The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox

On 20 Aug, 10:37, "David J. Littleboy" <davi... DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:
> "RolandRB" <rolandbe... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 20 Aug, 10:05, RolandRB <rolandbe... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow"
> >> factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The
> >> film "looks better" even if the digital image has as much detail or
> >> perhaps more. I have been experimenting with a number of cameras and I
> >> find that my recently acquired Sigma SD10 produces "wow" factor jpegs
> >> (after conversion) and for me its 3.4 megapixel images are better to
> >> look at than the 10.2 megapixel images coming out of my Sony DSC-R1
> >> although they print the same.
>
> Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then downsample
> (using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing
> artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images.

A very interesting claim. It so happens I don't have any suitable
downsampling software for the task you describe so I was wondering if
you had time to do this and send me the resulting image. I will then
web that with the other two.

This is the Sigma SD10 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original

This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495


> > This image typifies the "wow" factor for me. This is from an SD14.
> >http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/landscape/img/sd14-la-012.jpg
>
> Yep. I just love the snap-to-grid effect. Not.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

On 20 Aug, 12:18, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
> "RolandRB" <rolandbe....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then
> >> downsample
> >> (using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing
> >> artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images.
>
> > A very interesting claim. It so happens I don't have any suitable
> > downsampling software for the task you describe
>
> Photoshop or any other software will do it...
>
> > so I was wondering if
> > you had time to do this and send me the resulting image. I will then
> > web that with the other two.
>
> > This is the Sigma SD10 image:
> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original
>
> > This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495
>
> That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of aliasing
> artifacts.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original
>
> David J. Littleboy
> davi....TakeThisOut@gol.com
> Tokyo, Japan

Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
for the Sony image.
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

On 20 Aug, 13:44, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
> "RolandRB" <rolandbe....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > This is the Sigma SD10 image:
> >> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original
>
> >> > This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
> >> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495
>
> >> That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of
> >> aliasing
> >> artifacts.
>
> Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building to the
> right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as
> _equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width.

I agree with that. The Sony does that better.

> If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more
> examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the
> Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma
> loses it pretty badly on the roofs.

I agree with that again but the Sony image looks bad even though it is
holding more details. There are a lot of distracting effects that
spoil the image. The rendering on the walls on the building behind
looks unreal rather than like a true texture. The rooves look better,
that is true, but maybe only because I have oversharpened. If you look
at the corner on the wall of the Sony image of the building behind to
the left of the TV mast then the Sony image makes it look like there
is a drainpipe running down the corner edge when there is not. The
lower roof of the rear building where the bird is standing looks as
though it had a black edge with a white line on top. The people
standing and sitting in front of the Brötlibar restaurant look vague
and unreal. They are too large and their lack of detail is
distracting. The foreground wall on the right with the public seating
in front has an unreal texture. The "Tel 06" on the blue bin behind
this wall does not show the "06" clearly while the Sigma photo does.
The six "BAR" red lettering in the top windows below the "don't worry
- be happy Bar" neon sign look more like red curtain material in the
Sony photo, though downsized it looks better. The people sat below the
"TicketCorner" notice in the tram shelter look unclear. The people in
the posters to the left of the blue bin look unclear as do the real
people in front of the Rio Bar and the Zum Braunen Mutz. The Sony
picture is too big for the amount of detail it is showing and to me
the image looks bad. Printed out, it might look a bit better than the
Sigma photo, but to look at it on a computer screen then to me the
Sigma photo looks more like a print than the Sony photo does and is
easier on the eyes. It draws my view rather than repelling it.

Perhaps if I could send you the Sony photo jpeg as it came out of the
camera and you did a careful downsizing then the downsized Sony photo
might look better. As you rightly said, the downsized Sony photo was
showing some horrendous artifacts in places, though I thought overall
it looked better.

