1Ds MkII

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Will D., Nov 17, 2004.

  1. Will D.

    Will D. Guest

    I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
    equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.

    Opinions/comments?

    Will D.
     
    Will D., Nov 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Will D." <> wrote in news::

    > I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
    > equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
    >
    > Opinions/comments?
    >
    > Will D.
    >
    >


    I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of the
    imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of the 35mm.

    Obviously the pixel count helps, though.

    And of course, I am open to correction.
     
    Nunnya Bizniss, Nov 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Will D.

    Ron Lacey Guest

    On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:17:11 -0600, Nunnya Bizniss
    <> wrote:

    >I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of the
    >imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of the 35mm.


    The original 1Ds was also had a full frame 35mm chip. I suspect at
    16mp the resolution of all practical purposes is very close to film.

    Ron

    Ron Lacey
    Murillo Ontario


    Ron's Photos
    http://ronsfotos.com

    Ron's Cartoons
    http://ronstoons.com

    The Adventures of Ron and Dave
    http://ronanddave.com

    Paint Shop Pro Zero to Hero
    http://www.friendsofed.com/books/1590592387/
     
    Ron Lacey, Nov 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Ron Lacey <> writes:
    > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:17:11 -0600, Nunnya Bizniss


    >> I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of
    >> the imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of
    >> the 35mm.


    > The original 1Ds was also had a full frame 35mm chip. I suspect at
    > 16mp the resolution of all practical purposes is very close to film.


    The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor
    was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is
    increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is
    probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than
    50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond
    100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock).

    This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/
    film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII
    offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 17, 2004
    #4

  5. > The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor
    > was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is
    > increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is
    > probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than
    > 50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond
    > 100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock).
    >
    > This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/
    > film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII
    > offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films


    What is your source for that info? I would like to learn more.
    Also, lp/mm? Lines per mm?
     
    Nunnya Bizniss, Nov 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Nunnya Bizniss <> writes:

    >> The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor
    >> was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is
    >> increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is
    >> probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than
    >> 50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond
    >> 100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock).
    >>
    >> This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/
    >> film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII
    >> offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films


    > What is your source for that info?


    Mostly manufacturer's specifications.

    > I would like to learn more.


    There are written thick books about this. Visit your library.

    As for online sources - a good one is Norman Koren's website,
    Start here: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html
    For a table of film data, see: http://creekin.net/films.htm

    > Also, lp/mm? Lines per mm?


    Line pairs per mm.

    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 17, 2004
    #6
  7. On 17-Nov-04 12:17:11, Nunnya Bizniss said
    >"Will D." <> wrote in news::


    >> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
    >> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
    >>
    >> Opinions/comments?
    >>
    >> Will D.
    >>
    >>


    >I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of the
    >imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of the 35mm.


    >Obviously the pixel count helps, though.


    >And of course, I am open to correction.



    It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely
    populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image
    size.

    Does that sound reasonable?

    All the best,
    Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

    I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
    Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
     
    Angus Manwaring, Nov 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Will D.

    Will D. Guest

    On 2004-11-17, Gisle Hannemyr <> wrote:
    > Ron Lacey <> writes:
    >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:17:11 -0600, Nunnya Bizniss

    >
    >>> I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of
    >>> the imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of
    >>> the 35mm.

    >
    >> The original 1Ds was also had a full frame 35mm chip. I suspect at
    >> 16mp the resolution of all practical purposes is very close to film.

    >
    > The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor
    > was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is
    > increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is
    > probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than
    > 50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond
    > 100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock).
    >
    > This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/
    > film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII
    > offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films


    Sounds about right, IIRC. I suspect the upper limits are more
    theoretical than practical, tho. Difference between laboratory test
    results and what one can get in the field is the reality check here.
    The finest grain film with the most expensive equipment still needs
    technique most pros don't use outside the studio, AFAIK.

    So what's the street price on the old 1Ds now?

    Will D.
     
    Will D., Nov 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Will D.

