A $1200 21MP Digital Camera

My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.



So the choice is:

21MP images for $1200

or

Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000


Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?


LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?

Yes. Completely wrong. Any number of websites discuss the problems in
comparing a filmscan with a digital camera capture. Start with:

www.normankoren.com
www.clarkvision.com
www.kenrockwell.com

There are issues like grain, grain aliasing, second generation capture
(two sets of optics), use of an led or fluorescent light source (ie
non-continuous, non-matching illumination), film flatness/focus, etc.
If you want a (highly arguable) comparison, IMO the best 4000 ppi scan
of 35mm film lands somewhere near a good 6-8Mp DSLR image, assuming
professional fine grain film. But I would still go with the DSLR image
for sheer clarity and smoothness.


LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

= I am trolling.

kz8rt3 writes:

My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.



So the choice is:

21MP images for $1200

or

Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000


Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?


LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

Ah. Troll. Never mind, then.
--
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/

kz8rt3 wrote:


My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.


I can take a shot with a disposable camera, have an 8X10 print made and then
scan that on my flatbed and have an even LARGER file!

--

Stacey

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

kz8rt3 writes:

My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.



So the choice is:

21MP images for $1200

or

Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000


Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?


LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

Ah. Troll. Never mind, then.

Please, how am I a troll? I was just joking with that. But can anyone
be specific on why I am wrong? Just one point will suffice.

How is it different from taking 1's and 0's from a partial frame sensor?

MP is MP.

In article .com,
"Chrlz" wrote:

Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?

Yes. Completely wrong. Any number of websites discuss the problems in
comparing a filmscan with a digital camera capture. Start with:

www.normankoren.com
www.clarkvision.com
www.kenrockwell.com

There are issues like grain, grain aliasing, second generation capture
(two sets of optics), use of an led or fluorescent light source (ie
non-continuous, non-matching illumination), film flatness/focus, etc.
If you want a (highly arguable) comparison, IMO the best 4000 ppi scan
of 35mm film lands somewhere near a good 6-8Mp DSLR image, assuming
professional fine grain film. But I would still go with the DSLR image
for sheer clarity and smoothness.

That sounds silly. I take the image with a full frame 35mm and scan it
at 21mp. How would that compare to a 8mp image?

Are megapixels about clarity of an image? No. It is a purely physical
attribution that only has to do with the scan or sensor.

If I scan an image at 21mp i get a 21mp image. Just look at the pixels
on the finishes image. If a 21mp camera took that picture you would get
the same pixel numbers and 21mp.

MP is not about grain, lights, flatness. It is about the number of
pixels in a file.

So again, find me a 21mp camera for $1200.


LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

= I am trolling.

No, I am really not.

And in the future can you not snip so early in a post?

In article , Stacey
wrote:

kz8rt3 wrote:


My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.


I can take a shot with a disposable camera, have an 8X10 print made and then
scan that on my flatbed and have an even LARGER file!

We have the same brain! Amazing.

Yes, larger file and more MP!

kz8rt3 writes:

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

Ah. Troll. Never mind, then.

Please, how am I a troll? I was just joking with that. But can anyone
be specific on why I am wrong? Just one point will suffice.

Well, risking taking your at your word here (that's a pretty
ill-considered joke given the prevalence of trolling on Usenet and
mailing lists)....

How is it different from taking 1's and 0's from a partial frame sensor?

MP is MP.

Yes, but MP is not *image quality*.

My experience is that direct digital scene capture megapixels are
generally worth something very vaguely like *twice* what scanned
megapixels are worth, in terms of image quality. I've scanned film
myself on three different scanners, plus worked from scans made by
others on at least three more, and compared those to output from
something like 5 different digital cameras, and it's very obvious to
me that this is true.

I can speculate on various reasons why scanned film images aren't the
best. The pixel frequency may interact weirdly with the grain
clumping in the film. The results are abstracted another couple of
levels from reality. The image on the film isn't completely sharp and
perfect to begin with even before grain is considered.

Try this experiment: Take a 35mm film frame, a good sharp one, and
scan it at a resolution to match some digital camera you have handy.
Now take a similar photo with the digital camera. Examine the two
photos at 100%, and tell us what *you* think.
--
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/

kz8rt3 wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:

kz8rt3 wrote:


My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.


I can take a shot with a disposable camera, have an 8X10 print made and then
scan that on my flatbed and have an even LARGER file!

We have the same brain! Amazing.

Yes, larger file and more MP!

Ever heard the phrase 'empty magnification'? Using a pixel resolution
finer then the detail in your negative achieves nothing. There's no
point in using 10 pixels when 2 will cover the detail.

So, your 20-odd MP file from your negative does not indicate that the
negative contains that level of detail. Hence, the statement that the
average negative is about equivalent to 6 or 8 MP is correct regardless
of the resolution you scan it at.

Colin D.

kz8rt3 wrote:


Please, how am I a troll? I was just joking with that. But can anyone
be specific on why I am wrong?

Because not all pixels are equal in quality. Not that you're being a troll,
just that scanned film doesn't have nearly as clean a pixel quality as
digital capture does, depending on the camera and lens used of course..

MP is MP.

See above.

--

Stacey