Pixel density - can the playing field be leveled???

Started Jun 6, 2009 | Discussions thread
Cheburashka Regular Member • Posts: 297
The importance of processing.

Humphrey Nash wrote:

Yes the image is downsized. I adjusted and smoothed it very crudely. The original had a very fine grain noise which I was trying to filter out. Full size unadjusted image below. This is converted from RAW. I think. I don't know what a JPEG with IC or PP NR would look like. We may have to wait for comparative reviews for definitive answers.

You might want to try your own NR.

Just to show you how important processing is, compare and contrast. Here's the original:

http://www.bildercache.de/anzeige.html?dateiname=20090829-203932-171.jpg

Here's your processed downsized version:

http://humphrey.smugmug.com/photos/634052579_F6iEV-X3.jpg

And here's my processed version downsized to the same dimensions as yours:

http://www.pbase.com/cheburashka/image/116671034/original.jpg

If you had shown yours and said it was from the G10, and I showed mine and said it was from the G11, everyone would be saying, "See! I told you larger pixels had less noise!"

So, it really is difficult to separate the effects of a more efficient sensor, improved processing, and pixel density. The first place to start is with a RAW conversion that optimally converts, but only converts (that is, no extra processing in the conversion process), the files. That should take "improved processing" out of the equation. Next up is separating efficiency from pixel density, and I will happily leavy that to John Sheehy and Malcolm Practice.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
cpw
cpw
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow