my bad.
But, at least, it is interesting to see the difference in the color rendering.
I'll try to do more controlled test over the weekend.....
But, at least, it is interesting to see the difference in the color rendering.
I'll try to do more controlled test over the weekend.....
Apr 22, 2010 at 09:46 AM
p.4 #11Kodak SLR Image Thread
Thanks Paul. I await your weekend testing. The SLR/C shot looks more like it wasn't focus properly rather than camera shake, especially if your shutter speed was 1/640.
Apr 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM
p.4 #12Kodak SLR Image Thread
When you upscale the image from smaller to larger, it may effect the image quality. The software will try to fill in pixels where there are none before. I think that you should just view both image at 100% without any rescaling, select some central point of interest then select a fixed window around it (800 x 600 or 2 inches by 2 inches).
Of course the camera with higher resolution will has more details, but you have to look at the overall image quality.
I have Kodak and Canon DSLRs, and I use them for different purposes and occasions.
Of course the camera with higher resolution will has more details, but you have to look at the overall image quality.
I have Kodak and Canon DSLRs, and I use them for different purposes and occasions.
Apr 22, 2010 at 12:10 PM
p.4 #13Kodak SLR Image Thread
Ahh, the old inequal pixel count camera compare debate. Where is Brainiac when you need him. 
For equal sized 100% crops you will need to equalize the pixel count of the two shots either by downsizing the 5d2 shot to the 14MP size of the SLR/C or upsize the SLR/C to the size of the 5d2. The first way favors the smaller 14MP camera as potential extra detail gets thrown away in the downsize.
For equal sized 100% crops you will need to equalize the pixel count of the two shots either by downsizing the 5d2 shot to the 14MP size of the SLR/C or upsize the SLR/C to the size of the 5d2. The first way favors the smaller 14MP camera as potential extra detail gets thrown away in the downsize.
Apr 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM
p.4 #14Kodak SLR Image Thread
Nevermind the debate....we all read/know that.....
What is your opinion on the second test?
What is your opinion on the second test?
Apr 22, 2010 at 12:35 PM
p.4 #15Kodak SLR Image Thread
As expected the Kodak color is more vibrant than the duller Canon color out of the camera.
The WB(white balance) of the two shots looks different which makes the color comparison less accurate.
You are using different RAW converters for both shots, right? Any chance of using one common RAW converter for both where you use the same settings and also use the WB eyedropper tool to sample the grey concrete in both shots to set the WB for each RAW shot.
As I expected the Canon with 21MP vs. the Kodak 14MP and no AA wins the resolution battle.
The WB(white balance) of the two shots looks different which makes the color comparison less accurate.
You are using different RAW converters for both shots, right? Any chance of using one common RAW converter for both where you use the same settings and also use the WB eyedropper tool to sample the grey concrete in both shots to set the WB for each RAW shot.
As I expected the Canon with 21MP vs. the Kodak 14MP and no AA wins the resolution battle.
Apr 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM
p.4 #16Kodak SLR Image Thread
wayne seltzer wrote:
Ahh, the old inequal pixel count camera compare debate. Where is Brainiac when you need him.
For equal sized 100% crops you will need to equalize the pixel count of the two shots either by downsizing the 5d2 shot to the 14MP size of the SLR/C or upsize the SLR/C to the size of the 5d2. The first way favors the smaller 14MP camera as potential extra detail gets thrown away in the downsize.
There's a better way: both cameras can shoot RAW at lower resolution settings, the Canon sRAW2 is about 6MP (I think) and the Kodak also shoots at 6MP.
Shooting these cameras at 6MP is still going to give you a file that, at 100%, shows up differences — if any — in detail, acuity, etc. In fact, the major difference when shooting at these lower resolutions will be file size (length and width plus size in MB) and not detail.
Both cameras render very good detail at their lower resolution settings. I shot many a pic with my Kodak SLR/c set to 6MP.
- Steve
Ahh, the old inequal pixel count camera compare debate. Where is Brainiac when you need him.
For equal sized 100% crops you will need to equalize the pixel count of the two shots either by downsizing the 5d2 shot to the 14MP size of the SLR/C or upsize the SLR/C to the size of the 5d2. The first way favors the smaller 14MP camera as potential extra detail gets thrown away in the downsize.
There's a better way: both cameras can shoot RAW at lower resolution settings, the Canon sRAW2 is about 6MP (I think) and the Kodak also shoots at 6MP.
Shooting these cameras at 6MP is still going to give you a file that, at 100%, shows up differences — if any — in detail, acuity, etc. In fact, the major difference when shooting at these lower resolutions will be file size (length and width plus size in MB) and not detail.
Both cameras render very good detail at their lower resolution settings. I shot many a pic with my Kodak SLR/c set to 6MP.
- Steve
Apr 22, 2010 at 01:44 PM
p.4 #17Kodak SLR Image Thread
It's been known that using other raw converting software for Kodak SLR/x camera does not do justice to the colors that come out from the Kodak sensor...
The Photo Desk, many Kodak users say, is THE software for the SLR/c cameras.
Therefore, I think it's unfair to do it with a same software....
The Photo Desk, many Kodak users say, is THE software for the SLR/c cameras.
Therefore, I think it's unfair to do it with a same software....
Apr 22, 2010 at 02:05 PM
p.4 #18Kodak SLR Image Thread
Bibble Pro does a good job with the Kodak RAW files.... have you tried it ?
Apr 22, 2010 at 02:51 PM
p.4 #19Kodak SLR Image Thread
I've never tried the Bibble Pro ...
Does it retain the original Kodak colors well?
Does it retain the original Kodak colors well?
Apr 22, 2010 at 02:55 PM
p.4 #20Kodak SLR Image Thread
Quite well actually and it does bring out the resolution of the Kodak sensor a bit better than ACR might. May be worth trying out.
Apr 22, 2010 at 03:17 PM