> > The subject of "noise" or "grain" becomes obserdly moot.  In a different
> > place in this thread someone asked "what do you think of the sharpness
> > of the text on the sighboard" (paraphrased).  I went there to look and
> > the first thing that was obvious /to me/ was that it had been smooshed
> > by jepeg error.


> If it was due to JPEG error, why aren't all JPEG images affected?  Have
> a look at this pair:
>
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/a70/samples/IMG_8565.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sony_p72/samples/DSC00032.JPG
>
> They are taken at the same place at the same time with the same
> resolution, same composition and same subject distance.  The writing is
> considerably clearer in the Sony P72 image.


Well I just looked at both of them and they both look so bad to me
I can't even /consider/ a constructive comment.  Both are bloched
terribly with Jpeg error everywhere. The Sony one is by far the
worst but there's way too much compression error to say why.
The color saturation and contrast of the sony one are also very
very bad.  Looks like the wht.bal. is off a bit too.


> So what's wrong with the A70 image?  Camera shake?  Focusing problems?

Well although I think you got it backwards.  And I think I could prove it
to you (about which is the "better photo" between the two) we will never
know what's wrong with them because they were both overly compressed.

[Just ask and I'll try to prove my case for the which is the "better shot"]

Is it a slight camer-shake caused by wind and/or an unsteady hand?
Doesn't look like it to me.  It could be with the sony one as there
is a very bad halo on the sighboard text, all left leading edges
apear to be "rubbed" into the photo, and there is a drastic blue color
shift on all right leading edges.   But jpeg error can be responsible
for some of those things too.  More than likely tho I'd say that in this
case it's the sign of a poorly manufactured lens.  Yet another identical
model (P72) may or may not display the same behavior.

Is it a focusing problem?
Can't really tell cuz there's too much compression error but the
Sony might have been slightly defocused for that shot.  It's difficult
to say.  If it were a raw uncompressed image I could tell more but
still there /may be/ very little difference between the artifacts caused
by certain kinds of lens aborations and the camera not being perfectly
focused.



> Some trick by Canon's infamous DIGIC processor?

Maybe, maybe not.  Did the site say what the respective settings were in
each cam at the time?  How do we know the Sony's light sensor wasn't slightly
affected by a small glint of light off that blue pontoon in front causing
it to shut down the apature or increase the shutter speed and thus took
a darker muddier pic?  Well, we don't.  This is the problem with judging
a camera from a small sampling of shots taken by someone else. And someone
who may or may not have docummented the settings he took it with.  It
could also be that movement of the clouds caused the difference in exposure.
If you'll notice, the Sony shot has more white cloud content in the sky.
If you've ever played with a professional light meter you'll know this
causes big differences in the amount of light measured.  Since it /is/
the amount of light measured and present interplaying against the camera's
settings at the time of the exposure which is responsible in large part
for wheather or not it "took a good picture", this very well could be the
cause of some of the issues I have with /that/ shot.



> At any rate, both images are JPEG, so this does not explain it.

To me, what that /does/ explain is why they are both so noisy, blochy,
and lacking in detail.  Of this I am certian.



--
If my camera consistantly took pictures like the sample in:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sony_p72/samples/DSC00032.JPG
I would want my money back or try to sell it as soon as I could.



-- 
I feel like the guy who's watching TV with a friend one day when an ad
comes on for another kind of TV set.  The ad says Brighter crisper images
and shows examples of it RIGHT THERE.   My firend says: Yup, look at that!
Brighter and crisper!  You should buy /that/ TV and sell this one.  I just
smile realizing that the "picture" of the TV in the ad can never be better
than the TV we're viewing the ad on.   Kinda makes it pointless to advertize
TVs on TV don't it?

Oh well, I don't expect they'll stop showing sample shots of TVs in TV ads
anytime soon.  Hehehe,  I wonder what the brightness/contrast/Color settings
were when they filmed it?  LOL, ...and around and around we go.