Previous versions of brainiac's message #6199612 « 5DmkII less sharp than 5D! »
brainiac Offline [X]
Re: 5DmkII less sharp than 5D!
Alex 1.0 wrote:
The only valid comparison is an equally sized print made from each camera at native resolution. I\'ve seen your up-res posts about differing resolution SLRs and find it amusing that you want to introduce interpolation into the lower res file to make it LESS clean to match the noise characteristics of the higher res camera.
Scientific method, bro? Actual critical evaluation of captured data without error/manipulation from a software package added in?
Next time I go to my favorite restaurant, I\'m going to add a ton of salt to the food so it\'s on equal footing with MacDonalds.
Oh, nevermind. Keep evangelizing.
It is my opinion that uprezzing a file more than say 10% or 20% isn\'t destructive to actual pictorial detail at all. It\'s destructive to the sharp boundaries between pixels, but we specifically don\'t want to be able to see those when printing, so clearly compromising those nice sharp edges isn\'t going to affect image quality. It is important to understand the difference between pictorial detail and sharpness. Sharpness can be enhanced with a filter; detail can\'t. When people complain that uprezzing a file is somehow destructive to the picture data, they are typically complaining about the pixel boundary sharpness, not the image detail.
Below is an example of a file uprezzed using nearest neighbour to twice the baselength, and the same file uprezzed using bicubic which is supposedly non-conservative of detail. Both crops are shown at 200% so that you can really assess how damaging it is to uprez:
Which crop shows more detail and noise?
Sep 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Previous versions of brainiac's message #6199612 « 5DmkII less sharp than 5D! »
