G2 sharpness

[Mick Ruthven]

I've had a new G2 for about a week. In testing the operation of the camera, I've found that the resolution in Macro mode, a bit of zoom, about two feet away (holding the camera in front of me pointing at my face) is stunning. This was at f 2.5.

Later I did some test shots on a tripod, manual focus, etc., and found that the apparent sharpness at longer distances was not nearly as good. It varies with the aperature (that's another subject) but is never the razor-sharp result of the closeup. Is that a normal, if disappointing, occurance? Or is my camera defective?

 

[Moody]

I've had a new G2 for about a week. In testing the operation of the
camera, I've found that the resolution in Macro mode, a bit of
zoom, about two feet away (holding the camera in front of me
pointing at my face) is stunning. This was at f 2.5.

Later I did some test shots on a tripod, manual focus, etc., and
found that the apparent sharpness at longer distances was not
nearly as good. It varies with the aperature (that's another
subject) but is never the razor-sharp result of the closeup. Is
that a normal, if disappointing, occurance? Or is my camera
defective?

I think 4 megapixel cameras just don't have the capability to sharpen such a wide area. It has nothing to do with the quality of the lens or CCD, it's just lack of technology. It will be better in the future.

--
G3...come to daddy!!!

 

[Mick Ruthven]

I'm not sure what you mean by "such a wide area". It wasn't the width/angle coverage that seemed to make the difference, it was the distance from the lens.

I've had a new G2 for about a week. In testing the operation of the
camera, I've found that the resolution in Macro mode, a bit of
zoom, about two feet away (holding the camera in front of me
pointing at my face) is stunning. This was at f 2.5.

Later I did some test shots on a tripod, manual focus, etc., and
found that the apparent sharpness at longer distances was not
nearly as good. It varies with the aperature (that's another
subject) but is never the razor-sharp result of the closeup. Is
that a normal, if disappointing, occurance? Or is my camera
defective?

I think 4 megapixel cameras just don't have the capability to
sharpen such a wide area. It has nothing to do with the quality of
the lens or CCD, it's just lack of technology. It will be better in
the future.

--
G3...come to daddy!!!

 

[AlexandreC]

Something shot up close will seem sharper because it's larger - if you shoot something far away, therefore something small in the camera, it won't appear as sharp. Otherwise, I can't see what the problem is. Are you shooting at f2?

 

[Moody]

I'm not sure what you mean by "such a wide area". It wasn't the
width/angle coverage that seemed to make the difference, it was the
distance from the lens.

let me try to explain with an example...

on 20 feet distance from a statue you can capture the whole statue, and nearly every dot on your photo is another color, meaning that there's much detail in the statue on the photo...

on 1 mile distance from the same statue, the statue is just 10 dots with nearly the same color. It's unsharp, caused by the lack of megapixels of the camera.

it's in my head, but doesn't come out the way I want

--
G3...come to daddy!!!

 

[Anders Wånell]

I'm not sure what you mean by "such a wide area".

The area that the image covers is wider compared to the macro-image.

I have also noticed this phenomenon, but thinks (without have doing any tests) that a bigger detail just seems to be sharper than a smaller.

 

[Mick Ruthven]

I know what you mean. I don't think that was the whole problem with the seeming-less resolution at a distance, but it's possible.

For the closeup, it was f 2.5. For the more distant shots, it was f 2 through f 8, full wide and full tele.

I'd post a couple of images if I could see how to do that...

Something shot up close will seem sharper because it's larger - if
you shoot something far away, therefore something small in the
camera, it won't appear as sharp. Otherwise, I can't see what the
problem is. Are you shooting at f2?

 

[Mick Ruthven]

Thanks, I understandwhat you mean. It may be only that, but I'm not convinced yet...

I'm not sure what you mean by "such a wide area". It wasn't the
width/angle coverage that seemed to make the difference, it was the
distance from the lens.

let me try to explain with an example...

on 20 feet distance from a statue you can capture the whole statue,
and nearly every dot on your photo is another color, meaning that
there's much detail in the statue on the photo...

on 1 mile distance from the same statue, the statue is just 10 dots
with nearly the same color. It's unsharp, caused by the lack of
megapixels of the camera.

it's in my head, but doesn't come out the way I want

--
G3...come to daddy!!!

 

[Mick Ruthven]

Here are two images:

1.



The closeup. In-camera normal sharpness, no post-processing except saving to a smaller jpg in Photoshop. Excuse the ugly mug, but the lines and whiskers and red eyes are good for the test

2.



