|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
The differences are not that subtle, or is the word sublimiminal. ;-) I wish a different photo was used in the demo. This one answers some questions but creates new ones. > -----Original Message----- > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of > email@example.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:05 PM > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: RE: Nikon Acknowleges Banding, Sort Of > > > On 9 Apr 2002 at 10:10, gary wrote: > > > If you look around the rest of the image, more than just the banding was > > improved. Look at the definition of the shadows on the floor or > table where > > the plant rests. There is a shadow near the point where the > plant container > > goes from a straight walled (cylinder) to a V-shape that is lost on the > > normal scan and present on the superfine. > > > > There still seems to be a blur around the flowers in superfine. > Is that due > > to lens flare or the animal shaking the plant? Superfine removes the > > horizontal bands, but I see vertical bands on the superfine to > the left of > > the lower flower. Not bands as much as a ghost of the flower edge. > > > IMHO, you're reading WAY too much into two little JPGs. > > > rafe b. > > - > Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate > subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. > - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.