Re: 18-200 Lens

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:11:45 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:
Peter J wrote:


Being shown an image with consistent 1-pixel resolution over the whole
image
hurts doesn't it. That's because there is no DSLR and its lens in the
world that
has accomplished that.


Thta's absurd. The image you showed was awful: it had no resolution at
all at the 1 pixel level, and at the two pixel level what resolution it
had was obtained by extreme software boost, with the serious artifacting
that that comes with it.

Doug McDonald

Not only absurd, but very puzzling. "Peter J" is, of course 'Vern',
'Baumbadier' and about 100 other names, and is often referred to as the
'anti-dslr troll').


It is interesting to note that anyone that proves the psychotic DSLR-lovers
wrong must all be one in the same person. Can't you handle the reality that more
than one person might disagree with you? Is that why you *must* psychotically
believe that they are all the same person? It only follows that you would do
just that, considering how strongly you must grasp at straws to continue your
false worship of your inadequate, overpriced, oversized, overweight, and
obnoxiously loud DSLR designs. Maybe if you squint your eyes real tight, clench
your fists, and just keep saying to yourselves, "I believe ... I believe ...",
that'll help too.

He should have had the sense *not* to show a 100% crop. Because now his
'quality' standard has been shown for exactly what it is. As Doug said,
it has some resolution at about the three pixel level at best, and shows
strong artefacting that 'Vern' mistakes for detail. And he inexplicably
chose foliage, so the NR-smudged look that is almost inevitable with p&s
cameras is there in *spades* - note the lost detail in the grass (is
that what it is??) at top left - obviously there should be blades of
grass showing clearly, but they are lost in the p&s soup.

You mean like in your image? I see less detail in the grass in your mage than in
the one I provided. It's a blurred mess in your image. You can't even tell where
the grass leaves off (pun intended) and the water begins in your image. What's
the matter? Don't you know enough to turn off your viewer's interpolation too
when comparing images at 1:1 pixel levels? Which, by the way, interpolation
works for up-sizing in your monitor's display as well as down-sizing. Much to
the chagrin of another idiot who replied, another one that doesn't know the
difference nor reason behind its use. Try it in ACDsee sometime where you can
choose display interpolations as an option. Zoom in to 800% and then try each
interpolation choice. You'll immediately see the muddy mess when you change from
"nearest neighbor" to "linear" or "bicubic" resampling in your viewer's display.

I'll give you a vast benefit of the doubt though, I too shall wait around to see
that you provide proof that that is not a downsized and sharpened image in your
attempts to, again, psychotically try to convince yourself and all others that
your camera and optics are in any way superior. Oh, and make sure that you do
that with a 180-degree circular fisheye lens that zooms from 9mm e.f.l. to 38mm
e.f.l.at f/2.0 with the same amount of clarity at all focal-lengths. I'll not
even take off points for chromatic aberration problems. Because I know for a
fact that your lens will be hopelessly rife with that image and resolution
destroying problem. Not so in the lens and P&S camera that I used and use. Or
did you fail to notice that too? Of course you failed to notice that. You've
already proved that you are blind and don't know how to use your computer nor
its software to analyze images and your camera or optics capabilities.

While you are at it, make sure that the detail from your optics are resolved to
a photosite density** of 0.58 cm^2. What's that? Your outrageously priced camera
and lens has a problem resolving 1-pixel detail (as shown in your example) to
the larger photosite density of 3.3 cm^2? A sensor's photosite area nearly 5
times the size within which to hide your less-capable optic's slop quotient?
What a pity that your optics have so much room for resolution-slop and yet it
still can't compete with a P&S camera with far smaller photosites, even when
imaged through an inexpensive fisheye lens add-on.

Try some prime L-Glass, see if that'll help. (I type this line purely for my own
guffawing amusement.)

** "Pixel Density is a calculation of the number of pixels on a sensor, divided
by the imaging area of that sensor. It can be used to understand how closely
packed a sensor is and helps when comparing two cameras with different sensor
sizes or numbers of photosites (pixels)."


Having said that, it is silly to look at 100% crops and expect pixel
sharpness. A *good* image may appear soft at full-res, but will happily
take sharpening without obvious haloes or other artefacts, as displayed
superbly by 'Vern'. If, nevertheless, you want to see what 'one pixel
sharpness' looks like there is a comparison link below.

Here's the quote and Vern's link again - check it out quickly before
Peter/Vern/anti-dslr-troll realises he is embarrassing himself.


