Sigma Four Thirds 20D-Killer rumor - Page 8

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Brownbe wrote:
[]
> I get Oly 4/3 [dpreview] : 18 x 13.5 = 243
>
> Canon 20D: [dpreview] : 22.5 x 15 = 337.5
>
> 39% more.
[]
> I believe ya! That puts the 4/3 in an even deeper S/N hole...
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.

Hole? That's less than one stop. The advantages could more than outweigh
that.

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> There have been very few cases of aftermarket lenses being superior to
> name brand lenses. Questar Corporation used to make a reflex mirror
> lens that was better than any camera maker offering, but offhand, I
> can't think if any others.

Indeed, not many. One that comes to mind though is Angenieux, who made
some very beautiful "third party" zooms in various mounts a while ago.

Ton

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Woodchuck Bill wrote:

>
> Alan, heads up. Your surname is not spelled correctly in your From:
> header. (Brownbe instead of Browne) Did you change newsreaders or
> something?



Thx.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Might as well forget it, the people argueing this are mainly users of
>>slightly larger sensor 6MP cameras that KNOW the slightly larger sensor is
>>the ONLY thing their camera has going for it.
>
>
>
> Exactly.

Not exactly, Tony. You left out Stacey's last sentence:

"The fact they all refuse to post ANYTHING shot with them says it all
for me.."

So, where are your images?

>
> Very few of the Four Thirds critics have even used the system, let
> alone conducted rigorous comparative tests. In addition, people's
> comments are based on reviews they have read, including those from
> sponsored web sites, rather than personal knowledge and experience.

There's no way most people can ever exhaustively test many cameras. We
rely on folks like Phil Askey to do the grunt work and maintain an
objective collection of facts (measurements) as well as opine on the
systems. He does give a "recomended" to the E-300, so not that bad.
But the data speaks for itself, and is much more than Tony Polson has
ever provided to back any of his claims about anything.

>
> It is well known that some camera manufacturers sponsor review sites,
> and others don't. We should therefore be very cautious indeed when
> reading reviews from these sponsored sites.

Yes, about all the cameras and gear from all the companies.

But in any case, given dpreview/Phil Askey over Polson/Stacey I know
that I would give much more weight to Phil than you two clowns.

>
> In case I haven't made myself clear, digital photography review sites
> are sponsored by some manufacturers, but not others.

Indeed. When Oly first gave dpreview an E300 camera to test Olympus
asked dpreview to not post 100% sized photos.

I suspect their relationship is indeed strained as Olympus were
petrified at people seeing the real noisy images.

All manufacturers suffer a certain negative critique from dpreview, but
most stay in the ball game. Losers go home.

Tony: don't imply bias where there is none, esp. when it flies in the
face of your opinions, wishes or desires.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7x1x7ssusy.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> writes:
>> A 30mm lens on a typical SLR requires retrofocal optics. A 50mm typically
>> doesn't (assuming we're talking about 35mm-style systems here) - that's
>> probably got a lot to do with it.
>
>That's just the point, the 30mm Sigma is for the smaller DX sized
>sensor and is not a wideangle. Or does it need retrofocal optics
>because of the mount-to-film-plane distance?

Quite so.

>Do DX cameras really want to be thinner?

I think, more importantly, they want a reflex mirror between the back of the
lens and the shutter.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3fpq15F8t0taU1@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Here's the example of an olympus lens that canon users love to trash, the
>$6500 300 f2.8 that weighs 7lbs. To get this FOV you need a $6500 400 F2.8
>that weighs -12 lbs-. How can you say the lens for a given FOV isn't
>lighter?

Since the 4/3 sensors are noisier, in order to get similar performance you
need to drop the ISO by a stop or more, compared to its Canon contemporary,
so to match that f/2.8 lens, you'll need f/2, or possibly even faster. Since
that doesn't seem to be available, you might get a fairer comparison if you
compared the f/2.8 Olympus lens to an f/4 or even f/5.6 Canon lens - you'll
get a similar field of view, similar image quality, and similar depth of
field.

>Canon doesn't have anything to compare the 50-200 F2.8-3.5 in that FOV and
>speed but is 1/2 pound lighter than the canon lenses that are close to this
>FOV and a stop slower.

