Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sony H1 samples

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 11:44:51 AM
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 11:44:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yuk, didn't like the red thing did it?

"Andreas Buchner" <anbucx-nus@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:la5y5w5ij61.1h1al8hatt12w.dlg@40tude.net...
> Here are some new H1 samples:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360366
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360375
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360385
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360390
>
> More H1 samples here:
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/niedergottsau_2005
>
> and here:
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/kaltenberg_2005
>
> Comments are welcome!
>
> Regards,
> Andi
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 11:44:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Andreas Buchner" <anbucx-nus@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:la5y5w5ij61.1h1al8hatt12w.dlg@40tude.net...
> Here are some new H1 samples:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360366
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360375
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360385
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360390
>
> More H1 samples here:
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/niedergottsau_2005
>
> and here:
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/kaltenberg_2005
>
> Comments are welcome!
>
> Regards,
> Andi

Not bad, but reds appear to be a real trouble area.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:03:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If that is images out of the box .. its damn sharp. but as Pete D typed ...
where's the red ?

=bob=

"Andreas Buchner" <anbucx-nus@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:la5y5w5ij61.1h1al8hatt12w.dlg@40tude.net...
> Here are some new H1 samples:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360366
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360375
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360385
>
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360390
>
> More H1 samples here:
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/niedergottsau_2005
>
> and here:
> http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/kaltenberg_2005
>
> Comments are welcome!
>
> Regards,
> Andi
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:03:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Am Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:03:40 +1000 schrieb [BnH]:

> If that is images out of the box .. its damn sharp. but as Pete D typed ...
> where's the red ?

Which red do you refer to?

Regards,
Andi
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:03:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Andreas Buchner" <anbucx-nus@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:e6peqcef53l6$.1gsupaswr31l8$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Am Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:03:40 +1000 schrieb [BnH]:
>
>> If that is images out of the box .. its damn sharp. but as Pete D typed
>> ...
>> where's the red ?
>
> Which red do you refer to?

The red cotton stuff loses it's detail in a mess of reddish...stuff.
The other colors in the cotton maintain detail.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:03:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Andreas Buchner" <anbucx-nus@yahoo.de> wrote in message
> news:e6peqcef53l6$.1gsupaswr31l8$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Am Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:03:40 +1000 schrieb [BnH]:
>>
>>> If that is images out of the box .. its damn sharp. but as Pete D
>>> typed ...
>>> where's the red ?
>>
>> Which red do you refer to?
>
> The red cotton stuff loses it's detail in a mess of reddish...stuff.
> The other colors in the cotton maintain detail.

At that size, and with a JPEG image, I'm not sure it's a fair judgement.

Equally, in http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360385 there are signs
of chromatic aberration or purple fringing, but you can't judge at that
image size. With the camera only taking Memory Sticks, it's a moot point
for me!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:03:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Am Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:48:33 -0700 schrieb Mark²:

> The red cotton stuff loses it's detail in a mess of reddish...stuff.
> The other colors in the cotton maintain detail.

It was in bright sunlight an almost flourescent red. I'm very satisfied
with the color reproduction. On my calibrated screen even in the red region
there is detail. What kinda display do you use?

Regards,
Andi
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:p 4LCe.72119$G8.26303@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Andreas Buchner" <anbucx-nus@yahoo.de> wrote in message
>> news:e6peqcef53l6$.1gsupaswr31l8$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> Am Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:03:40 +1000 schrieb [BnH]:
>>>
>>>> If that is images out of the box .. its damn sharp. but as Pete D
>>>> typed ...
>>>> where's the red ?
>>>
>>> Which red do you refer to?
>>
>> The red cotton stuff loses it's detail in a mess of reddish...stuff.
>> The other colors in the cotton maintain detail.
>
> At that size, and with a JPEG image, I'm not sure it's a fair judgement.

Perhaps not, but the detail is there in the other colors at that size.
Noting this, it does seem to show some indicators of comparative trouble.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Andreas Buchner" <anbucx-nus@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:q2l160xfc8kh.1wyh7mw6o5brn.dlg@40tude.net...
> Am Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:48:33 -0700 schrieb Mark²:
>
>> The red cotton stuff loses it's detail in a mess of reddish...stuff.
>> The other colors in the cotton maintain detail.
>
> It was in bright sunlight an almost flourescent red. I'm very satisfied
> with the color reproduction. On my calibrated screen even in the red
> region
> there is detail. What kinda display do you use?

