|
|
Post by Randy on Jun 7, 2006 7:08:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by heath on Jun 7, 2006 7:26:32 GMT -5
Randy, in the pavement/road areas of the first, third and fifth photos there are areas of solid colour, which look like blocks. Instead of a gradual blending of colours, you have straight lines between the different shades. Picture with large areas of colour show this up more than 'busy' areas, such as the building. These are known as jpg artifacts. It is like watching a bad DVD transfer, where when it is dark on the screen, you see squares of black dotted around.
The second, fourth and sixth photos seem ok. Maybe because the sky area is sold white, and the rest is so broken up by detail that the blockyness is not noticable.
I hope that helps. It would be usefull to know the resolution of the images on screen, and also the resolution they were scanned at.
Heath
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jun 7, 2006 7:45:41 GMT -5
I confess, I can't see anything I would describe as 'blockiness', but there is a definite (and consistent) fuzziness. It's a shame, as it may mean that a fine machine will be put in a cupboard and not used again.
If there's any internal means of adjustment it would be worth trying to set it up using a piece of ground glass on the film plane - or better, using Peter's system for setting the infinity focus.
Regards - John
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jun 7, 2006 10:59:53 GMT -5
Randy: I don't think I see the same jpg artifacts Heath is mentioning, although I do see some distortions around the wires in the third pic and the bridge superstructure in the fifth, which I attributed to your scan. In truth, I don't understand the comments you received. There is obviously a great deal of focus softness...but is that "blockiness"? Sounds to me like the persons making the "blockiness" comment have absolutely no idea what the equipment they were taken with was capable of. Must be some "young-uns" (as my grandfather would say). Or perhaps a pretentious "old-un" (my comment).  |
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 7, 2006 14:40:12 GMT -5
Heath,
Anyone who lives where the climate varies from tropic to arctic soon be comes inured to the colour variations in our roads and sidewalks. The temperature variations combined with the destructive properties of frost often make it necessary to replace sections resulting in a patchwork (blockiness) of shades.
Many of these countries of extremes have only two seasons, winter and roadwork.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jun 7, 2006 15:00:29 GMT -5
.....temperature variations combined with the destructive properties of frost often make it necessary to replace sections resulting in a patchwork (blockiness) of shades. Many of these countries of extremes have only two seasons, winter and roadwork.... Mickey Winter and roadwork. Sounds like my home state of Michigan. We don't call it "the orange barrel state" for nothing! |
|
|
|
Post by ellacoya1 on Jun 7, 2006 18:16:12 GMT -5
Roadwork, isn't it great? To live in a place where they don't know what a frost heave is! Looks a lot like most of the roads I drive on every day. There's so much road construction going on here right now, that the hospital I work for will enter your name in a drawing for small prizes for coming up with alternate routes between us and our parent facility 20 miles away.
Randy, I saw and liked these pictures the first time you posted them. They just had an old vintage feel to them...like I was thumbing through an old box of my grandmother's snapshots of a time gone by. I like the soft focus, that adds to their charm.
Sherri
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Jun 7, 2006 18:37:39 GMT -5
Thanks folks. Like I said, when I look at these pics on a big screen tv they are 100+ times the size of the original print (6cm x 6cm) and I don't see any blockyness at all. These pictures are the kind of pictures we used to get with these kinds of camera. My parents and grand parents had boxes full of photos like these. I intentionally took these photos 'sans' any modern contrivances just to get that effect. Imagine how hard it is to stand on Route 20 waiting for no cars or trucks to pass for that effect. People spend hours by the Ashtabula Harbor lift bridge trying to get a photo like I took by accident more or less. I took it to heart when I was told these photos were poor because I took them that way on purpose.  I plan to take more pictures like these soon. |
|
|
|
Post by wormhole on Oct 9, 2006 22:34:08 GMT -5
Thanks folks. Like I said, when I look at these pics on a big screen tv they are 100+ times the size of the original print (6cm x 6cm) and I don't see any blockyness at all. These pictures are the kind of pictures we used to get with these kinds of camera. My parents and grand parents had boxes full of photos like these. I intentionally took these photos 'sans' any modern contrivances just to get that effect. Imagine how hard it is to stand on Route 20 waiting for no cars or trucks to pass for that effect. People spend hours by the Ashtabula Harbor lift bridge trying to get a photo like I took by accident more or less. I took it to heart when I was told these photos were poor because I took them that way on purpose. I plan to take more pictures like these soon. 1.3 and 5 are overcompressed they are 20k while the others are over 100k for roughly the same resolution and dont display the blocks that jpg uses to store the pixel groups. Your 17in monitor is i suspect a CRT which by their nature soften edges anyway but if you view the pictures at 200% the difference between the two sets will be apparent. (lower the Gamma and increase the contrast of an area that should be solid gray and you will see the sharp edges) you cannot see the sharp edged blocks on your 45in projector tv because it cannot resolve more than 400 pixels (if even that) across its even more smoothing than a crt. when saving a jpg never go below 75% the falloff in quality is marked below that. I very much liked the slightly soft look Randy have you done any portraits? wormhole |
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Oct 10, 2006 0:53:07 GMT -5
Ummm. Ahhh. Errrr.
But the bokeh is okay.
I think.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by wormhole on Oct 10, 2006 2:31:50 GMT -5
Ummm. Ahhh. Errrr. But the bokeh is okay. I think. Mickey The Bokeh is Pukka! wormhole |
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Oct 10, 2006 4:29:00 GMT -5
"Pukka!"
More of this high tech, cutting edge, state of the art, electronic terminology!
I will never understand the lingo.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Oct 10, 2006 6:28:51 GMT -5
Pukka is terminology from a caveman movie with Ringo Starr and Dennis Quaid. Pukka means bad or injured. I'm feeling kind of Pukka today myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Oct 10, 2006 6:45:14 GMT -5
Pukka (or pukkah) is also Hindustani for genuine, or 'the real mccoy'. If you've never had a Raj, you don't get to know this useful stuff!
Regards - John
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Oct 10, 2006 6:46:51 GMT -5
Hi Randy
Sorry to disagree. Haven't seen the movie, but pukka is an Indian word, Hindi I believe, meaning genuine. It came into the English language via the British army at the time of the British Raj in India.
PeterW
|
|
I plan to take more pictures like these soon.