> >>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original
>
> > Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
> > quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
> > for the Sony image.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

On 20 Aug, 14:39, RolandRB <rolandbe... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Aug, 13:44, "David J. Littleboy" <davi... DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:
>
> > "RolandRB" <rolandbe... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > This is the Sigma SD10 image:
> > >> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original
>
> > >> > This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
> > >> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495
>
> > >> That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of
> > >> aliasing
> > >> artifacts.
>
> > Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building to the
> > right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as
> > _equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width.
>
> I agree with that. The Sony does that better.
>
> > If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more
> > examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the
> > Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma
> > loses it pretty badly on the roofs.
>
> I agree with that again but the Sony image looks bad even though it is
> holding more details. There are a lot of distracting effects that
> spoil the image. The rendering on the walls on the building behind
> looks unreal rather than like a true texture. The rooves look better,
> that is true, but maybe only because I have oversharpened. If you look
> at the corner on the wall of the Sony image of the building behind to
> the left of the TV mast then the Sony image makes it look like there
> is a drainpipe running down the corner edge when there is not. The
> lower roof of the rear building where the bird is standing looks as
> though it had a black edge with a white line on top. The people
> standing and sitting in front of the Brötlibar restaurant look vague
> and unreal. They are too large and their lack of detail is
> distracting. The foreground wall on the right with the public seating
> in front has an unreal texture. The "Tel 06" on the blue bin behind
> this wall does not show the "06" clearly while the Sigma photo does.
> The six "BAR" red lettering in the top windows below the "don't worry
> - be happy Bar" neon sign look more like red curtain material in the
> Sony photo, though downsized it looks better. The people sat below the
> "TicketCorner" notice in the tram shelter look unclear. The people in
> the posters to the left of the blue bin look unclear as do the real
> people in front of the Rio Bar and the Zum Braunen Mutz. The Sony
> picture is too big for the amount of detail it is showing and to me
> the image looks bad. Printed out, it might look a bit better than the
> Sigma photo, but to look at it on a computer screen then to me the
> Sigma photo looks more like a print than the Sony photo does and is
> easier on the eyes. It draws my view rather than repelling it.
>
> Perhaps if I could send you the Sony photo jpeg as it came out of the
> camera and you did a careful downsizing then the downsized Sony photo
> might look better. As you rightly said, the downsized Sony photo was
> showing some horrendous artifacts in places, though I thought overall
> it looked better.
>
>
>
> > >>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original
>
> > > Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
> > > quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
> > > for the Sony image.
>
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was looking at the slats next to the Apotheke building on the floor
above. Today, looking at them, they were not regular. maybe the Sony
was showing false details that human eyes would prefer to see and the
Sigma was showing it more accurately. I will go back there now and
photograph a more detailed image.
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

