Back to DC265 Review
Go to DC265 Data Sheet
Go to DC265 Pictures Page
Up to Imaging Resource Cameras Page
DC265 resolution conundrum: An alert reader pointed out fuzzy results on the "best" resolution target shot in the Comparometer(tm), far softer than the "Super" view. It seems our resolution target has been causing some cameras to have problems focusing (we seem to also be having problems on it with the Oly C-2000). We'll be contacting Kodak to try to debug what was going on, for now will post notes pointing out the problem, and referring people to the "Super" view to see what the camera is capable of. None of our other shots seemed to show any focus problems, so we're assuming it has to do with the shooting conditions for the resolution target itself. The notes below (copied from the comment server) show the initial alert from, and some of our theories as to what might be going on.
Are you folks certain the ALL of the DC265 images that were shot with the first unit (the one with the focus problem, most apparent in the corner) have been removed/replaced? The problem is, I checked the Comparometer with the Resolution target,between the High/Best and High/Super images....and the difference is HUGE! The High/Best shot looks way out of focus.......the High/Super looks dead on. Just thought u might want to see for yourself, perhaps u missed one or two (hey,nobody's perfect).
Based on the High/Super image vs. the Nikon CP950 or the Canon PS Pro 70, the Kodak is right there in the running........
Contributed by David B. (email@example.com) on April 9, 1999.
Thanks for the note, and calling this to our attention! - I hadn't noticed this, although we did re-shoot the res target once because one set of pics was way blurry, even with the new camera. I wish I could re-shoot, and spend some more time with the restarget, as I'm a bit puzzled by the results, but unfortunately had to ship the camera back to Kodak earlier today, for the next folks to have a 'go at.
This is strange: It seems the '265 was having some problems focusing on the res target, as there's a fair bit of variation from shot to shot (the two you're referring to were taken within 30 seconds of each other, by the automatic "resolution series" script), but I don't think that sort of focus problem showed up anywhere else with the unit. (I confess to not having compared all hundred or so images side-by-side though.) - I'm wondering if there's something about the res target that faked-out the focus system of the 265? I'd think it would be just about an ideal target for focusing, what with all the contrasty elements, but who knows? I just checked the DaveBox, House, and Musicians shots at "super" and "best" settings, and see almost no difference between them, nor any hint of focus problems. I wonder if the reflective mylar overcoat on the target could have been messingup the active AF on the camera? - Seems to me if it was set just exactly perpendicular (which the res target ideally should be), itwould reflect the focus light back as a specular reflection, back at the camera. With the House and Musicians posters, the camera is generally tilted very slightly upward when taking the shot, which would avoid a direct reflection of the focus light.Dunno, but I'd think if the camera had a focus problem, it would have showed up in some of the other images. Very strange!
I'm going to mark suspect shots of the Res target with a "bad shot?" note in the morning, and see if Kodak has any ideas.Meanwhile, you're right - in "super" mode, the 265 comes pretty close to the 2MP units. (If you think about it, 1536 pixels isawfully close to 1600, the horizontal pixel count of the 2MP cameras.)
Thanks again for the note, we really appreciate the feedback and heads-up!
Contributed by Dave Etchells (firstname.lastname@example.org) on April 9, 1999.
This document copyright (c) 1998, The Imaging Resource, all rights reserved. Visitors to this site may download this document for local, private, non-commercial use. Individuals who have themselves downloaded this page may print a copy on their personal printers for convenience of reading and reference. Other than this explicit usage, it may not be published, reproduced, or distributed in print or electronic and/or digital media without the express written consent of The Imaging Resource.