I'm not saying there is no detail. It just appears that more is lost in the
reds than in the other colors.

I'm using a perfectly calibrated, high definition (1600x1200 display) that
sees every letter of this:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/45959621
and other similar tests that deal with color.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:03:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:S9LCe.13449$Eo.1320@fed1read04...
>
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote
> in message news:p 4LCe.72119$G8.26303@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Mark² wrote:
>>> "Andreas Buchner" <anbucx-nus@yahoo.de> wrote in message
>>> news:e6peqcef53l6$.1gsupaswr31l8$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> Am Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:03:40 +1000 schrieb [BnH]:
>>>>
>>>>> If that is images out of the box .. its damn sharp. but as Pete D
>>>>> typed ...
>>>>> where's the red ?
>>>>
>>>> Which red do you refer to?
>>>
>>> The red cotton stuff loses it's detail in a mess of reddish...stuff.
>>> The other colors in the cotton maintain detail.
>>
>> At that size, and with a JPEG image, I'm not sure it's a fair judgement.
>
> Perhaps not, but the detail is there in the other colors at that size.
> Noting this, it does seem to show some indicators of comparative trouble.

If "I" was trying to show off how good a camera was I certainly would not
use the red fluffy shot at any size if it did that.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:56:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

That size ey ? :) 

http://etienne.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/23.jpg

=bob=

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:p 4LCe.72119$G8.26303@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> At that size, and with a JPEG image, I'm not sure it's a fair judgement.
>
> Equally, in http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360385 there are signs
> of chromatic aberration or purple fringing, but you can't judge at that
> image size. With the camera only taking Memory Sticks, it's a moot point
> for me!
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:56:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Whats your point here?

"[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote in message
news:42db8af0$0$6400$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> That size ey ? :) 
>
> http://etienne.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/23.jpg
>
> =bob=
>
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote
> in message news:p 4LCe.72119$G8.26303@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>> At that size, and with a JPEG image, I'm not sure it's a fair judgement.
>>
>> Equally, in http://www.pbase.com/anbuccos/image/46360385 there are signs
>> of chromatic aberration or purple fringing, but you can't judge at that
>> image size. With the camera only taking Memory Sticks, it's a moot point
>> for me!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:57:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Its jpeg, its small and has red ?
as david was typing " At that size, and with a JPEG image, I'm not sure it's
a fair judgement."

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:ccMCe.72149$G8.35899@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> [BnH] wrote:
>> That size ey ? :) 
>>
>> http://etienne.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/23.jpg
>
> This link appears to have nothing to do with the images under discussion.
>
> David
>
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:57:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

[BnH] wrote:
> Its jpeg, its small and has red ?
> as david was typing " At that size, and with a JPEG image, I'm not
> sure it's a fair judgement."

What I was saying is that in such a small image, reduced from the original
size, you cannot expect to judge detail which may, or may not, be present
in the original image. To comment on those images one would need the
original image from the camera.

David
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 11:37:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Am Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:11:55 GMT schrieb Gary Eickmeier:

> The Foveon solves that particular problem, and it's worth thinking about.

Theoretically! Pracically the Foveon does a very bad color rendering. I was
also interested in Foveon, but the results were much too bad. Maybe next
generation fovoen works better.

Regards,
Andi
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:13:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andreas Buchner wrote:
[]
> But which superzoom 400$ camera is better?

The Sony I rule out because of its memory sticks alone (but there are more
reasons) leaving the choice between the Canon S2 IS with swivel LCD and
better videos, and the Panasonic FZ5/FZ20 with Li-ion battery, better
optics and image quality. How you evaluate the cameras' handling may be
the most important factor.

David
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:37:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Am Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:13:05 GMT schrieb David J Taylor:

> The Sony I rule out because of its memory sticks alone (but there are more
> reasons) leaving the choice between the Canon S2 IS with swivel LCD and
> better videos, and the Panasonic FZ5/FZ20 with Li-ion battery, better
> optics and image quality. How you evaluate the cameras' handling may be
> the most important factor.

