If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald wrote:
Will D. wrote: I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there. Opinions/comments? Will D. All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly not for quality DSLR sensors. The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging digital images. I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by others doing the same thing. 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or as big as a digital image. Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30% noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture being the only truly valid comparison. What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make a print and it was that print which became the photograph. When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed previous boundaries of film. Douglas Is this an advertisement? Sounds like you selling something here. Don't think most folk confuse genuine detail with fake interpolation. No doubt your customers are impressed, and if they're happy you're successful. For most people, if you make their images more dramatic, they're happy, but that's probably not the case here. Don't think folk here are impressed by being told what many hold true is only myth. You make a lot of claims that may or may not be valid, but it sounds like you're cherry picking your data to back up those claims. If you think that the current lot of high resolution DSLRs are hype, that's your privilege, but don't think others will buy that just because you say so. Too many pros are already using the 1Ds where they used to use medium format. Not all photographic images become prints, though probably most do, at least at some point. Some people are into straight photography only, and are careful to reproduce only what they get, and some people always manipulate their images. I suspect most people sometimes do one and sometimes do the other, but I doubt they confuse the two. I know I don't. That said, no doubt you have a successful business, but I really doubt folk here are willing to accept the standards of your customers as their own. Will D. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Douglas MacDonald writes:
All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly not for quality DSLR sensors. The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging digital images. I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what I do for a living cannot be done. I don't think anybody has ever said that interpolation can't be done. It is the claim that interpolation work so well that it can /replace/ original resolution that has been challenged. Last time interpolation was discussed on Usenet. I put up the following page: http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html I think it demonstrates quite clearly that while good interpolation algorithms can do some very impressive things to remove pixelation, you still need to /have/ details in the original bitmap if you want those details to appear in the image. To have the details, you need the pixels to capture them - for starters. I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed previous boundaries of film. The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm. By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm. -- - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ================================================== ====================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Will D. wrote: On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald wrote: Will D. wrote: I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there. Opinions/comments? Will D. All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly not for quality DSLR sensors. The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging digital images. I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by others doing the same thing. 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or as big as a digital image. Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30% noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture being the only truly valid comparison. What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make a print and it was that print which became the photograph. When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed previous boundaries of film. Douglas Is this an advertisement? Sounds like you selling something here. He is always trying to pull a fast one. According to what I've read, he used to own a web business with a warranty policy that violated Australian law. A bunch of people picked up on it so he pulled the site down and claimed that he would never post to Usenet again. That turned out to be another lie. During the course of discussion, it was reported that Douglas had an elaborate criminal record, and so did his wife/partner Marg. Reports said that Douglas did hard time for fraud, and that his wife spent time in jail for soliciting as a hooker. He has a few sock puppets like "Ryadia" and "Sebastian Po" that he occasionally uses to post under. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Bubba LugNuts" writes:
[garbage] You're "reporting" unsubstanciated garbage that originally was posted to Usenet by somone using several forged identities. Reposting it using yet another silly pseudonym doesn't make it credible, or interesting. -- - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ================================================== ====================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On 18-Nov-04 03:41:18, Gardner said
In article .co.uk, "Angus Manwaring" writes: It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image size. No, physical size is important: (1) big sensor - big photo-sites which are more sensitive and are less affected by noise. (2) big sensor - low/no "multiplication factor" so your wide angle lens is really wide-angle. I agree the size of the sensor is indicative of the camera's capabilities, but in context with the O.P.'s question, if you are effectively measuring the digital camera's resolution against a 35mm film camera, of primary interest is the true non-interpolated images size you are getting - not the measurements of the sensor, notwithstanding the implications you raise in your first point. Your second point is valid, but a seperate issue to that raised by the O.P. All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM) I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On 18-Nov-04 04:01:18, Douglas MacDonald said
Will D. wrote: I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there. Opinions/comments? Will D. All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly not for quality DSLR sensors. The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. The difference is that you are enlarging true detail when you blow up a film image. Interpolation is an algorithm's best guess as to what the adjacent pixels are likely to be, and while I have no doubt your results are very good, I think its important not to blur this distinction. All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM) I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On 18-Nov-04 10:57:06, Gisle Hannemyr said
