Reading mode: Light Dark

Actual pixel crop of an ISO400 F828 shot

Go to last post
P

paulchiu

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
412
Reaction score
0
Location
Forest Hills , US
I am limited to posting 500 pixel widths on my free internet site, so I cropped out a "tiny" off center portion of an ISO400 no flash shot.

This was taken at f4.0, no flash, 1.5", on tripod.



This is the "tiny" off center portion saved in actual pixel. What you see is exactly from Sony F828.



Remember that this was ISO400, and my office was very brightly lit !

And this is the photographer !



Daddy used a Canon S40 camera, freehand, f4 and also ISO400.
 
paulchiu said:
I am limited to posting 500 pixel widths on my free internet site,
so I cropped out a "tiny" off center portion of an ISO400 no flash
shot.

This was taken at f4.0, no flash, 1.5", on tripod.



This is the "tiny" off center portion saved in actual pixel. What
you see is exactly from Sony F828.



Remember that this was ISO400, and my office was very brightly lit !

And this is the photographer !



Daddy used a Canon S40 camera, freehand, f4 and also ISO400.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... interesting. Perhaps the jagging effect is the result of noise reduction. NR has worked very hard in this image, and now notice the very pronounced pixel blocking effect in the books and the bag's strap handle(s) on thp top of the shelf.
 
Yes and if you blew it up to the size of the Empire State Building I'll bet you'll find even more defects in the picture. Get a life.

Roger
Kiwi118644 said:
Hmmm... interesting. Perhaps the jagging effect is the result of
noise reduction. NR has worked very hard in this image, and now
notice the very pronounced pixel blocking effect in the books and
the bag's strap handle(s) on thp top of the shelf.
Click to expand...
 
Kiwi,

I would have been floored if the Nikon logo came out clearly. But figuring that it was ISO 400. I really cannot complain about it. Here it a bigger version. (found a free site finally..)

 
Roger,

I don't know what your standards of quality are, but I can downsize that image 50% and still see the jaggies quite obviously. If you don't see them, it's because you don't want to. Or maybe your rose-colored glasses have a nice anti-aliasing filter attached.

So, rather than telling people to get a life, perhaps you should get some new glasses. Oh, and by the way, the emperor is naked.
Roger C. Levit said:
Roger
Roger C. Levit said:
Hmmm... interesting. Perhaps the jagging effect is the result of
noise reduction. NR has worked very hard in this image, and now
notice the very pronounced pixel blocking effect in the books and
the bag's strap handle(s) on thp top of the shelf.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/jdb/root
 
Have you ever noticed the name of this web site? Doesn't it say "Digital Photography Review" at the top of the page? Believe it or not, this is a place where people from all over the world can come to see what the market and the latest in technology has to offer. Switched on consumers no longer just have to rely on the glossy pamphlets to form some idea how a product will perform. dpreview will be one of the first places to pop-up in a web search when someone start doing some homework. Not only is there an excellent in-depth review by Phil... but also forums so people can see how certain cameras perform in the hands of real people out in the real world. It is an excellent way to see the strengths and weaknesses of any particular camera and compare how they perform in relation to other cameras that maybe sitting on the shelves next to each other. (especially if they are in the same price range)

The 828 is the latest flagship from one of the biggest digital camera manufacturers to just hit the streets. It will be generating a lot of interest as to whether it can break any new ground as far as the technology is concerned. As it is still early days and there isn't even a full review out yet... 828 images that are being presented here will be getting looked at very closely by a lot of people to see exactly what the latest Sony offering is actually giving us, be it good or bad. Hence why 100% crops and suchlike a very useful. (thanks paulchiu!) In a few months down the road, it will be just like a users group as far as the 828 is concerned... with "Look at my pretty (downsized 640x480) pictures of me on vacation with the family"... "Wow! nice! (nt)" etc.

If you don't like to see people scrutinising this camera (remember, "dpreview") then I would suggest you find a nice safe Sony users group site somewhere.
Roger C. Levit said:
Roger
Roger C. Levit said:
Hmmm... interesting. Perhaps the jagging effect is the result of
noise reduction. NR has worked very hard in this image, and now
notice the very pronounced pixel blocking effect in the books and
the bag's strap handle(s) on thp top of the shelf.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I can speak objectively, never having owned a Sony. Jaggies on the straight edges of small diagonal objects are a common hazard in digital photography. The detail in such a small area -- the fact that you can make out any of the lettering at all -- is very impressive.

If you printed this at 11x14, I doubt very much that you would notice any jaggies. On screen evaluation at 100% is useful, but we have to remember that we can get near-perfect prints even when the 100% view has imperfections.

I notice that Phil introduced the 828 by complaining that Americans are driving manufacturers to compete in expanding pixel count. In spite of being Canadian, I happen to think that 8 megapixels is a very useful size. It's the required size for a real photo quality 8x10 print, so I will be watching the performance of this chip closely. I expect that it will migrate into a number of other camera brands in the coming year.
Justin Blethrow said:
I don't know what your standards of quality are, but I can
downsize that image 50% and still see the jaggies quite
obviously. If you don't see them, it's because you don't want to.
Or maybe your rose-colored glasses have a nice anti-aliasing filter
attached.

