03-11-2011, 11:05 AM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1299827188' post='6667']
The answer is already in the paragraph you quoted. RAW engines are never static. This is especially true for Adobe.
[/Quote]
that's why I suggested the use of a single version of a primitive raw converter and handling of new raw files using the latest dng converter but converting only to the oldest dng version.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1299828632' post='6670']
There's no hard rule. Upon a start of a new test system we're analyzing the USM effect (with different parameters) on the center portion of an image taken at the sweet spot of a lens. Usually we stick to a smaller than average USM radius in order to avoid an unreasonable boost of the usually much weaker border/corner region.
Technically we're probably using too weak USMs. There're many lenses which are outperforming an AA-less sensor in the image center after all. However, it is, of course, reasonabe to stay below the max. resolution of a sensor after USM and I do actually refuse to sharpen aggressively (remember then Pentax K-5 discussions about this). While imatest can look a bit beyond Nyquist due to being able of making assumptions about the test target (an assumption-less Nyquist can't look beyond the barrier, of course) I don't really think that this is overly reliable anymore.
[/quote]
Thanks for your response.
GTW
The answer is already in the paragraph you quoted. RAW engines are never static. This is especially true for Adobe.
[/Quote]
that's why I suggested the use of a single version of a primitive raw converter and handling of new raw files using the latest dng converter but converting only to the oldest dng version.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1299828632' post='6670']
There's no hard rule. Upon a start of a new test system we're analyzing the USM effect (with different parameters) on the center portion of an image taken at the sweet spot of a lens. Usually we stick to a smaller than average USM radius in order to avoid an unreasonable boost of the usually much weaker border/corner region.
Technically we're probably using too weak USMs. There're many lenses which are outperforming an AA-less sensor in the image center after all. However, it is, of course, reasonabe to stay below the max. resolution of a sensor after USM and I do actually refuse to sharpen aggressively (remember then Pentax K-5 discussions about this). While imatest can look a bit beyond Nyquist due to being able of making assumptions about the test target (an assumption-less Nyquist can't look beyond the barrier, of course) I don't really think that this is overly reliable anymore.
[/quote]
Thanks for your response.
GTW