The Canon has much higher noise levels. The Display is only stamp-sized and
difficult to use in bright sunlight. ISO 400 is almost unusable. The
Panasonic only offers kinda "historic" 320x240 videomode and very little
manual controls. It's really difficult ;-)

Andi
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 3:37:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andreas Buchner wrote:
> Am Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:13:05 GMT schrieb David J Taylor:
>
>> The Sony I rule out because of its memory sticks alone (but there
>> are more reasons) leaving the choice between the Canon S2 IS with
>> swivel LCD and better videos, and the Panasonic FZ5/FZ20 with Li-ion
>> battery, better optics and image quality. How you evaluate the
>> cameras' handling may be the most important factor.
>
> The Canon has much higher noise levels. The Display is only
> stamp-sized and difficult to use in bright sunlight. ISO 400 is
> almost unusable. The Panasonic only offers kinda "historic" 320x240
> videomode and very little manual controls. It's really difficult ;-)
>
> Andi

The FZ20 offers full manual control with a ring for focussing, the FZ5
doesn't have manual focus but it does have full control otherwise.
Personally I tend to prefer the EVF, so I'm assuming that Canon's EVF is
usable in daylight (but I've not tried it).

David
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 7:42:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:13:05 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>Andreas Buchner wrote:
>[]
>> But which superzoom 400$ camera is better?
>
>The Sony I rule out because of its memory sticks alone (but there are more
>reasons) leaving the choice between the Canon S2 IS with swivel LCD and
>better videos, and the Panasonic FZ5/FZ20 with Li-ion battery, better
>optics and image quality. How you evaluate the cameras' handling may be
>the most important factor.

you forgot to state that this is your strictly personal view .. :-)

based on the sample shots & comparison between S2, FZ5 and H1 I would
place FZ5 third (and those evaluation pages do not even seem to be
very consistent!) .. and I even didn't consider the "lame" manual
operations options for the FZ5 :-)
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 7:42:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

imbsysop wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:13:05 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Andreas Buchner wrote:
>> []
>>> But which superzoom 400$ camera is better?
>>
>> The Sony I rule out because of its memory sticks alone (but there
>> are more reasons) leaving the choice between the Canon S2 IS with
>> swivel LCD and better videos, and the Panasonic FZ5/FZ20 with Li-ion
>> battery, better optics and image quality. How you evaluate the
>> cameras' handling may be the most important factor.
>
> you forgot to state that this is your strictly personal view .. :-)

Although I clearly used the pronoun "I", this was intended to be
objective.

> based on the sample shots & comparison between S2, FZ5 and H1 I would
> place FZ5 third (and those evaluation pages do not even seem to be
> very consistent!) .. and I even didn't consider the "lame" manual
> operations options for the FZ5 :-)

Unfortunately, any comparison of image quality will be objective to a
degree, and as you say, there is a degree of inconsistency in the
published shots. The H1 shows lens defects even at a reduced resolution
as published on pbase, but the Canon S2 IS and Panasonic FZ5/FZ20 are much
closer.

I haven't studied the differences in the manual options between the Canon
and the Panasonic - in what way do they differ?

David
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 7:55:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> writes:

>I have seen this red object problem before. This may be the color
>resolution problem that George Preddy keeps preaching about. When an
>object is of one pure color, it has no green to help out its resolution.

Theoretically, this could be a problem with objects that are such a
saturated red that almost no light from it gets through the green and
blue filters. That's not true of most things you'd describe as "red".

George has only been able to point to one particular test that shows
this effect, where the people performing the test specifically set out
to create colour combinations that would be the worst case for colour
resolution - and that was alternating red/blue, not just a red object.
That's not the same test as resolving fine detail in a red object.

In addition, that test was done in a manner that discarded most of the
pixels of the Bayer sensor camera. George hasn't really been able to
demonstrate this effect at all.

>The Foveon solves that particular problem, and it's worth thinking about.

Well, if there is a case where this is a problem, one solution would be
a proper 3-colour sensor. The cameras with Foveon sensors would not be
a good choice due to low resolution, lack of AA filter, and inconsistent
colour. A 3CCD camera would give better colour, and a high-resolution
scanning back for a view camera would give better resolution too.

>Try it with your camera. Set some towels next to each other, various
>colors, but one blood red. You should be able to see the texture in all
>of them, but I predict the red one will be fuzzy.

