Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm TP wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm TP wrote:

But the best that can be achieved with 6MP digital (1.5MP red, 1.5MP
blue, 3.0MP green) falls massively short of what can easily be
achieved with 35mm film.

you are out of your mind. A 6MP DSLR has 6MP red, 6MP blue and at least
6MP green sensors.


Sadly, it is you who are out of your tiny mind. The fact that you did
not know this *most basic* of facts about digital cameras must cast
doubt on everything you say about them.


DUDE, get your head out of your ass and actually go and read some specs or
look at some dslrs or what they output.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

TP wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

While a popular answer, its also untrue. I don't think anybody will get
more the 100mp from 35mm sensor in the next 100 years.


Given that you didn't even know that a 6MP sensor has only 1.5MP red,
1.5MP blue and 3.0MP green pixels, your predictions are probably about
as reliable as a 15 year old Yugo.


#like I said - get your head out of your ass and learn the difference
between sensors and pixels.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

TP wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

While a popular answer, its also untrue. I don't think anybody will get
more the 100mp from 35mm sensor in the next 100 years.


Given that you didn't even know that a 6MP sensor has only 1.5MP red,
1.5MP blue and 3.0MP green pixels, your predictions are probably about
as reliable as a 15 year old Yugo.


#like I said - get your head out of your ass and learn the difference
between sensors and pixels.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Toralf writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[ ... ]

You, and many other people when discussing these matters, seem to
forget that the storage space necessary for the digital cameras is not
free of charge, though (neither are the prints, even if you have your
own printer.)
The storage space costs something like $0.60 per 650 meg, for
archival-grade CDs.
I don't think I could get them *that* cheap around here and/or I
wouldn't trust the ones I do get at that price, but never you mind.

Or something like $100 for 120gig of hard drive.
Yep. Or $100 (2) for 25GB of tape.

I would *never* use tape for archival storage; it has a *very* short
life.

It's much, much, cheaper than film and processing, even if you do
*both*. And, of course, deciding how much to keep and how to keep it
is a personal choice. (I keep nearly everything I bring home, myself,
but not everybody does.)

Quite. I have a feeling I would keep most of it, myself... But the
flexibility of being able to throw something away is of course a point
of its own. (Having to decide what to keep may perhaps be thought of
as a minor point against digital...)

Slides, too. I hear a lot of professionals actually throw out a lot
of the slides they shoot, after picking out the keepers. (I've seen
articles on their using shredders to make sure nobody steals their
outtakes.)

Multiple CDs, checked every few years. The Kodak Gold Ultima CDs I'm
using for archiving say they're good for 120 years, which I trust as
far as I can throw it, but still sounds good. (Kodak being willing to
make a claim in print is reassuring to some extent).

Yes. I wasn't aware anyone even claimed that today. What I do know is
that when CDs were introduced, everyone would say that they could last
"forever", but today, people who deal archival of (scans of) historic
documents etc. hardly trust them to last more that 10 years.

I also get a noticeable failure rate for CDs in other applications,
due to the limitations of the write process, poorly manufactured media
or whatever, but I'm not quite sure how it contributes to the cost (I
haven't got any exact numbers.) What I'm talking about is the cases
where *something* happens to the burn process so that I have to start
all over again, or where I compare the data written to their source,
and find that they don't match.

I have gotten some "coasters", immediate burn failures. But I've
never seen a verification error, ever. And I've never had an old CD
fail yet, either audio CDs going back to 1983 or CD-Rs. (The failure
model for pressed CDs is actually very different than for CD-R; a
pressed CD can de-laminate, and some early ones did.)

As a general
point, digital archives do *extremely poorly* if not properly
maintained, whereas analog media archives simply accelerate their
decay somewhat, a much less drastic failure if they go unattended for
a while. It's also true that film storage costs something. Highly
variable,
depending on what you store it in. And the higher costs I quote for
processing do at least get me the film back in an archival sheet. But
that sheet goes in an envelope or something, which goes in a box, in
my storage scheme. And I get more than one roll of film equivalent
per 60 cent CD. (Actually my Kodak Gold Ultima were .46 cents each,
I bought three spindles on closeout.)

My rough estimate is that one CD is equivalent to a 36-picture film,
which allows for a fairly direct comparison. And yes, one CD is a lot
cheaper that a 36-picture film. What I was trying to say, however, is
that the "digital" storage cost still cannot be *completely* ignored -
CD's aren't *that* much cheaper than film.

One CD per 36-picture film? So you're storing 18 megabytes per image?
My fine jpeg (most often used) original is about 2 megabytes. If I've
worked on the image I have a much bigger PSD file, but often the image
can be auto-processed into a screen image of about 40k, with no
intermediate kept. I average a LOT more than 36 pictures per CD.

And of course, you'll need to purchase a certain amount of
microdrive/compactflash/SD media, to, and that's still rather
expensive - it's cost may actually be as much as 20 times the one of
film.

So far in 4 years with 2 digital cameras I've purchased 5 CF cards,
yes. And also an Iomega Fotoshow to transfer cards to zip disks in
the field.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

George Preddy wrote:

. . . . . . . . . .

Sigma cameras do NOT sample color. They are the worlds only direct
image sensors. Phenomenally better per pixel image quality than Leaf,
but slightly lower resolution at only 13.72MP.

2268 by 1512 pixels is quite below your 13.72 MP figure. I think you should check your math. If you want to claim that
each layer adds up to that, then it is only a marketing term created by Foveon. The reality of any image editing
software in the world is that a maximum file size of 2268 by 1512 pixels is all that will ever come out of a Sigma SD9.
To claim otherwise is ignorance.



camera.

Human vision has very poor color resolution.