Noisier cameras need faster lenses - that's where your weight and size
advantage disappears.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7xmzqgk992.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>> > Do DX cameras really want to be thinner?
>>
>> That's why Canon does EF-S lenses<g>. Stigma has the problem that they need
>> to handle the largest flange-to-film distance of any of the dSLRs.
>
>Uh oh. This starts making me want to believe in 4/3 again :-O. :-)

4/3 has a mirror behind the lens too.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <3fpq3jF8t0taU2@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>Chris Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> I already find that my DSLR prints at that size lack sharpness if they
>>> have foliage in, so 6 megapixels is inadequate for such medium sized
>>> prints.
>>
>>Who was talking about 6MP?
>
> Let me see, the 10D has 3072 pixels across the frame. The E300 has 3264
> pixels across the frame. Those extra 2 million pixels are giving you a
> resolution increase of a whopping 6.25%.
>
> So your foliage ain't going to look sharp either.


I suppose you NEVER considered it could be an optical resolution issue
either? I'm not seeing this problem you're having...
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:

>>
>> And you know this is an exageration because.... You guess it is?
>
> No. I just find it difficult to accept that the difference is SO large.
>

http://fourthirdsphoto.com/articles/ACR.html


>> So you don't want to post ANYTHING showing you have some sort of skill as
>> a photographer other than your "test shots" or excuse shots?
>
> I have 000's of shots. Not all are posted, far from it.

So where are they? I've seen a half a dozen excuses or test shots, where is
your photography?


--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne"

> To Olympus' credit/advantage, the smaller lens system has allowed larger
> apertures for various focal lenghts. This is giving them 1 stop
> advantage... which helps the noise issue by allowing shots to be taken at
> a slower ISO.

Smaller lenses, eh. I thought you were one of the folks claiming that they
weren't any smaller. I seem to recall that was one of your major criticisms.
Have you recently acquired a ruler?

Rob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>Chris Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me see, the 10D has 3072 pixels across the frame. The E300 has 3264
>>> pixels across the frame. Those extra 2 million pixels are giving you a
>>> resolution increase of a whopping 6.25%.
>>>
>>> So your foliage ain't going to look sharp either.
>>
>>I suppose you NEVER considered it could be an optical resolution issue
>>either? I'm not seeing this problem you're having...
>
> Given that images I've downsized to 6 megapixels from medium and large
> format scans don't have foliage that shows an acceptable amount of detail
> much beyond A4 either, I suspect it's an expectation thing.
>
> 3000-odd pixels across isn't enough to render the sort of detail needed
> to do justice to the sort of landscape print that relies on detail, at
> larger print sizes.

You may have missed Stacey's earliest posts after getting the E300.
According to Stacey, the E300 produces prints just as good as medium format.

Which is completely ridiculous: 8MP is competitive with 35mm, not medium
format. The sensible sites* all have 6MP being about 70% of 35mm at its
best, and 8MP getting close. But that's a factor of 2.5 (in film area or MP)
from even 645. Everyone else who shoots MF gets a lot more detail from MF
than 35. Not Stacey.

I suspect that between Kievs and incompetent local labs, Stacey's never seen
a decent MF print.

*: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <3fs890F9f5avU6@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>Chris Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me see, the 10D has 3072 pixels across the frame. The E300 has 3264
>>> pixels across the frame. Those extra 2 million pixels are giving you a
>>> resolution increase of a whopping 6.25%.

Try the other direction or does that not work in your favor?

2048 vs 2448 is close to 17%

Another point is printing 11X14 you're tossing out quite a few pixels and
are down to ~5MP..

>>>
>>> So your foliage ain't going to look sharp either.


Wow clarvoyant or have you been looking at my prints somehow without me
knowing it??

>>
>>I suppose you NEVER considered it could be an optical resolution issue
>>either? I'm not seeing this problem you're having...
>
> Given that images I've downsized to 6 megapixels from medium and large
> format scans don't have foliage that shows an acceptable amount of detail
> much beyond A4 either, I suspect it's an expectation thing.
>


And you're sure your downsampling isn't destroying information?

So what size do you feel -is- needed for a nice 11X14? I'm sure downsampling
those medium format files to a file ~20% larger wouldn't make any
difference..
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

>
> Motor Trend has a habit of giving COY awards to cars that are not fully
> deserving. One year, they gave the award to the Ford Thunderbird
> Supercharged coupe. That issue hit the stands the same time as the
> announcement that Ford had fired or demoted many of the people involved in
> the design, which came in over budget, over weight and under performing...
>


Last year they gave land rover the SUV of the year???? LOL!
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
[]
> 3000-odd pixels across isn't enough to render the sort of detail
> needed
> to do justice to the sort of landscape print that relies on detail, at
> larger print sizes.

So take two pitcures and stitch them.....