I don't have any blood red towels, do you? In any case, I'd be more
interested in trying this if "George" had actually demonstrated that the
effect he describes ever occurs.

Dave
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 9:34:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:55:47 +0000 (UTC), Dave Martindale wrote:

>> I have seen this red object problem before. This may be the color
>> resolution problem that George Preddy keeps preaching about. When an
>> object is of one pure color, it has no green to help out its resolution.
>
> Theoretically, this could be a problem with objects that are such a
> saturated red that almost no light from it gets through the green and
> blue filters. That's not true of most things you'd describe as "red".
>
> George has only been able to point to one particular test that shows
> this effect,

First, if GP ever has anything useful to say I'll probably miss
it, since it's bound to be buried in his noise.

Is the problem just associated with red or with any really solid
colors that have little variation in luminance? Most high-res
pictures of green leaves that I've downloaded also see to lack
detail.

And lastly (though I have no way of confirming this) Stacey claims
that when RAW images are processed with the proper software, the
E-300 does very well with solid red objects.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 12:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <2c4hxd808v9.9zmq3hsv09ze.dlg@40tude.net>,
Andreas Buchner <anbucx-nus@yahoo.de> wrote:

>Theoretically! Pracically the Foveon does a very bad color rendering. I was
>also interested in Foveon, but the results were much too bad. Maybe next
>generation fovoen works better.

.... or, maybe the successful full-RGB sensor won't be from foveon at
all! The idea of sampling RGB at every sensel is not an idea created by
foveon, and their method doesn't work all that well, so why would anyone
assume that they will be the ones to do it, eventually?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 12:50:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <dbj7q3$cv4$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>,
davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) wrote:

>I don't have any blood red towels, do you? In any case, I'd be more
>interested in trying this if "George" had actually demonstrated that the
>effect he describes ever occurs.

There's a good chance that the RAW data wasn't even blown, in that shot.
Raw converters seem to boost the red levels in saturated reds to a level
higher than they would be in a grey.

When I get the time, I am going to write a .DNG file with synthetic RAW
values, and see what the various converters do with them
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 6:00:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

reply@tueue.com.invalid writes:

> Is the problem just associated with red or with any really solid
>colors that have little variation in luminance? Most high-res
>pictures of green leaves that I've downloaded also see to lack
>detail.

One way of looking at it is that with a subject where luminance is
essentially constant, only the colour components change, and a Bayer
sensor's resolution limit for these colour-only changes is half that of
the luminance resolution. So instead of resolving near 0.4 cycles/pixel
as the camera can in luminance, you can only get perhaps 0.2
cycles/pixel for colour changes. However, almost anything you're likely
to find in nature changes both luminance and colour at the same time,
and the luminance part will be resolved. You have to go out of your way
to construct a test where only colour changes.

> And lastly (though I have no way of confirming this) Stacey claims
>that when RAW images are processed with the proper software, the
>E-300 does very well with solid red objects.

Resolution or colour reproduction? I suspect that the negative comments
about the H1 are actually talking more about colour reproduction.

Dave
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 6:00:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:00:13 +0000 (UTC), Dave Martindale wrote:

>> Is the problem just associated with red or with any really solid
>> colors that have little variation in luminance? Most high-res
>> pictures of green leaves that I've downloaded also see to lack
>> detail.
>
> One way of looking at it is that with a subject where luminance is
> essentially constant, only the colour components change, and a Bayer
> sensor's resolution limit for these colour-only changes is half that of
> the luminance resolution. So instead of resolving near 0.4 cycles/pixel
> as the camera can in luminance, you can only get perhaps 0.2
> cycles/pixel for colour changes. However, almost anything you're likely
> to find in nature changes both luminance and colour at the same time,
> and the luminance part will be resolved. You have to go out of your way
> to construct a test where only colour changes.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't the example I provided of
green leaves the kind of object that has minimal color and luminance
changes? I wasn't talking about a transition from other objects to
the green leaves, but the apparent lack of resolution when looking
at large patches of green. I asked the question because I thought
people have been saying that this is primarily a problem with red
objects. It may well be that it is a greater problem with red than
with other colors, but nature conspired to provide much more
greenery, so that's where I've noticed the similar lack of
definition. I guess I'm spoiled by what I'm able to see, not with a
camera, but with my eyes. :) 
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 3:23:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
> reply@tueue.com.invalid writes:
>
>> Is the problem just associated with red or with any really solid
>>colors that have little variation in luminance? Most high-res
>>pictures of green leaves that I've downloaded also see to lack
>>detail.
>
> One way of looking at it is that with a subject where luminance is
> essentially constant, only the colour components change, and a Bayer
> sensor's resolution limit for these colour-only changes is half that of
> the luminance resolution. So instead of resolving near 0.4 cycles/pixel
> as the camera can in luminance, you can only get perhaps 0.2
> cycles/pixel for colour changes. However, almost anything you're likely
> to find in nature changes both luminance and colour at the same time,
> and the luminance part will be resolved. You have to go out of your way
> to construct a test where only colour changes.