The only one embarrassing themselves around here is you and all those just like
you. Though it's fun watching you and the others squirm, trying every which way
you can to justify your purchasing errors with psychotic reasoning.

Here you go, DSLR fool(s).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/2953853625_cfcc336a37_o.jpg

A full resolution crop from the far lower-left edge from one of the original P&S
camera + fisheye-lens frames. Zero chromatic aberration, no edge softness. All
details and edges being defined by precise 1-pixel boundaries. I've never seen
that kind of detail resolution from any fisheye lens for any camera, not even
that sharp of detail from any DSLR with any focal-length "pro" lens.

Well, it appears those who have looked are all similarly unimpressed..

Yes, because you're taking the supportive word from idiots that weren't bright
enough to turn off their image-viewer's interpolation. You now appear to be as
stupid and inept as they are for having taken their word in support of your
feeble attempts. I, on the other hand, don't need the support nor words of
anyone to champion of my proofs. They do just fine all on their own.

As I said above, one shouldn't expect perfect sharpness from an out of
the camera image at 100% anyway, but if you really want to see real
'one-pixel' sharpness to compare with 'Vern's image, try this:

http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/one-pixel.jpg

Yes, it's a tad oversharpened (entirely for demo purposes), but compare
the blades of grass to Vern's mush, and note there really are details
resolved to single pixel width. Are there any in Vern's image? (O: And
watch what happens if you lightly sharpen the two images -just look at
the result. Ohhh dear, Vern.

And he even had to use over-sharpening to hope to approach an equivalent of my
original P&S's images, those taken through an inexpensive fisheye lens too, mind
you. Yes, you're doing a great job at convincing everyone of the superiority of
your chosen photography equipment. Hint: turn off your image viewer's
interpolation to get rid of that mush caused by your bicubic algorithm. Then
you'll begin to understand the first reason of why I'm laughing at your example
and words. (The rest of the reasons for my laughter are outlined throughout this
reply.)

We shall await your proof of this being the 1:1 pixel crop of an original larger
image. But don't forget to add in your sensor's photosite-size slop-quotient
when figuring in the resolution capabilities of your optics. Without that
figured in to prove your bluff you can't even become to hope in coming close to
the same resolution of the optics that I've been enjoying and using. Don't
forget to also throw a 9mm, 180-degree, circular fisheye to 38mm wide-angle zoom
lens on that camera too and post the proof from that. We do want this to be a
fair test of equivalent capabilities, don't we? I know that you don't. You're
squirming every which way you can to justify your now-proven-inadequate choices
and purchases in life. But I'm certain that rest of us, who deal in reality,
would appreciate a fair test of equivalent optics vs. resolution, clarity, and
chromatic aberration. What's that? They don't even make a zoom lens with that
much wide-angle range for your type of camera? Tsk tsk. What a pity. How
fortunate am I then, that I didn't foolishly waste my money on your style of
camera and piss-poor lenses by blindly following all others, just as you did.

I'd mention the economic, inaudible, and portable surpluses of my equipment too
but I don't want to be the only one to directly cause your imminent suicide for
having completely proven the folly of all your important choices in life. I'll
let your surviving relatives blame someone else for that.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nikon and Megapixels
    ... showed to be sharper at higher f-numbers and the output resolution equation from Kodak) you can't put up, ... If you take a photo with a 50 million pixel sensor using a milk bottle bottom for a lense you get a huge file of a crap low res image. ... You CANNOT increase thew resolution from a lens by having a bigger pixel count. ... They show quite clearly that 24 million pixels is just a waste without better lenses if thats even possible. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Noise levels as a function of pixel size
    ... with a larger sensor produces the same result as one taken with a smaller sensor. ... >resolution limit has nothing to do with f-number of the fully open>lens. ... It is NOT, however, an acceptable baseline for the extrapolations that you have made and which have resulted in a pixel size which no physical lens could ever resolve. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: OT Paul S (re cameras...)
    ... All the shots are at 100%, no resizing, so you can see the ... One is that since the resolution is ... any flaws in the lens are likely to be magnified. ... So if you want a 10MP camera, you need to use lenses that are up to the ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: DPI
    ... The pixel originates in your camera. ... There are roughly eight million Pixels on the sensor in your ... resolution discernable by the human eye. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: 18-200 Lens
    ... The image you showed was awful: it had no resolution at all at the 1 pixel level, and at the two pixel level what resolution it had was obtained by extreme software boost, with the serious artifacting that that comes with it. ... camera + fisheye-lens frames. ... that kind of detail resolution from any fisheye lens for any camera, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
Loading