«

Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other
than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"

DP

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote:

> Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
> Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything other
> than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>
> DP

I should think 400% would be even better.

"ray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote:
>
>> Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
>> Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything
>> other
>> than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>>
>> DP
>
> I should think 400% would be even better.

I agree, but I'm under the impression that at anything other than 100
percent or actual pixels, you're actually looking at how the software is
interpreting the image rather than what the sensor/lens is putting out.

is that incorrect?

DP

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:10:41 -0400, John Smith wrote:

>
> "ray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
>>> Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything
>>> other
>>> than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>>>
>>> DP
>>
>> I should think 400% would be even better.
>
> I agree, but I'm under the impression that at anything other than 100
> percent or actual pixels, you're actually looking at how the software is
> interpreting the image rather than what the sensor/lens is putting out.
>
> is that incorrect?
>
> DP

I would agree in the case of less than 100% - at 200 or 400 you should
actually be able to SEE the pixels - you can't hardly see one pixel on
your screen. At 200% each pixel should be a 2x2 square.

"ray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:10:41 -0400, John Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> "ray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:16:50 -0400, John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gonna do some lens/sharpness comparisons this weekend...
>>>> Am I right in my belief that trying to evaluate the images at anything
>>>> other
>>>> than actual pixels or 100 percent is useless or is that "old think"
>>>>
>>>> DP
>>>
>>> I should think 400% would be even better.
>>
>> I agree, but I'm under the impression that at anything other than 100
>> percent or actual pixels, you're actually looking at how the software is
>> interpreting the image rather than what the sensor/lens is putting out.
>>
>> is that incorrect?
>>
>> DP
>
> I would agree in the case of less than 100% - at 200 or 400 you should
> actually be able to SEE the pixels - you can't hardly see one pixel on
> your screen. At 200% each pixel should be a 2x2 square.
>

I'm not so much concerned with seeing the actual pixel. I just want to be
sure that what I'm looking at is the actual output from the camera and not
resampling or resizing by whatever viewing program I'm using.

DP