So, rather than telling people to get a life, perhaps you should
get some new glasses. Oh, and by the way, the emperor is naked.
Roger C. Levit said:
Roger
Justin Blethrow said:
Hmmm... interesting. Perhaps the jagging effect is the result of
noise reduction. NR has worked very hard in this image, and now
notice the very pronounced pixel blocking effect in the books and
the bag's strap handle(s) on thp top of the shelf.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/jdb/root
Click to expand...
 
Well, since nobody mentioned this - I liked that last picture even more than the first! :-) What a cutee...

Regards.

Leigh
 
Quite impressive, and encouraging. Very reasonable noise at ISO 400.

But, but.. but..... the tripod. Holy moly! What else do you put on that thing?! ;-)

Jim
paulchiu said:
I am limited to posting 500 pixel widths on my free internet site,
so I cropped out a "tiny" off center portion of an ISO400 no flash
shot.

This was taken at f4.0, no flash, 1.5", on tripod.



This is the "tiny" off center portion saved in actual pixel. What
you see is exactly from Sony F828.



Remember that this was ISO400, and my office was very brightly lit !

And this is the photographer !



Daddy used a Canon S40 camera, freehand, f4 and also ISO400.
Click to expand...
--
Jim Fuglestad

Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase. -Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
 
Hi Peter,

Yes, some degree of aliasing is inevitable. However, the aliasing seen here is significantly worse than it needs to be. Bad aliasing will have a negative effect on a print, even if you can't see the sharp point of the 'jaggies', by effectively blurring and roughing edges. Also, any sort of grainy texture becomes a lot rougher. I think if you could print this, and a version identical except with better aliasing, you'd notice a substantial difference.

You can see what I mean by bad aliasing in this 828 shot:

http://www.pbase.com/image/24395825

I don't think you'll be seeing this sensor in any other devices. I don't think you'd be seeing it in this one if Sony could have pushed to release back another six months.
Peter Spiro said:
If you printed this at 11x14, I doubt very much that you would
notice any jaggies. On screen evaluation at 100% is useful, but we
have to remember that we can get near-perfect prints even when the
100% view has imperfections.

I notice that Phil introduced the 828 by complaining that Americans
are driving manufacturers to compete in expanding pixel count. In
spite of being Canadian, I happen to think that 8 megapixels is a
very useful size. It's the required size for a real photo quality
8x10 print, so I will be watching the performance of this chip
closely. I expect that it will migrate into a number of other
camera brands in the coming year.
Justin Blethrow said:
I don't know what your standards of quality are, but I can
downsize that image 50% and still see the jaggies quite
obviously. If you don't see them, it's because you don't want to.
Or maybe your rose-colored glasses have a nice anti-aliasing filter
attached.

So, rather than telling people to get a life, perhaps you should
get some new glasses. Oh, and by the way, the emperor is naked.
Roger C. Levit said:
Roger
Peter Spiro said:
Hmmm... interesting. Perhaps the jagging effect is the result of
noise reduction. NR has worked very hard in this image, and now
notice the very pronounced pixel blocking effect in the books and
the bag's strap handle(s) on thp top of the shelf.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/jdb/root
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/jdb/root
 
My bad !

Here are 3 cropped or downsized ISO400 samples. No flash, just ambient light. I think the F828 works better with the on board pop up flash.
  1. 1 was Cropped from actual pixels 8M test image. Stopped down and tripod mounted. A UV filter is used throughout.

  1. 2 was downsized to a perfect 1/2. Same settings as #1. The rainbow effect is from the upper glass panels. Not CA . The wall's grain is perfectly reproduced. I was not happy that the trophy lettering did not come out.

  1. 3 is under 2 spot lights. It is a crop of a downsized image. The F828 has no problems with evenly lit scenes. Again, no pop up flash here. And no photoshop work.

l.x. said:
Any comments, Paulchiu?
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the correct pictures. This looks much more as expected, though not too bad really.

LX+R
paulchiu said:
Here are 3 cropped or downsized ISO400 samples. No flash, just
ambient light. I think the F828 works better with the on board pop
up flash.
  1. 1 was Cropped from actual pixels 8M test image. Stopped down and
tripod mounted. A UV filter is used throughout.
  1. 2 was downsized to a perfect 1/2. Same settings as #1. The
rainbow effect is from the upper glass panels. Not CA . The
wall's grain is perfectly reproduced. I was not happy that the
trophy lettering did not come out.
  1. 3 is under 2 spot lights. It is a crop of a downsized image. The
F828 has no problems with evenly lit scenes. Again, no pop up
flash here. And no photoshop work.
l.x. said:
Any comments, Paulchiu?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
LX+R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Kracking Kromars.
Replies
2
Views
10K
Bosun Higgs
B
FujLiver
My new Fujifilm GFX100RF
2 3
Replies
40
Views
56K
jhunna
J
ProfHankD
  • User review User review
The Chuzhao mini digital TLR
2 3
Replies
58
Views
155K
Pezzie
P
Satyaa
ML journey with m43... part 3 exposure, framing and editing
Replies
0
Views
7K
Satyaa
Satyaa
TheSoaringSprite
Zf Firmware 2.0 Ready for Download
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
44K
fotosean
fotosean

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top