The better you have

[fredjeang]

Hi,

After watching the last picture call "twins" with the Phase,
and compared to the one Michael took with the E-P2 I do have a technical question
about image quality "sensation" when displayed on the web.

You may find this post a little (or a lot) ingenuous; if so, I apologyse in anticipation.

The images we display on the web are small size at minimal resolution.
In LU-LA, michael uses always more or less the same proportions for the home page.
"Twins" 100%-for-the-web is 633x800 at 72 and is resized in the home page at about 455x576,
this is about 28% less or 72%. (by the way, I wonder how much is lost in this process of not displaying
the image at 100% in terms of visual perception).

So lets say we have a number of pixels wich is always constant, to display
the pics on a webpage, for example like in The Luminous Landscape: 633x800 and a fixed resolution of 72dpi.

Why the differences in image quality are always noticiable between 2 cameras at this low resolution and
small image size? I've seen that many times here, when Michael uses a MF, and the next image the GF1:
Big differences!
(current prices of the GF1 are dramaticly falling down in Spain)
The image captured with the Phase appears clearly "better"(1) that the one with the Olympus E-P2.
You gonna say but the Phase is a MF camera that plays in another league than the small Micro four third sensor,
but we only have 633x800 at 72 in my example. There are no more pixels, neither more resolution.
I've often noticed that even though we are on the web, a downsampled picture from a really good camera
is always percived as it is, and there are noticiable differences. More an original file is huge, better
it handles downsizing. The original quality is in a way preserved. The oposite is logical of course,
but in the case of the web, technicaly I can not see what might be involved if not the lens then and not the sensor size.

(1) When I said "appears better", I mean that there is a sensation of better resolution, and superior
overall IQ. I'm not talking here about the emotional response.

Any ideas?
Thanks you.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I'm struggleing with this as well.

I believe its the lenses and the CMOS/CCD difference.

I'm everyday thinking between a 35mm FF+Zeiss lenses or Leica M system (M9+Zeiss lenses) or an Arca Swiss+P25+ ...

Hell knows what I'm going to buy in the end.

For now I keep my Canon Powershot G11.....

[dchew]

I'm guessing it is not camera-related at all, but Michael-related.  If there were two images, one from each camera system, that were of equal "artistic quality,"  I'll bet Michael spends more time and care in Post with the one out of the Phase system.  Whether conscious or not, I think this is natural.  In his head he sees more potential for the Phase image, and it is probably more fun to work on! Again, assuming two images have the same "artistic quality / potential."  Whatever that is...

This care and attention shows up regardless of it's output size. I'm not trying to say the quality out of the systems is the same and irrelevant; just a possible reason why the small jpegs often look better.

Dave

[David Mantripp]

Surely factors such as smoothness of transition and dynamic range will translate to scaled down images ? Resolution obviously is no longer a factor, but shadow / highlight retention and lens-dependent qualities will retain some effect in the posted images ...

[Pete Ferling]

Some things never change.  While we're all google-eyed about hardware, we need to remember the role of post process.  Good lenses with good coatings will aid in color correction, or rather the need to do very little, but we still need to process the image.  That is what separates the brains of the camera from the brains of the shooter.  In my opinion, the camera is still nothing more than a dumb box, and the real digital revolution is in the tools that come into play afterwords.  Imagine what you can do now with scanning old negatives and today's tools...

[Rob C]

Some things never change.  While we're all google-eyed about hardware, we need to remember the role of post process.  Good lenses with good coatings will aid in color correction, or rather the need to do very little, but we still need to process the image.  That is what separates the brains of the camera from the brains of the shooter.  In my opinion, the camera is still nothing more than a dumb box, and the real digital revolution is in the tools that come into play afterwords. Imagine what you can do now with scanning old negatives and today's tools...

Yes, but then that sort of denies the fact that the success or otherwise of those same scanned negs (or trannies) depends on how good they were in the first place, and much of that depends on the 'dumb box' from which they came...

I guess that hardware can never be honestly downplayed in terms of its relevance; with film as with digital, the chain is as good as its weakest link.

Rob C

[Pete Ferling]

Maybe it would have been easier to say that we shouldn't forget the import role in post process, how much of that has improved, and that it's now possible to extract even more details from old negatives, etc. and obviously get the most out digital captures as well.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Given that there are practically zero 35mm film scanners left on the market now that Nikon has pulled out, I wouldn't worry too much about a renaissance of quality coming out of long lost negs. Not when you can't run the scanner driver on your 64 bit system or the later Mac OS's.

[fredjeang]

I found these observations from Michael, in an old post that might explain the matter. I found them interesting so I take the freedom to cpy-paste here.

Michael post: ..."Ever since I started working with a P45 several years ago, and particularly with the P65 last year, it has become very clear to me that to get the most from equipment at this level one has to use the best possible technique. This includes a large solid tripod and head, mirror lockup, self-timer with at least a six second delay (with longer lenses), and the use of optimum aperture.

More casual use will produce images that may appear to be fine, but which will likely be found to be similar to the output from a sub 24MP DSLR"...

(Nota: the underline is mine) These observations are important I think.