Further away. Full wide angle, fixed focus at infinity, f 2.5 (the sharpest aperature of this test), tripod, very still air. Again, in-camera normal sharpness, no post-processing except saving to a smaller jpg in Photoshop.

Thanks,

Mick Ruthven

 

[AlexandreC]

I agree with the others. Otherwise, shoot the second shot at f6.3 or something. f2.5 is too wideopen.

 

[Wayne J]

Mick Ruthven wrote:
Again,

in-camera normal sharpness, no post-processing except saving to a
smaller jpg in Photoshop.

Thanks,

Mick Ruthven

I've got a Pro90, not a G2, but my impression is that the cameras are similar. I always have to add USM. Its just a way of life with digital cameras. Some cameras add a lot of it "in camera," but (to its credit) Canon does not. This lets you control the results in photoshop. If I wanted to print the outdoor scene, I would try amount=100, radius=1.0 and threshold =0 for starters. For posting on the web that might be too much radius.
--
Wayne

 

[Julien Baudry]

I've had a new G2 for about a week. In testing the operation of the
camera, I've found that the resolution in Macro mode, a bit of
zoom, about two feet away (holding the camera in front of me
pointing at my face) is stunning. This was at f 2.5.

Later I did some test shots on a tripod, manual focus, etc., and
found that the apparent sharpness at longer distances was not
nearly as good. It varies with the aperature (that's another
subject) but is never the razor-sharp result of the closeup. Is
that a normal, if disappointing, occurance? Or is my camera
defective?

Then you made a good choice by choosing the G2, as pictures from other 4MP or even 5MP cameras do look much softer than the G2's ones.

If you really want very sharp pictures, shoot in RAW and apply a good unsharp masking.

 

[jpmar]

I have noticed the same thing with my G2 and I thought at first that the camera was defective. My two cents of explanation is that this is a limitation of the number of pixels available to show details in farther images.

If the image to be recorded covers 2 square feet , 4 million pixels will show very small details given proper exposure and if the lens is capable of disciminating them. The G2 in these conditions can provide superb images.

But if these 4 mpixels must cover a 1000 square feet area, a lot of details in this larger area won't be recorded because there is too many things to record to fit in 4mpixels, not because of poor focus or limited resolving power of the lens. Some smaller distant objects will not be represented because they appear smaller on the ccd than a pixel or because there is an insufficient number of pixels to show them clearly. The image appears unfocused even though the focus is OK and the lens should have enough resolution power to discriminate more details.

With announced resolutions on the order of 10 to 15 million pixels for professional digital cameras, the problem will be minimized and the lens resolution will be a greater limiting factor. Take a look at comparisons of details taken with 11 mpixels and 6 mpixels cameras at http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EOS1DS/E1DSPICS.HTM

In analog photography, the limiting factor is the film grain; if grain is too coarse, it will block small details. But with most 100 to 400 iso films, the grain is so fine that very small details can be reproduced and then distant objects will look much sharper (with proper exposure and sharp lens) than with current digital cameras.
jpmar

 

[Leonard Richmond]

Looking at his eyebrows and similar sized roots in the wall, they look equally sharp to me. The eyebrows may look SLIGHTLY sharper, but they are also contrastier than the roots against the rocks, so the in-camera sharpening would have accentuated that.

I've recently changed from USM values of Amount 100%, Radius 0.5, Threshold 0 to Amount around 300%, Radius 0.3, Threshold 0. Slilghtly sharper and less fringing. Try it, I think you'll like it.

The other USM variation that you'll probably like on the outdoor scene is Amount 15%, Radius: 30 (to 60), Threshold 0. It will cut through the "digital haze" and "clarify" the picture. (You can search on "clarify" in the forums and read about it.) Do this in addition to the sharpening.

 

[Mick Ruthven]

Learning to use RAW is my next project. Since you seem to use RAW, I'll ask you here...

I can't find what dpreview, in the review of the G2, calls the TWAIN RAW Acquire Module and describes with screen shots. I can't find that on the software CD or (of course) on my computer. There's a "Camera Twain Driver" but that doesn't seem to be it.

I'm using Win 2000. I do have Canon's RAW I mage Converter and it seems to work fine, but the description of the TWAIN RAW Acquire Module made it seem to have more features for adjusting the image.

What am I (or my brain) missing?

Then you made a good choice by choosing the G2, as pictures from
other 4MP or even 5MP cameras do look much softer than the G2's
ones.

