All you've demonstrated is that a hi-res scan of a film image is superior to a tortured, lo-res scan. That didn't really require demonstration. It's common sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with RAW file interpolation.
Yes, some digital images show CA or digital fringing. It can usually be corrected in conversion. But it's far less common when lenses designed for the digital sensor area are used. My DA lenses produce images that are quite free of these artifacts. I can't say the same for all of my FA and A lenses. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Bob Rapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Based on Print sizes and Megapixels, I made a little test with my film > >> scanner. I scanned an image that had a huge amount of detail. First at > >> 5400 > >> dpi and then 2700 dpi. The 2700 was downsized to match a 6mp image and > >> then > >> upsized to match the original. You can see the results here: > >> > >> > >> http://www.users.on.net/~bobrapp/test/pictures.html > > > > I'm not sure what this test does. If you don't start with two images of a > > scene, one film, one RAW sensor data, what is the point? > > > > I see the "home" link really _does_ mean "home". 8-) > > > > I was trying to demonstrate that detail cannot be restored or created > when upsizing an image. Only additional data (higher resolution image) can > create that. Apart from that, the upsized image can make the scene look like > a plastic model. > When I increase a RAW file with ACR, chromatic aberrations become a real > problem - especially in areas of high contrast. I don't find that a problem > with film. > > Cheers, > > Bob > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