If that was true than no one couldn't see the difference in either of
these scientific test images, where the 13.72MP Foveon displays more
than double the full color resoution of the 6MP Canon 10D ...

2268 by 1512 pixels over a sensor area of 20.7 mm by 13.8 mm gives a maximum theoretical resolution of 54.78 lp/mm by
54.78 lp/mm. To their credit, when tested by DPReview, the resolution is actually close to that number. Unfortunately,
20.7 by 13.8 mm is quite a bit smaller than 36 by 24 mm, so Foveon still have a ways to go to advance this technology.
If they can maintain the colour quality, similar resolution, and keep power consumption low in a scaled up full frame
CMOS, then they will have a viable product for the future.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Skip M wrote:

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
TP wrote in news:ust5g09ak52gh8skdsehobmeo6qrdkpbn8@
4ax.com:

A 36 x 24mm sensor with 16MP in a 35mm-format DSLR
would keep me (and my customers) happy.


What kind of customers do you have that is interested
in the size of your sensor?


/Roland

My wife's cousin had a client so determined to have images done with the 1Ds
rather than Jim's 10D that he actually bought one for Jim as part of the
package. This was for publication in a catalogue, Jim tried to explain that
any advantages of the 1Ds would be lost in the litho process, but the client
insisted. So Jim showed him that renting the camera for the duration of the
project would cost more than the cost of buying it. The client bit. Some
people are just caught up in the need for the biggest and the best. I need
a client like that...

I think I would have shown that client a brochure for the newest Sinar digital
back, or maybe the Phase One, just to add another choice. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Skip M wrote:

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
TP wrote in news:ust5g09ak52gh8skdsehobmeo6qrdkpbn8@
4ax.com:

A 36 x 24mm sensor with 16MP in a 35mm-format DSLR
would keep me (and my customers) happy.


What kind of customers do you have that is interested
in the size of your sensor?


/Roland

My wife's cousin had a client so determined to have images done with the 1Ds
rather than Jim's 10D that he actually bought one for Jim as part of the
package. This was for publication in a catalogue, Jim tried to explain that
any advantages of the 1Ds would be lost in the litho process, but the client
insisted. So Jim showed him that renting the camera for the duration of the
project would cost more than the cost of buying it. The client bit. Some
people are just caught up in the need for the biggest and the best. I need
a client like that...

I think I would have shown that client a brochure for the newest Sinar digital
back, or maybe the Phase One, just to add another choice. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Skip M wrote:

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
TP wrote in news:ust5g09ak52gh8skdsehobmeo6qrdkpbn8@
4ax.com:

A 36 x 24mm sensor with 16MP in a 35mm-format DSLR
would keep me (and my customers) happy.


What kind of customers do you have that is interested
in the size of your sensor?


/Roland

My wife's cousin had a client so determined to have images done with the 1Ds
rather than Jim's 10D that he actually bought one for Jim as part of the
package. This was for publication in a catalogue, Jim tried to explain that
any advantages of the 1Ds would be lost in the litho process, but the client
insisted. So Jim showed him that renting the camera for the duration of the
project would cost more than the cost of buying it. The client bit. Some
people are just caught up in the need for the biggest and the best. I need
a client like that...

I think I would have shown that client a brochure for the newest Sinar digital
back, or maybe the Phase One, just to add another choice. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...
SNIP

Direct image sensor = direct measurement of 100% of the
information, no sampling.


You obviously have no clue what sampling means. What's worse, I'm
beginning to believe you are not just trolling, but you are indeed as
delusional as you try to portrait yourself.
This person's name looks oddly familiar. Have a look at some of the
other troll posts on these newsgroups, and you see what I mean...

Bart

Roland Karlsson wrote:
Toralf wrote in news:cdrkv0$545
:


OK. I've been thinking a bit about the "luminance" argument that has
popped up a number of times (but not a lot, so I may have overlooked
something), and I'm not sure I'm convinced - although it depends a bit
on how you see it.
... snipped away the rest ...


Your analysis is correct. You cannot detect the color of a small
dot that is just one pixel large with a Bayer sensor. If you have
a Foveon sensor you can. The hue resolution is much higher for
a Foveon (or any other senor that detects all color at each point)
than for Bayer sensor.

But ... that is not as important as it first sounds. To understand
why not there are two things you have to consider:

1. Sampling theory
2. Human vision

Sampling theory states that you must filter away all frequencies
at half the sampling frequency and higher to be able to make an
accurate reproduction of the incoming signal. This filter is
called an anti alias filter and it smooths the incoming signal over
nearby detectors, thus removing the problem with single pixel input.
Whooa. I'm trying to remember the sampling theory, now... It's hidden in
the back of my brain somewhere, but I'm not sure I can find it...

Anyhow, this is sort of a new part to the equation to me as I didn't
know they did that kind of filtering. Maybe I should have realised that
they must, and I've also somehow felt that something was missing from
the picture in the explanation about the Bayer sensor.
You simply don't have any single pixel input to detect in the first
place. Some choose to call this a blur filter And - in some sense
it is - but it is neccessary to avoid strange artefacts in the picture.
If you have a sharp lens that is well focussed, you se lots of strange
things in a picture taken without an anti alias filter, e.g. a Sigma
camera.

Human vision has very poor color resolution. So - your example with
single dots of another color is not relevant for photographs.
If you want to make abstract pictures, where hue is translated into
luminosity - then it matters though.
Right... To a certain extent, I meant this particular argument as a
purely principal one, too, though, i.e. the question is not just whether
it matters for photographs or not, but whether camera producers are
honest when they talk about e.g. 6MP. I just don't like being lied to,
even when it's a white lie, or a lie about something that doesn't
matter, if you know what I mean...

- Toralf