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote:
> Chris Brown wrote:
> []
>> 3000-odd pixels across isn't enough to render the sort of detail
>> needed
>> to do justice to the sort of landscape print that relies on detail, at
>> larger print sizes.
>
> So take two pitcures and stitch them.....

My calculation has it that you'll need _four_.

A 6x7 slide scanned at 4000 dpi produces an 8800 x 10800 pixel (95MP) image
with pixels that are a lot uglier than even consumer dcam images. IMHO, a
6x7 scan is "worth" about 27MP of direct digital pixels. (I.e., I think that
if you print a scanned image at 1.85x as many ppi as you do a digital one,
your viewers will find the quality similar.)

Just to give you an idea of this magic 1.85x factor, here's a 300D image
(taken with a 20 mm lens) oversharpened (oops) and then upsampled by 1.85x
(wrong order, oops again) compared to a 4000 dpi scan from a 645 negative
(taken with a 35mm lens).

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473562/original

Of course, taking one 6x7 image and scanning it isn't all that much less
work than shooting and stitching four dSLR images<g>.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3ft5iuF9cltlU1@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>
>> In article <3fs890F9f5avU6@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>Chris Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Let me see, the 10D has 3072 pixels across the frame. The E300 has 3264
>>>> pixels across the frame. Those extra 2 million pixels are giving you a
>>>> resolution increase of a whopping 6.25%.
>
>Try the other direction or does that not work in your favor?
>
>2048 vs 2448 is close to 17%

Gosh, a whole *seventeen* percent. That's certainly going to make the
difference between leaves being leaves, and a mushy green "suggestion of
foliage", not...

>Another point is printing 11X14 you're tossing out quite a few pixels and
>are down to ~5MP..

How a picture is cropped will depend on the composition. For some, I will
have the advantage with 3x2, for some, you will have the advantage with 4x3.
I do a lot of landscape type stuff, and so find a narrower format to be
rather more useful. YMMV.

>>>> So your foliage ain't going to look sharp either.
>
>Wow clarvoyant or have you been looking at my prints somehow without me
>knowing it??

I don't need to - at 3000-odd pixels across, and assuming we need around 10
pixels to clearly idcentify the smallest individual bits of foliage, you're
only going to get around 300 leaves across your photos. That'll do a single
tree, if you're lucky, but not any kind of landscape. The only solution is
to either accept that your big prints are going to lack detail, or to print
small so it masks it.

35mm has a similar problem, FWIW - it's not satisfactory for that sort of
landscape.

>> Given that images I've downsized to 6 megapixels from medium and large
>> format scans don't have foliage that shows an acceptable amount of detail
>> much beyond A4 either, I suspect it's an expectation thing.
>
> And you're sure your downsampling isn't destroying information?

Of course it's destroying information - that's rather my point.

>So what size do you feel -is- needed for a nice 11X14?

Scanned 6*7 looks nice at that size.

>I'm sure downsampling
>those medium format files to a file ~20% larger wouldn't make any
>difference..

Downsampling them to "consumer" DSLR resolutions would turn a sharp print
into a soft print. That's why I don't tend to downsample them much below 30+
megapixels.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>> Chris Brown wrote:
>> []
>>> 3000-odd pixels across isn't enough to render the sort of detail
>>> needed
>>> to do justice to the sort of landscape print that relies on detail,
>>> at larger print sizes.
>>
>> So take two pitcures and stitch them.....
>
> My calculation has it that you'll need _four_.
>
> A 6x7 slide scanned at 4000 dpi produces an 8800 x 10800 pixel (95MP)
> image with pixels that are a lot uglier than even consumer dcam
> images. IMHO, a 6x7 scan is "worth" about 27MP of direct digital
> pixels. (I.e., I think that if you print a scanned image at 1.85x as
> many ppi as you do a digital one, your viewers will find the quality
> similar.)
> Just to give you an idea of this magic 1.85x factor, here's a 300D
> image (taken with a 20 mm lens) oversharpened (oops) and then
> upsampled by 1.85x (wrong order, oops again) compared to a 4000 dpi
> scan from a 645 negative (taken with a 35mm lens).
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473562/original
>
> Of course, taking one 6x7 image and scanning it isn't all that much
> less work than shooting and stitching four dSLR images<g>.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Yes, four images if you need the full height, but we are talking
landscapes where perhaps the extra height is simply not needed.

I'd looked at your comparison before and I find it impossible to compare
because (a) you are comparing black-and-white and colour and (b) there is
noticeable camera shake (?) on the MF image (or is it a lens defect at the
corner of the frame?) and (c) the upsampling artefacts in the 300D image.