    Gardner Guest

    In article <952.817T1157T12964828angus@angusm_antispem_.demon.co.uk>,
    "Angus Manwaring" <angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk> writes:
    >
    > It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely
    > populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image
    > size.
    >


    No, physical size is important:

    (1) big sensor -> big photo-sites which are more sensitive and
    are less affected by noise.

    (2) big sensor -> low/no "multiplication factor" so your wide
    angle lens is really wide-angle.

    ============================================================
    Gardner Buchanan <>
    Ottawa, ON FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today.
     
    Gardner, Nov 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Will D. wrote:
    > I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
    > equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
    >
    > Opinions/comments?
    >
    > Will D.
    >

    All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
    a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
    (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
    not for quality DSLR sensors.

    The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
    is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
    operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging
    digital images.

    I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
    30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
    responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what
    I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric
    growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by
    others doing the same thing.

    35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging
    through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or
    as big as a digital image.

    Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30%
    noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to
    degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with
    a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture
    being the only truly valid comparison.

    What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm
    image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make
    a print and it was that print which became the photograph.

    When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
    negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be
    printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
    produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega
    pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm
    film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do
    is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and
    exceed previous boundaries of film.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Nov 18, 2004
    #10
  11. Will D.

    BlackOps Guest

    Douglas, I find this interesting because I work in a printing environment
    and have a large format color plotter available to me and was wondering how
    many megapixels are really necessary to get a clean 24"x36" print. I have
    printed a decent (a bit grainy but no jaggies) 18"x24" print from my Sony
    Mavica that has less than 1 megapixel. Thanks for the info.


    Jeff G.


    "Douglas MacDonald" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Will D. wrote:
    > > I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
    > > equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
    > >
    > > Opinions/comments?
    > >
    > > Will D.
    > >

    > All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
    > a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
    > (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
    > not for quality DSLR sensors.
    >
    > The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
    > is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
    > operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging
    > digital images.
    >
    > I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
    > 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
    > responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what
    > I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric
    > growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by
    > others doing the same thing.
    >
    > 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging
    > through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or
    > as big as a digital image.
    >
    > Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30%
    > noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to
    > degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with
    > a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture
    > being the only truly valid comparison.
    >
    > What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm
    > image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make
    > a print and it was that print which became the photograph.
    >
    > When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
    > negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be
    > printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
    > produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega
    > pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm
    > film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do
    > is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and
    > exceed previous boundaries of film.
    >
    > Douglas
    >
     
    BlackOps, Nov 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Angus Manwaring wrote:
    []
    > It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how
    > densely populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the
    > resolution/image size.
    >
    > Does that sound reasonable?


    No, a smaller chip (in addition to the sensitivity issues) requires close
    tolerance in the optics and is more susceptible to diffraction limited
    effects, reducing the available aperture range. A bigger chip makes
    achieving the actual resolution of the chip achievable.
    (Having said that, the anti-alias filter should limit the chip resolution
    to half the sampling frequency in any case).

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 18, 2004
    #12
  13. BlackOps wrote:
    > Douglas, I find this interesting because I work in a printing environment
    > and have a large format color plotter available to me and was wondering how
    > many megapixels are really necessary to get a clean 24"x36" print. I have
    > printed a decent (a bit grainy but no jaggies) 18"x24" print from my Sony
    > Mavica that has less than 1 megapixel. Thanks for the info.
    >
    >
    > Jeff G.
    >

    My very best prints (they look as good at 24x36 as they do at 8x12) are
    about 170MB, .psd, Photoshop files. I have some 80 Mb PSD files which
    look pretty good too. All of them originated from a 10D and 20D with
    good glass. I guess if you saved them as jpg files, you might get them
    down to 60% of that size without noticeable loss of detail.

    I use a 6 colour HP designjet but the Epson's and nova's are not too bad
    either. The software you use to get the image up to size will dictate
    how good it is. Some people advocate Fred Miranda's 'stair
    interpolation' action but in practice it has many limitations. The
    software I use alters some parts of the image to vector and others it
    leaves as bitmap. It cost an arm and a leg but it gets the results!