One thing to note is that the human eye does really badly on the blue/red
test charts the Foveon fans love to reference. One can't look at those
images without getting a nasty headache, and one can't even see the patterns
without moving in quite close.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 8:13:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

reply@tueue.com.invalid writes:

> Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't the example I provided of
>green leaves the kind of object that has minimal color and luminance
>changes? I wasn't talking about a transition from other objects to
>the green leaves, but the apparent lack of resolution when looking
>at large patches of green.

When I look at green leaves on a tree, I see large changes in luminance
at the edges of leaves - the difference between light and shadow. On an
overcast day the changes aren't as large, but there are still
substantial luminance edges. So I don't know what you're referring to.
Can you point to an example?

Dave
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 8:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:13:56 +0000 (UTC), Dave Martindale wrote:

> When I look at green leaves on a tree, I see large changes in luminance
> at the edges of leaves - the difference between light and shadow. On an
> overcast day the changes aren't as large, but there are still
> substantial luminance edges. So I don't know what you're referring to.
> Can you point to an example?

Yes, but I think we're still not talking about the same thing.
I'm not saying that you won't find luminance changes at the edge of
leaves. I'm talking more about large green leaves, where the
interior of the leaves don't have the apparent detail that you might
notice when looking directly at the leaf. Yes, the edges clearly
define the leaves, but looking directly at the interior of the
leaves, the small features, blemishes, veins, etc. seem quite
noticeable. But they're usually not visible to the same degree when
you're looking at photos of the same leaves.

For the examples you could check the sample pictures of the brick
building at Steve's Digicam. Pick a review of one of the better
cameras and then go to its Samples page. The leaves on the
shrubbery on the lower right side as well as the tree behind it are
examples, although their leaves are relatively small. Depending on
the season the pictures were taken, the tree may be a bit bare.
It's not a perfect example as the leaves may not be close enough to
the camera. It might even be an optical illusion of sorts, where
relatively large areas of relatively uniform color don't appear to
be as sharp as multicolored regions of random shapes and sizes, even
if the resolutions are identical. And I've just noticed the effect
in green, leafy objects because they're so much more common than
similarly uniformly colored non-green objects.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 8:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> reply@tueue.com.invalid writes:
>
>
>> Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't the example I provided of
>>green leaves the kind of object that has minimal color and luminance
>>changes? I wasn't talking about a transition from other objects to
>>the green leaves, but the apparent lack of resolution when looking
>>at large patches of green.
>
>
> When I look at green leaves on a tree, I see large changes in luminance
> at the edges of leaves - the difference between light and shadow. On an
> overcast day the changes aren't as large, but there are still
> substantial luminance edges. So I don't know what you're referring to.
> Can you point to an example?
>
> Dave

The symptom you describe resembles oversharpening artifacts. You might
check to see if your camera has a sharpening feature, and if it can be
adjusted.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 12:51:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>> When I look at green leaves on a tree, I see large changes in luminance
>> at the edges of leaves - the difference between light and shadow. On an
>> overcast day the changes aren't as large, but there are still
>> substantial luminance edges. So I don't know what you're referring to.
>> Can you point to an example?

>The symptom you describe resembles oversharpening artifacts. You might
>check to see if your camera has a sharpening feature, and if it can be
>adjusted.

I'm talking about what I see when I look at real leaves on a real tree
with my eyes, not a photograph. I was trying to determine what detail
the other person thought was lost.

Dave
!