If you really want very sharp pictures, shoot in RAW and apply a
good unsharp masking.

 

[Julien Baudry]

Learning to use RAW is my next project. Since you seem to use RAW,
I'll ask you here...

I can't find what dpreview, in the review of the G2, calls the
TWAIN RAW Acquire Module and describes with screen shots. I can't
find that on the software CD or (of course) on my computer. There's
a "Camera Twain Driver" but that doesn't seem to be it.

I'm using Win 2000. I do have Canon's RAW I mage Converter and it
seems to work fine, but the description of the TWAIN RAW Acquire
Module made it seem to have more features for adjusting the image.

What am I (or my brain) missing?

The twain acquire module is not necessary. Download the pics (they are quoted .crw instead of .jpg) , then use either "Canon RAW converter" or "BreezeBrowser raw converter" to get a TIFF formated image.

You'd better use BreezeBrowser (a commercial software) to convert RAW images, because it can post-process the image (you can sharpen the image very efficiently) and it has a very usefull noise-reduction system.

 

[Henrik Juul]

What is USM and is it something I can use with my G2?

Henrik

in-camera normal sharpness, no post-processing except saving to a
smaller jpg in Photoshop.

Thanks,

Mick Ruthven

I've got a Pro90, not a G2, but my impression is that the cameras
are similar. I always have to add USM. Its just a way of life
with digital cameras. Some cameras add a lot of it "in camera,"
but (to its credit) Canon does not. This lets you control the
results in photoshop. If I wanted to print the outdoor scene, I
would try amount=100, radius=1.0 and threshold =0 for starters.
For posting on the web that might be too much radius.
--
Wayne

 

[sameer]

What is USM and is it something I can use with my G2?

Henrik

USM = Unsharp Mask - one of the Photoshop built-in filters.

Sam - a proud G2 owner from Nepal
Namasté !

http://www.pbase.com/sameer

 

[Wayne J]

USM is indeed a photoshop "filter". (Filter, sharpen, unsharp mask). I think its also available on most other other image editing programs, like Paint Shop Pro.

Not that I want to be confusing, but the reason you need to use USM is that digital cameras have something called an "anti-aliasing filter" between the lens and the sensor. If they did not have the anti-aliasing filter, you could get lots of weird patterns in the small details in your shots. However, the anti-aliasing filter makes shots look a bit soft. You can and should use USM to correct this. Its just a fact of life for digital pictures.

You camera itself does some USM when it records a JPEG. You can (I assume on a G2) pick, high, normal and low sharpening. This controls the amount of USM applied by the camera. On my Canon (a Pro90), the "normal" level of in-camera sharpening is not enough for a final product. This is a good thing. If the camera sharpens too much, the shot would be forever screwed up. In photoshop, however, I can mess with the USM parameters. For example, I have to use more USM when printing than with displaying shots on the web. But I always have to use some USM.

Lower end cameras apply more USM in the camera, so post-processing may not be needed, but when too much USM is applied, the picture suffers. The high-end Canons, like the Pro90 (and I think the G2) intentionally apply less USM in the camera.

There are about a million threads on dpreview of folks complaining that the shots out of their cameras are too soft, and they post a shot "with no post processing" to supposedly prove it. It almost always looks like a lack of USM to me.

Samples of my shots (all of which are post-processed with USM) are at http://www.pbase.com/waynejacobsen/bali

--Wayne

 

[MarkMcCombs]

No, no, no, no, no. No matter what's in the scene or how far from the camera the subject(s) are, a wide angle shot should still be able to come out sharp. Far or close, tele- or wide-, the camera should make sharp images.

Two pictures of the same subject at the same image size, one taken with telephoto from far away, one taken with wideangle close up, should both be sharp. Obviously if the subject is different size on the ccd then the sharpness of said object will be different, just as it would be on film. Do we really need to say this?

But if can't get sharp pictures at wide angle then something is surely wrong.

Mark

I'm not sure what you mean by "such a wide area". It wasn't the
width/angle coverage that seemed to make the difference, it was the
distance from the lens.

let me try to explain with an example...

on 20 feet distance from a statue you can capture the whole statue,
and nearly every dot on your photo is another color, meaning that
there's much detail in the statue on the photo...

on 1 mile distance from the same statue, the statue is just 10 dots
with nearly the same color. It's unsharp, caused by the lack of
megapixels of the camera.

it's in my head, but doesn't come out the way I want

--
G3...come to daddy!!!