If I was forced to use 6 x 7, likely my images wouldn't even exist!

Cheers,
David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote:\
>
> Yes, four images if you need the full height, but we are talking
> landscapes where perhaps the extra height is simply not needed.

If you shoot two frames with a 3:4 camera held vertically, you could get,
say 3000 x 4300 or so pixels (after 20% overlap and lossage in stitching).
That's about 300 dpi at 11x14. 6x7 at l1x14 is 800 dpi, and I assure you,
800 dpi from 4000 dpi scans looks better than 300 dpi on current inkjets, at
least the R800/R1800 can render a lot more detail than dcams provide at 300
dpi.

(Note that you'd probably need three images from a 2:3 camera, but get a
much longer image.)

(FWIW, 4000 dpi scans from 645 have enough pixels to print at 540 dpi at
11x14. About the same quality, I'd estimate, as two 8MP images stitched
together.)

> I'd looked at your comparison before and I find it impossible to compare
> because

Yes. It's not useful as much more than an order of magnitude comparison.
Don't ask how well the tiles are rendered, ask if are they recognizable as
tiles. I think it hints that at a 2.0x upsampling, scans would look better
than digital, and that at a 1.6x upsampling, digital would look better than
film. I think.

> (a) you are comparing black-and-white and colour and (b) there is
> noticeable camera shake (?) on the MF image (or is it a lens defect at the
> corner of the frame?)

The tiles in the lower right are a tad soft. But look that closely at the
300D image; the 300D isn't resolving the tiles as well. (The lens is a
superwide, and wide angle lenses don't hold out to the corners the way
telephoto primes do. I need to redo it with 65mm (6x7), 55mm (645), 35mm
(1dsm2 equiv), and 22mm (APS-C). (150, 110, 70, and 43 would be even better,
but I don't own the 150. Sigh.)

> and (c) the upsampling artefacts in the 300D image.

Yes. I need to redo it with color slide film and not botch the upsampling.
But the neighbors are beginning to think I'm more than a tad weird shooting
large numbers of frames of the local power transformer, since usually the
first thing I do with a new camera is shoot the back street here as a test
chart.

> If I was forced to use 6 x 7, likely my images wouldn't even exist!

Well, if you don't use medium format, you don't get sharp landscapes at
11x14 and over. Maybe people who don't like sharp landscapes are better
off...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 09:28:43 GMT, Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:


>Scanned 6*7 looks nice at that size.

The thing to remember is that Stacey has
no experience with scanning film, other
than on cheap flatbeds maybe.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> I suppose you NEVER considered it could be an optical resolution issue
> either? I'm not seeing this problem you're having...

Shoot the same foliage at ever increasing distances for the same FL and
you will innevitably get images that are at the edge of (and beyond)
resolution at some point. More likely due to sensor limitations than
optical, for that matter.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>How about just something interesting? You don't have anything interesting
>>>shot at infinity with that lens and need to go do a "test shot"?
>>
>>No.
>
>
> I expected that responce..

That was not my response. (Selective snipping to make your point
Stacey, very low class). What my response was is:

"No. The point Stacey, is that to make a comparison, comparable tests
need to be made. Where possible, sources of bias and error for both
should be removed."

I don't happen to have made any specifically 'infinity' photographs of
any kind since I bought the camera in March. Most photos have been very
selectively focused, and many have been macro. I've shot over 600
'people' shots of various kinds from portraits to fashion shows to
volleyball. (I no longer publicly post people shots unless the subject
has signed a release).

>
>
>>So, I propose we each go shoot something 'comparable' such as a church
>>steeple. Ornate if possible.
>
>
> Why would I want to go shoot a picture of a church steeple? Don't you have
> ANYTHING you've shot that isn't a "test shot" to show us your skills or
> creativity?

Stacey,

You can't have it both ways Stacey. I don't spend my time shooting
tests, regardless of what you say. OTOH, when there is a question of
performance I do shoot a test to see what is what.

Since you've been touting Oly lenses and Oly sensors rendering this and
rendering that, the only comparison that is valid is sort of comparable
test. Comparable tests (unlike the phots you linked to at dpreview)
mean ideally the same subject, same lighting, tripods, similar lenses
(FL, aperture, quality), etc. The less similar the tests, then the less
comparable the results.

