Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I made the initial comment. If you want "PROOF", Go look at the pictures and see for yourself. The difference was slight, but it was there. If you believe it was not there, well, it is the USA and you are entitled to your opinions. I did not review the Ninja treated ( whatever that means, does, or otherwise modifies the images) images. Remember that any image, when modified by wither software or other means, loses something and gains something. It is always a tradeoff. And I still want to know where ( how?) those new pixels come from, and where the old pixels go..... Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+red735i=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+red735i=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Robert Schneider Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 6:04 AM To: Leica Users Group Subject: [Leica] Tina said what?! Tina Manley wrote: . . .high ISOs with the M8 may have had more noise (but greater resolution) than the Canon high ISOs. . . Other than saying what you want to believe, is there any PROOF to back up such a remark? I have not seen anyone else make such a bold claim, and from what I can see with MY eyes, by the time you've Noise Ninja-ed the execrable high-ISO noise from an M8 image any perceived resolution edge is out the window. rs _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information