On 20 Aug, 16:12, RolandRB <rolandbe....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Aug, 14:39, RolandRB <rolandbe....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Aug, 13:44, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > > "RolandRB" <rolandbe....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > This is the Sigma SD10 image:
> > > >> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original
>
> > > >> > This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
> > > >> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495
>
> > > >> That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of
> > > >> aliasing
> > > >> artifacts.
>
> > > Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building to the
> > > right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as
> > > _equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width.
>
> > I agree with that. The Sony does that better.
>
> > > If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more
> > > examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the
> > > Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma
> > > loses it pretty badly on the roofs.
>
> > I agree with that again but the Sony image looks bad even though it is
> > holding more details. There are a lot of distracting effects that
> > spoil the image. The rendering on the walls on the building behind
> > looks unreal rather than like a true texture. The rooves look better,
> > that is true, but maybe only because I have oversharpened. If you look
> > at the corner on the wall of the Sony image of the building behind to
> > the left of the TV mast then the Sony image makes it look like there
> > is a drainpipe running down the corner edge when there is not. The
> > lower roof of the rear building where the bird is standing looks as
> > though it had a black edge with a white line on top. The people
> > standing and sitting in front of the Brötlibar restaurant look vague
> > and unreal. They are too large and their lack of detail is
> > distracting. The foreground wall on the right with the public seating
> > in front has an unreal texture. The "Tel 06" on the blue bin behind
> > this wall does not show the "06" clearly while the Sigma photo does.
> > The six "BAR" red lettering in the top windows below the "don't worry
> > - be happy Bar" neon sign look more like red curtain material in the
> > Sony photo, though downsized it looks better. The people sat below the
> > "TicketCorner" notice in the tram shelter look unclear. The people in
> > the posters to the left of the blue bin look unclear as do the real
> > people in front of the Rio Bar and the Zum Braunen Mutz. The Sony
> > picture is too big for the amount of detail it is showing and to me
> > the image looks bad. Printed out, it might look a bit better than the
> > Sigma photo, but to look at it on a computer screen then to me the
> > Sigma photo looks more like a print than the Sony photo does and is
> > easier on the eyes. It draws my view rather than repelling it.
>
> > Perhaps if I could send you the Sony photo jpeg as it came out of the
> > camera and you did a careful downsizing then the downsized Sony photo
> > might look better. As you rightly said, the downsized Sony photo was
> > showing some horrendous artifacts in places, though I thought overall
> > it looked better.
>
> > > >>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original
>
> > > > Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
> > > > quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
> > > > for the Sony image.
>
> > > David J. Littleboy
> > > Tokyo, Japan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I was looking at the slats next to the Apotheke building on the floor
> above. Today, looking at them, they were not regular. maybe the Sony
> was showing false details that human eyes would prefer to see and the
> Sigma was showing it more accurately. I will go back there now and
> photograph a more detailed image.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here are the slats as photographed today. The Sigma appears to have
done a better job at reproducing them than the Sony.

http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84205472
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