I also suggested you choose a subject. Any subject that you and I can
both reasonably do in our respective areas.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:\
>>
>> Yes, four images if you need the full height, but we are talking
>> landscapes where perhaps the extra height is simply not needed.
>
> If you shoot two frames with a 3:4 camera held vertically, you could
> get, say 3000 x 4300 or so pixels (after 20% overlap and lossage in
> stitching). That's about 300 dpi at 11x14. 6x7 at l1x14 is 800 dpi,
> and I assure you, 800 dpi from 4000 dpi scans looks better than 300
> dpi on current inkjets, at least the R800/R1800 can render a lot more
> detail than dcams provide at 300 dpi.
>
> (Note that you'd probably need three images from a 2:3 camera, but
> get a much longer image.)
>
> (FWIW, 4000 dpi scans from 645 have enough pixels to print at 540 dpi
> at 11x14. About the same quality, I'd estimate, as two 8MP images
> stitched together.)
>
>> I'd looked at your comparison before and I find it impossible to
>> compare because
>
> Yes. It's not useful as much more than an order of magnitude
> comparison. Don't ask how well the tiles are rendered, ask if are
> they recognizable as tiles. I think it hints that at a 2.0x
> upsampling, scans would look better than digital, and that at a 1.6x
> upsampling, digital would look better than film. I think.
>
>> (a) you are comparing black-and-white and colour and (b) there is
>> noticeable camera shake (?) on the MF image (or is it a lens defect
>> at the corner of the frame?)
>
> The tiles in the lower right are a tad soft. But look that closely at
> the 300D image; the 300D isn't resolving the tiles as well. (The lens
> is a superwide, and wide angle lenses don't hold out to the corners
> the way telephoto primes do. I need to redo it with 65mm (6x7), 55mm
> (645), 35mm (1dsm2 equiv), and 22mm (APS-C). (150, 110, 70, and 43
> would be even better, but I don't own the 150. Sigh.)
>
>> and (c) the upsampling artefacts in the 300D image.
>
> Yes. I need to redo it with color slide film and not botch the
> upsampling. But the neighbors are beginning to think I'm more than a
> tad weird shooting large numbers of frames of the local power
> transformer, since usually the first thing I do with a new camera is
> shoot the back street here as a test chart.
>
>> If I was forced to use 6 x 7, likely my images wouldn't even exist!
>
> Well, if you don't use medium format, you don't get sharp landscapes
> at 11x14 and over. Maybe people who don't like sharp landscapes are
> better off...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

David,

I was simply saying that the number of horizontal pixels is not
necessarily a limitation, as multiple pictures can be stitched. I'm not
trying to discuss 35mm or DSLR versus MF. As I don't print my pictures
very often, and even then A4 size (297 x 210mm) is the maximum I do, I
don't need MF. So our needs are different - nothing wrong with that.

Having said that, your comparison is an interesting one. I think the MF
image could be improved, and I would like to see a comparison with two or
four stitched images to increase the number of pixels in the DSLR image.

Cheers,
David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <r6kme.41785$G8.29645@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>> In article <2fgme.41701$G8.7408@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> David J Taylor
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Try AutoStitch - very little pain.
>>>
>>> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autos [...] titch.html
>>
>> Looks very impressive. Would love to, but don't have a Windows
>> machine.
>
>You may not need one - just get emulator software. I believe that's
>available for the Mac. Under Linux you could try WINE.

I'm a Mac user, and emulating Windows would require emulation of the
instruction set, unlike WINE on Linux. That's fine for the odd thing, but
for something computationally intensive like pano stitching, it'd be really
painful.

And Hugin really is very very good - almost entirely automated, and it's
free.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <r6kme.41785$G8.29645@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> David J Taylor
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>> Chris Brown wrote:
>>> In article <2fgme.41701$G8.7408@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>>> David J Taylor
>>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Try AutoStitch - very little pain.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autos [...] titch.html
>>>
>>> Looks very impressive. Would love to, but don't have a Windows
>>> machine.
>>
>> You may not need one - just get emulator software. I believe that's
>> available for the Mac. Under Linux you could try WINE.
>
> I'm a Mac user, and emulating Windows would require emulation of the
> instruction set, unlike WINE on Linux. That's fine for the odd thing,
> but
> for something computationally intensive like pano stitching, it'd be
> really painful.
>
> And Hugin really is very very good - almost entirely automated, and
> it's
> free.

Yes, it would indeed be slower than you might like! I hope who ever buys
or licences AutoStitch will consider a Mac version.

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:


>
> Since you've been touting Oly lenses and Oly sensors rendering this and
> rendering that,

In normal shooting, not shooting test charts and color charts. Just show us
some tele shots you've done near infinity.... Or not. I expect the latter.
--

Stacey