    Douglas
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Nov 18, 2004
    #13
  14. Will D.

    Will D. Guest

    On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald <> wrote:
    > Will D. wrote:
    >> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
    >> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
    >>
    >> Opinions/comments?
    >>
    >> Will D.
    >>

    > All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
    > a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
    > (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
    > not for quality DSLR sensors.
    >
    > The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
    > is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
    > operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging
    > digital images.
    >
    > I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
    > 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
    > responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what
    > I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric
    > growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by
    > others doing the same thing.
    >
    > 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging
    > through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or
    > as big as a digital image.
    >
    > Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30%
    > noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to
    > degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with
    > a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture
    > being the only truly valid comparison.
    >
    > What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm
    > image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make
    > a print and it was that print which became the photograph.
    >
    > When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
    > negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be
    > printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
    > produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega
    > pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm
    > film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do
    > is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and
    > exceed previous boundaries of film.
    >
    > Douglas


    Is this an advertisement? Sounds like you selling something here.
    Don't think most folk confuse genuine detail with fake interpolation.
    No doubt your customers are impressed, and if they're happy you're
    successful. For most people, if you make their images more dramatic,
    they're happy, but that's probably not the case here.

    Don't think folk here are impressed by being told what many hold true is
    only myth. You make a lot of claims that may or may not be valid, but
    it sounds like you're cherry picking your data to back up those claims.
    If you think that the current lot of high resolution DSLRs are hype,
    that's your privilege, but don't think others will buy that just because
    you say so. Too many pros are already using the 1Ds where they used to
    use medium format.

    Not all photographic images become prints, though probably most do, at
    least at some point. Some people are into straight photography only,
    and are careful to reproduce only what they get, and some people always
    manipulate their images. I suspect most people sometimes do one and
    sometimes do the other, but I doubt they confuse the two. I know I
    don't.

    That said, no doubt you have a successful business, but I really doubt
    folk here are willing to accept the standards of your customers as their
    own.

    Will D.
     
    Will D., Nov 18, 2004
    #14
  15. Douglas MacDonald <> writes:
    > All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do
    > with a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may
    > be (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but
    > certainly not for quality DSLR sensors.
    >
    > The process of enlarging digital images is called
    > "Interpolation". This is the digital version of the old optical
    > enlargers. My business operates a digital print lab in Australia which
    > specialises in enlarging digital images.
    >
    > I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
    > 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
    > responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and
    > what I do for a living cannot be done.


    I don't think anybody has ever said that interpolation can't be done.
    It is the claim that interpolation work so well that it can /replace/
    original resolution that has been challenged.

    Last time interpolation was discussed on Usenet. I put up the
    following page:
    http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html

    I think it demonstrates quite clearly that while good interpolation
    algorithms can do some very impressive things to remove pixelation,
    you still need to /have/ details in the original bitmap if you want
    those details to appear in the image. To have the details, you need
    the pixels to capture them - for starters.

    > I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR
    > cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be
    > usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster
    > the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed
    > previous boundaries of film.


    The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm.
    By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution
    around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 18, 2004
    #15
  16. Will D. wrote:
    > On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald <> wrote:
    > > Will D. wrote:
    > >> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
    > >> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
    > >>
    > >> Opinions/comments?
    > >>
    > >> Will D.
    > >>

    > > All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do

    with
    > > a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be


    > > (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but

    certainly
    > > not for quality DSLR sensors.
    > >
    > > The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation".

