Digital vs Film - just give in!

Stacey wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:



Both give exactly the same DOF. pixel / grain size *does* *not* *matter*
DOF wise.



If you can't follow that at a certain print size it does affect the whole
image i.e. nothing is sharp/the whole image is blurry, then further
explaination isn't going to get you to understand this. Try making a 16X20
print from a 35mm negative using 800asa film and try to find the focus
point.


Huh? What does print size have to do with this? And if you experience unsharpeing
at enlargements then I would suggest you use different method - there is no
reason an enlargement needs to look any more fuzzy that the original. You won't
get more detail but that doesn't mean you need to lose sharpness.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Stacey wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:



Both give exactly the same DOF. pixel / grain size *does* *not* *matter*
DOF wise.



If you can't follow that at a certain print size it does affect the whole
image i.e. nothing is sharp/the whole image is blurry, then further
explaination isn't going to get you to understand this. Try making a 16X20
print from a 35mm negative using 800asa film and try to find the focus
point.


Huh? What does print size have to do with this? And if you experience unsharpeing
at enlargements then I would suggest you use different method - there is no
reason an enlargement needs to look any more fuzzy that the original. You won't
get more detail but that doesn't mean you need to lose sharpness.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Stacey wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:



Both give exactly the same DOF. pixel / grain size *does* *not* *matter*
DOF wise.



If you can't follow that at a certain print size it does affect the whole
image i.e. nothing is sharp/the whole image is blurry, then further
explaination isn't going to get you to understand this. Try making a 16X20
print from a 35mm negative using 800asa film and try to find the focus
point.


Huh? What does print size have to do with this? And if you experience unsharpeing
at enlargements then I would suggest you use different method - there is no
reason an enlargement needs to look any more fuzzy that the original. You won't
get more detail but that doesn't mean you need to lose sharpness.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

'Bout a century and a half have passed and film still hasn't replaced
paint...

Jeff

Of course not. It is too expensive to cover the outside of your house with
film. Paint is much better.

-Jack

'Bout a century and a half have passed and film still hasn't replaced
paint...

Jeff

Of course not. It is too expensive to cover the outside of your house with
film. Paint is much better.

-Jack

"Jeff Cochran" wrote in message
...
'Bout a century and a half have passed and film still hasn't replaced
paint...

It's true- it would cost a fortune to cover my lounge wall in photos. At
least i'd have a choice of Satin or Gloss, though...

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Jeff Cochran" wrote in message
...
'Bout a century and a half have passed and film still hasn't replaced
paint...

It's true- it would cost a fortune to cover my lounge wall in photos. At
least i'd have a choice of Satin or Gloss, though...

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

On 15 Jul 2004 01:58:29 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
wrote:

From: "Robert C."

I tested the quality of a 3.2 megapixel camera and compared it with
the same shot taken with my RB67 and a comparable lens. The film was
superior!

Wow! Who'd a thunk it!

LOL.

LOL indeed. Now there's a "fair" comparison for you...

Just for the record, for an image of normal proportions, approximately
0.05 MByte per sq. inch of print area provides a reasonable estimate
of sensor requirement vs. print size for a satisfactorily sharp print.
However, prints produced with the usual methods (including hi-res
inkjets) fall short of delivering "critical sharpness" in any case,
but if they could, and if my eyese were young again, I'd maybe double
the above value. The 0.05 figure corresponds to an 8X10 print made
with a CoolPix 990, and I've seen some mighty nice-lloking prints from
that camera (with dye-sub).

"KBob" wrote in message
...

However, prints produced with the usual methods (including hi-res
inkjets) fall short of delivering "critical sharpness" in any case


Unfortunately, the film processing labs often produce prints that are not as
sharp as is the image on the negative. Inferior enlarging lenses? Or do
they print slightly out of focus on purpose? Who knows?

I have always seen much superior results when using slide film than when
getting prints made from film.

The less-than-expected print quality of prints does tend to narrow the
quality gap between a film print and a digital print.

"KBob" wrote in message
...

However, prints produced with the usual methods (including hi-res
inkjets) fall short of delivering "critical sharpness" in any case


Unfortunately, the film processing labs often produce prints that are not as
sharp as is the image on the negative. Inferior enlarging lenses? Or do
they print slightly out of focus on purpose? Who knows?

I have always seen much superior results when using slide film than when
getting prints made from film.

The less-than-expected print quality of prints does tend to narrow the
quality gap between a film print and a digital print.