I think it demonstrates quite clearly that while good interpolation algorithms can do some very impressive things to remove pixelation, you still need to /have/ details in the original bitmap if you want those details to appear in the image. To have the details, you need the pixels to capture them - for starters. Well said, sir. All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM) I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bubba LugNuts wrote:
He is always trying to pull a fast one. According to what I've read, he used to own a web business with a warranty policy that violated Australian law. A bunch of people picked up on it so he pulled the site down and claimed that he would never post to Usenet again. That turned out to be another lie. During the course of discussion, it was reported that Douglas had an elaborate criminal record, and so did his wife/partner Marg. Reports said that Douglas did hard time for fraud, and that his wife spent time in jail for soliciting as a hooker. He has a few sock puppets like "Ryadia" and "Sebastian Po" that he occasionally uses to post under. Gotcha... You slandered me for the last time *******. This group doesn't accept posts from mail2news remailing services for the very purpose of identifying where defamation from lying *******s like you originates from. Here's my offer again. $500 US CASH reward paid to anyone who can positively identify you with a valid address I can server papers to. I'll pay the money through a lawyer in the country you reside in. You and I will yet see each other in court. And don't you worry too much... The Mexicans don't take kindly to people using them for defamation either. Douglas -------------------- netnum: 200.79.91/24 status: reallocated owner: Reasignacion UniNet ownerid: MX-REUN-LACNIC responsible: David Chavez Alba address: Periferico Sur, 3190, address: 01900 - Mexico DF - DF country: MX phone: +52 55 54907000 [7049] owner-c: SRU tech-c: SRU created: 20031021 changed: 20031021 inetnum-up: 200.79.0/17 inetnum-up: 200.79/16 nic-hdl: SRU person: SEGURIDAD DE RED UNINET e-mail: address: PERIFERICO SUR, 3190, ALVARO OBREG address: 01900 - MEXICO - DF country: MX phone: +52 55 52237234 [] created: 20030701 changed: 20030703 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed previous boundaries of film. The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm. By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm. ---------- What you say Gisle is quite true. If it were not for the fact that a film has no intrinsic use until it it is converted to either a print or another film (transparency). In this conversion, it changes from one form of existence to another. That change is what no one seems to take into consideration when attempting a comparison. Digital images do not degrade from copying unless the copying medium loses data. When you change a digital image to a photograph, you have the opportunity not available with a film conversion to improve the image. Should we call a film 'analogue'? If so, it is easy to consider how much detail is lost when copying a VHS 'analogue' video compared to a digital video recording. The same applies to a film image, copy it and no matter how good your gear is, some of the image will be lost. You are absolutely correct that a good image is needed to obtain good results. This is after all a DSLR group so it is reasonable to make a few assumptions when posting here. One is that any DSLR will have at least some halfway decent glass and be able to capture a detailed image in the first place. As for those who say I'm advertising my business buy posting information of use to the group... Really? Show me which business, where, how and what I am accused of advertising and I'll stop. Douglas |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald wrote:
Gisle Hannemyr wrote: I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed previous boundaries of film. The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm. By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm. ---------- Not in response to me, but I started the thread... What you say Gisle is quite true. If it were not for the fact that a film has no intrinsic use until it it is converted to either a print or another film (transparency). In this conversion, it changes from one form of existence to another. "Intrinsic use"? What does that have to do with anything? That change is what no one seems to take into consideration when attempting a comparison. Digital images do not degrade from copying unless the copying medium loses data. When you change a digital image to a photograph, you have the opportunity not available with a film conversion to improve the image. So what's your point? Should we call a film 'analogue'? If so, it is easy to consider how much detail is lost when copying a VHS 'analogue' video compared to a digital video recording. The same applies to a film image, copy it and no matter how good your gear is, some of the image will be lost. Okay, your point seems to be that digital is never lossy and film always is, right? Bushwa. Ever seen anyone click on the wrong icon and save a degraded file over the top of the original? Easy to do when you're working with jpegs. Ever seen a master darkroom tech produce a positive large format dupe that faithfully records the grain of the original? I have. In the real world, there's always the possibility of loss in both media. You are absolutely correct that a good image is needed to obtain good results. This is after all a DSLR group so it is reasonable to make a few assumptions when posting here. One is that any DSLR will have at least some halfway decent glass and be able to capture a detailed image in the first place. Now you're making assumptions that are "intrinsically" invalid. How many people have bought a DReb kit with that horrible piece of coke bottle glass, and thought they were doing just great? And inevitably some of them will wind up here, trying to get answers to questions they don't know enough to ask. As for those who say I'm advertising my business buy posting information of use to the group... Really? Show me which business, where, how and what I am accused of advertising and I'll stop. How about the one you cited in your original response, the one you said was undergoing "electric" growth. Being coy and not naming the business gets people to ask, and that's a come-on. Nah, you're a troll, as far as I'm concerned. Will D. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
20D vs 1D mkII | you know who maybe | Digital Photography | 9 | November 15th 04 08:52 PM |
Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview - MF encroachment | Alan Browne | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 110 | October 6th 04 05:09 PM |
Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview - MF encroachment | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 105 | October 6th 04 05:09 PM |
10d mkII will be released in Sept | david smith | Digital Photography | 68 | August 6th 04 05:26 AM |
new 10d mkII with 1.3x sensor | david Smith | Digital Photography | 56 | July 6th 04 04:25 AM |