    This
    > > is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
    > > operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in

    enlarging
    > > digital images.
    > >
    > > I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints

    24" x
    > > 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
    > > responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and

    what
    > > I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the

    electric
    > > growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints

    made by
    > > others doing the same thing.
    > >
    > > 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or

    enlarging
    > > through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as

    cleanly or
    > > as big as a digital image.
    > >
    > > Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has

    around 30%
    > > noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except

    to
    > > degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image

    with
    > > a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or

    picture
    > > being the only truly valid comparison.
    > >
    > > What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a

    35mm
    > > image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to

    make
    > > a print and it was that print which became the photograph.
    > >
    > > When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
    > > negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need

    to be
    > > printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
    > > produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four)

    mega
    > > pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution

    35mm
    > > film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional

    pixels do
    > > is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera

    reach and
    > > exceed previous boundaries of film.
    > >
    > > Douglas

    >
    > Is this an advertisement? Sounds like you selling something here.


    He is always trying to pull a fast one. According to what I've read, he
    used to own a web business with a warranty policy that violated
    Australian law. A bunch of people picked up on it so he pulled the site
    down and claimed that he would never post to Usenet again. That turned
    out to be another lie. During the course of discussion, it was reported
    that Douglas had an elaborate criminal record, and so did his
    wife/partner Marg. Reports said that Douglas did hard time for fraud,
    and that his wife spent time in jail for soliciting as a hooker. He has
    a few sock puppets like "Ryadia" and "Sebastian Po" that he
    occasionally uses to post under.
     
    Bubba LugNuts, Nov 18, 2004
    #16
  17. "Bubba LugNuts" <> writes:

    [garbage]

    You're "reporting" unsubstanciated garbage that originally was
    posted to Usenet by somone using several forged identities.
    Reposting it using yet another silly pseudonym doesn't make it
    credible, or interesting.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 18, 2004
    #17
  18. On 18-Nov-04 03:41:18, Gardner said
    >In article <952.817T1157T12964828angus@angusm_antispem_.demon.co.uk>,
    > "Angus Manwaring" <angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk> writes:
    >>
    >> It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely
    >> populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image
    >> size.
    >>


    >No, physical size is important:


    >(1) big sensor -> big photo-sites which are more sensitive and
    > are less affected by noise.


    >(2) big sensor -> low/no "multiplication factor" so your wide
    > angle lens is really wide-angle.


    I agree the size of the sensor is indicative of the camera's capabilities,
    but in context with the O.P.'s question, if you are effectively measuring
    the digital camera's resolution against a 35mm film camera, of primary
    interest is the true non-interpolated images size you are getting - not
    the measurements of the sensor, notwithstanding the implications you raise
    in your first point. Your second point is valid, but a seperate issue to
    that raised by the O.P.





    All the best,
    Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

    I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
    Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
     
    Angus Manwaring, Nov 18, 2004
    #18
  19. On 18-Nov-04 04:01:18, Douglas MacDonald said
    >Will D. wrote:
    >> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
    >> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
    >>
    >> Opinions/comments?
    >>
    >> Will D.
    >>

    >All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
    >a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
    >(almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
    >not for quality DSLR sensors.


    >The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
    >is the digital version of the old optical enlargers.


    The difference is that you are enlarging true detail when you blow up a
    film image. Interpolation is an algorithm's best guess as to what the
    adjacent pixels are likely to be, and while I have no doubt your results
    are very good, I think its important not to blur this distinction.


    All the best,
    Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

    I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
    Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
     
    Angus Manwaring, Nov 18, 2004
    #19
  20. On 18-Nov-04 10:57:06, Gisle Hannemyr said

    >I think it demonstrates quite clearly that while good interpolation
    >algorithms can do some very impressive things to remove pixelation,
    >you still need to /have/ details in the original bitmap if you want
    >those details to appear in the image. To have the details, you need
    >the pixels to capture them - for starters.


    Well said, sir. :)

    All the best,
    Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

    I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
    Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
     
    Angus Manwaring, Nov 18, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Deryck Lant

    Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview

    Deryck Lant, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Canon
    Replies:
    186
    Views:
    2,072
    Jytzel
    Oct 6, 2004
  2. ThomasH
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    447
    Skip M
    Mar 5, 2005
  3. ThomasH
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    214
    Johan W. Elzenga
    Oct 13, 2005
  4. vampire5150
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    264
    vampire5150
    Mar 31, 2008
  5. vampire5150
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    395
Loading...

Share This Page