On 20 Aug, 18:36, "Neil Gould" <n....TakeThisOut@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> Recently, RolandRB <rolandbe....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Aug, 16:12, RolandRB <rolandbe....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 20 Aug, 14:39, RolandRB <rolandbe....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 20 Aug, 13:44, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "RolandRB" <rolandbe....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> This is the Sigma SD10 image:
> >>>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original
>
> >>>>>>> This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
> >>>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495
>
> >>>>>> That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP
> >>>>>> of aliasing
> >>>>>> artifacts.
>
> >>>> Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building
> >>>> to the right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1
> >>>> resolves those as _equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera
> >>>> renders them as varying in width.
>
> >>> I agree with that. The Sony does that better.
>
> >>>> If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots
> >>>> more examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but
> >>>> which the Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at
> >>>> all. The Sigma loses it pretty badly on the roofs.
>
> >>> I agree with that again but the Sony image looks bad even though it
> >>> is holding more details. There are a lot of distracting effects that
> >>> spoil the image. The rendering on the walls on the building behind
> >>> looks unreal rather than like a true texture. The rooves look
> >>> better, that is true, but maybe only because I have oversharpened.
> >>> If you look at the corner on the wall of the Sony image of the
> >>> building behind to the left of the TV mast then the Sony image
> >>> makes it look like there is a drainpipe running down the corner
> >>> edge when there is not. The lower roof of the rear building where
> >>> the bird is standing looks as though it had a black edge with a
> >>> white line on top. The people standing and sitting in front of the
> >>> Brötlibar restaurant look vague and unreal. They are too large and
> >>> their lack of detail is distracting. The foreground wall on the
> >>> right with the public seating in front has an unreal texture. The
> >>> "Tel 06" on the blue bin behind this wall does not show the "06"
> >>> clearly while the Sigma photo does. The six "BAR" red lettering in
> >>> the top windows below the "don't worry - be happy Bar" neon sign
> >>> look more like red curtain material in the Sony photo, though
> >>> downsized it looks better. The people sat below the "TicketCorner"
> >>> notice in the tram shelter look unclear. The people in the posters
> >>> to the left of the blue bin look unclear as do the real people in
> >>> front of the Rio Bar and the Zum Braunen Mutz. The Sony picture is
> >>> too big for the amount of detail it is showing and to me the image
> >>> looks bad. Printed out, it might look a bit better than the Sigma
> >>> photo, but to look at it on a computer screen then to me the Sigma
> >>> photo looks more like a print than the Sony photo does and is
> >>> easier on the eyes. It draws my view rather than repelling it.
>
> >>> Perhaps if I could send you the Sony photo jpeg as it came out of
> >>> the camera and you did a careful downsizing then the downsized Sony
> >>> photo might look better. As you rightly said, the downsized Sony
> >>> photo was showing some horrendous artifacts in places, though I
> >>> thought overall it looked better.
>
> >>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original
>
> >>>>> Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
> >>>>> quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being
> >>>>> higher for the Sony image.
>
> >>>> David J. Littleboy
> >>>> Tokyo, Japan- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> I was looking at the slats next to the Apotheke building on the floor
> >> above. Today, looking at them, they were not regular. maybe the Sony
> >> was showing false details that human eyes would prefer to see and the
> >> Sigma was showing it more accurately. I will go back there now and
> >> photograph a more detailed image.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Here are the slats as photographed today. The Sigma appears to have
> > done a better job at reproducing them than the Sony.
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84205472
>
> Very interesting, and just the kind of difference I would expect from a
> Bayer-pattern vs. Foveon comparison!
>
> Neil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Me too but both methods have their strengths and weaknesses and both
methods are let down by the practicalities of using that method. A
Bayer 10.2 megapixel sensor should beat a Foveon 3.4x3 megapixel
sensor hands down in terms of its black & white resolution. The color
guessing should be a minor problem but would depend any case on the
interpolation software. The problem I see with using the Bayer pattern
is that an anti-aliasing filter is required to stop color Moiré
patterns. The Foveon sensor also has a regular array and so will
suffer Moiré patterns as well but less often and indeed, the Sigma
SD10 does not use an anti-aliasing filter. It is this introduced blur
of the anti-aliasing filter needed by the Bayer sensor that causes a
problem in that to undo the effects of the blur is not being handled
well in the software and perhaps it can't be. And where they try to
sharpen the blur then "unreal" detail come in that is annoying to look
at. But the the Foveon sensor has its faults as well. Colors are not
clearly distinct and two sensors can detect the same light freqeuncy
if the frequency falls between colors. Reds on the Foveon sensor are
not good because of this but then at the same time it gives a better
resolution for reds as red squares are only one quarter of the Bayer
pattern -- same as blue.

My own personal preference is that I want digital images to look good
on a computer monitor and to print the same. The Foveon sensor images
suit this although their colors can be misleading. It's a case of
"swings and roundabouts".
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

Recently, RolandRB <rolandberry.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> posted:

> On 20 Aug, 16:12, RolandRB <rolandbe....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Aug, 14:39, RolandRB <rolandbe....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 20 Aug, 13:44, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....DeleteThis@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "RolandRB" <rolandbe....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> This is the Sigma SD10 image:
>>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original
>>
>>>>>>> This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
>>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495
>>
>>>>>> That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP
>>>>>> of aliasing
>>>>>> artifacts.
>>
>>>> Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building
>>>> to the right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1
>>>> resolves those as _equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera
>>>> renders them as varying in width.
>>
>>> I agree with that. The Sony does that better.
>>
>>>> If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots
>>>> more examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but
>>>> which the Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at
>>>> all. The Sigma loses it pretty badly on the roofs.
>>
>>> I agree with that again but the Sony image looks bad even though it
>>> is holding more details. There are a lot of distracting effects that
>>> spoil the image. The rendering on the walls on the building behind
>>> looks unreal rather than like a true texture. The rooves look
>>> better, that is true, but maybe only because I have oversharpened.
>>> If you look at the corner on the wall of the Sony image of the
>>> building behind to the left of the TV mast then the Sony image
>>> makes it look like there is a drainpipe running down the corner
>>> edge when there is not. The lower roof of the rear building where
>>> the bird is standing looks as though it had a black edge with a
>>> white line on top. The people standing and sitting in front of the
>>> Brötlibar restaurant look vague and unreal. They are too large and
>>> their lack of detail is distracting. The foreground wall on the
>>> right with the public seating in front has an unreal texture. The
>>> "Tel 06" on the blue bin behind this wall does not show the "06"
>>> clearly while the Sigma photo does. The six "BAR" red lettering in
>>> the top windows below the "don't worry - be happy Bar" neon sign
>>> look more like red curtain material in the Sony photo, though
>>> downsized it looks better. The people sat below the "TicketCorner"
>>> notice in the tram shelter look unclear. The people in the posters
>>> to the left of the blue bin look unclear as do the real people in
>>> front of the Rio Bar and the Zum Braunen Mutz. The Sony picture is
>>> too big for the amount of detail it is showing and to me the image
>>> looks bad. Printed out, it might look a bit better than the Sigma
>>> photo, but to look at it on a computer screen then to me the Sigma
>>> photo looks more like a print than the Sony photo does and is
>>> easier on the eyes. It draws my view rather than repelling it.
>>
>>> Perhaps if I could send you the Sony photo jpeg as it came out of
>>> the camera and you did a careful downsizing then the downsized Sony
>>> photo might look better. As you rightly said, the downsized Sony
>>> photo was showing some horrendous artifacts in places, though I
>>> thought overall it looked better.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original
>>
>>>>> Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
>>>>> quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being
>>>>> higher for the Sony image.
>>
>>>> David J. Littleboy
>>>> Tokyo, Japan- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I was looking at the slats next to the Apotheke building on the floor
>> above. Today, looking at them, they were not regular. maybe the Sony
>> was showing false details that human eyes would prefer to see and the
>> Sigma was showing it more accurately. I will go back there now and
>> photograph a more detailed image.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Here are the slats as photographed today. The Sigma appears to have
> done a better job at reproducing them than the Sony.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84205472
>
Very interesting, and just the kind of difference I would expect from a
Bayer-pattern vs. Foveon comparison!

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

Recently, RolandRB <rolandberry.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> posted:

> On 20 Aug, 18:36, "Neil Gould" <n....TakeThisOut@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting, and just the kind of difference I would expect
>> from a Bayer-pattern vs. Foveon comparison!
>>
>
> Me too but both methods have their strengths and weaknesses and both
> methods are let down by the practicalities of using that method. A
> Bayer 10.2 megapixel sensor should beat a Foveon 3.4x3 megapixel
> sensor hands down in terms of its black & white resolution. The color
> guessing should be a minor problem but would depend any case on the
> interpolation software. The problem I see with using the Bayer pattern
> is that an anti-aliasing filter is required to stop color Moiré
> patterns.
>
That is the common line of thinking, but in practice I don't think it is a
major issue. Leica's DMR lacks an anti-aliasing filter, and as a result
can resolve a scene better than cameras with 50% more pixels. The number
of times that Moiré issues ruin the shot is probably less than those
ruined by the loss of resolution.

[...]
> My own personal preference is that I want digital images to look good
> on a computer monitor and to print the same. The Foveon sensor images
> suit this although their colors can be misleading. It's a case of
> "swings and roundabouts".
>
Or, TANSTAAFL...

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

"RolandRB" <rolandberry RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Aug, 10:05, RolandRB <rolandbe... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Transparency film viewed on a light box with a good lupe has a "wow"
>> factor that looking at a digital image on a computer screen lacks. The
>> film "looks better" even if the digital image has as much detail or
>> perhaps more. I have been experimenting with a number of cameras and I
>> find that my recently acquired Sigma SD10 produces "wow" factor jpegs
>> (after conversion) and for me its 3.4 megapixel images are better to
>> look at than the 10.2 megapixel images coming out of my Sony DSC-R1
>> although they print the same.

Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then downsample
(using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing
artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images.

> This image typifies the "wow" factor for me. This is from an SD14.
> http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/landscape/img/sd14-la-012.jpg

Yep. I just love the snap-to-grid effect. Not.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

"RolandRB" <rolandberry.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Boost the contrast and saturation, grossly oversharpen, and then
>> downsample
>> (using as simple an algorithm as possible to assure the most aliasing
>> artifacts) to 3.4MP, and your R1 images will look just like SD10 images.
>
> A very interesting claim. It so happens I don't have any suitable
> downsampling software for the task you describe

Photoshop or any other software will do it...

> so I was wondering if
> you had time to do this and send me the resulting image. I will then
> web that with the other two.
>
> This is the Sigma SD10 image:
> http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original
>
> This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
> http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495

That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of aliasing
artifacts.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original

David J. Littleboy
davidjl.DeleteThis@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

"RolandRB" <rolandberry.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is the Sigma SD10 image:
>> > http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194056/original
>>
>> > This is the Sony DSC-R1 image:
>> > http://www.pbase.com/rolandrb/image/84194495
>>
>> That's pretty badly sharpened to start with, but here ya go. 4MP of
>> aliasing
>> artifacts.

Look at slats on the windows on the next floor up on the building to the
right of "Apotheke". In the original Sony image, the R1 resolves those as
_equal-width_ slats, but the Sigma camera renders them as varying in width.
If you start looking around at the fine detail, you'll find lots more
examples of detail that the Sony renders quite reasonably but which the
Sigma either turns them randomness or fails to render at all. The Sigma
loses it pretty badly on the roofs.

>> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/84196441/original
>
> Thanks. Your fixed copy looks quite good to me. The writing is not
> quite as distinct but that could be due to the exposure being higher
> for the Sony image.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

On 20 Aug, 22:15, "Neil Gould" <n... DeleteThis @myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> Recently, RolandRB <rolandbe... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> posted:
>
> > On 20 Aug, 18:36, "Neil Gould" <n... DeleteThis @myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>
> >> Very interesting, and just the kind of difference I would expect
> >> from a Bayer-pattern vs. Foveon comparison!
>
> > Me too but both methods have their strengths and weaknesses and both
> > methods are let down by the practicalities of using that method. A
> > Bayer 10.2 megapixel sensor should beat a Foveon 3.4x3 megapixel
> > sensor hands down in terms of its black & white resolution. The color
> > guessing should be a minor problem but would depend any case on the
> > interpolation software. The problem I see with using the Bayer pattern
> > is that an anti-aliasing filter is required to stop color Moiré
> > patterns.
>
> That is the common line of thinking, but in practice I don't think it is a
> major issue. Leica's DMR lacks an anti-aliasing filter, and as a result
> can resolve a scene better than cameras with 50% more pixels. The number
> of times that Moiré issues ruin the shot is probably less than those
> ruined by the loss of resolution.

I agree although there will be situations where it would be a waste of
time to even try taking a shot without an anti-aliasing filter. With
an anti-aliasing filter you can take that shot but like you say, the
downside is the lack of resolution. It is a shame this filter can not
be switched in and out and so only used as the need arises. I don't
know why manufacturers haven't implemented this in some cameras
although I guess moving parts near the sensor would give rise to
abrasion and perhaps specks on the sensor.

> [...]> My own personal preference is that I want digital images to look good
> > on a computer monitor and to print the same. The Foveon sensor images
> > suit this although their colors can be misleading. It's a case of
> > "swings and roundabouts".
>
> Or, TANSTAAFL...
>
> Neil
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox 

"RolandRB" <rolandberry.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1187597150.635016.201480@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...[snip]


Ever heard the term " sigmatism "? I think you have a perfect case!
AAvK
 >> Stay informed about: The "wow" factor of slide film on a lightbox