A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #311  
Old October 6th 04, 12:19 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
.. .
C&M wrote:

While I agree megapixels and film cannot be directly translated, please
take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml for
an interesting discussion film and digital resolution.

Medium format was not even introduced, I merely stated 35mm Velvia 50
was calculate to have a 21.4 megapixel equivelence. Now this is using
today's sensors, so with new sensors it may be less. In any case, MF
obviously is untouchable in quality, but the site referenced in
interesting nontheless. Enjoy!


Look again. The same site has a test of the original 1Ds, compared to
medium format. The result is that MF does indeed still win, but only
with a very small margin. I quote just a few sentenses: "There is no
area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only
superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19".


Hmm. Doesn't that mean that 645 is better than the 1Dsg.

Seriously, all he discovered was that the "dot gain" on his 4 pl printer*
was
large enough that it was a good match for 255 dpi direct digital images.
(And also that his Flextight scanner is a dog and that his film workflow has
problems.)

*: There are 2 pl and even 1.5 pl droplet size inkjets out there. With
those, there is a difference between 255 dpi images and higher res images.
But not the printer he used.

And if you read the fine print carefully, you'll note that he didn't make
13x19 prints, he made 10.5 x 16 prints (255 dpi from the 1Ds).

"The
645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the
resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in
the sky is clearly inferior."


The man's never heard of NeatImage. Or ICE. Sheesh, even PS's despecle will
clean up sky grain somewhat.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ds-field.shtml


David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




  #312  
Old October 6th 04, 04:40 PM
C&M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
C&M wrote:


While I agree megapixels and film cannot be directly translated, please
take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml for
an interesting discussion film and digital resolution.

Medium format was not even introduced, I merely stated 35mm Velvia 50
was calculate to have a 21.4 megapixel equivelence. Now this is using
today's sensors, so with new sensors it may be less. In any case, MF
obviously is untouchable in quality, but the site referenced in
interesting nontheless. Enjoy!



Look again. The same site has a test of the original 1Ds, compared to
medium format. The result is that MF does indeed still win, but only
with a very small margin. I quote just a few sentenses: "There is no
area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only
superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19". "The
645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the
resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in
the sky is clearly inferior."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ds-field.shtml

Enjoy!


Thanks for your replies. I have never contended that medium format was
going to be surpassed by digital. I am an advocate of film and will not
purchases digital for some time (I use an EOS3 - 35mm). MF is and will
be for some time the format of choice for discerning photographers.

I didn't realize Luminous Landscapes had a bad reputation. Interesting.
  #313  
Old October 6th 04, 04:40 PM
C&M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
C&M wrote:


While I agree megapixels and film cannot be directly translated, please
take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml for
an interesting discussion film and digital resolution.

Medium format was not even introduced, I merely stated 35mm Velvia 50
was calculate to have a 21.4 megapixel equivelence. Now this is using
today's sensors, so with new sensors it may be less. In any case, MF
obviously is untouchable in quality, but the site referenced in
interesting nontheless. Enjoy!



Look again. The same site has a test of the original 1Ds, compared to
medium format. The result is that MF does indeed still win, but only
with a very small margin. I quote just a few sentenses: "There is no
area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only
superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19". "The
645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the
resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in
the sky is clearly inferior."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ds-field.shtml

Enjoy!


Thanks for your replies. I have never contended that medium format was
going to be surpassed by digital. I am an advocate of film and will not
purchases digital for some time (I use an EOS3 - 35mm). MF is and will
be for some time the format of choice for discerning photographers.

I didn't realize Luminous Landscapes had a bad reputation. Interesting.
  #314  
Old October 6th 04, 05:03 PM
Johan W. Elzenga
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David J. Littleboy wrote:

Look again. The same site has a test of the original 1Ds, compared to
medium format. The result is that MF does indeed still win, but only
with a very small margin. I quote just a few sentenses: "There is no
area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only
superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19".


Hmm. Doesn't that mean that 645 is better than the 1Dsg.


Yes, it does. But is it a coincidence that you deleted my next quote?
That said ""The 645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger
file, and while the resolution seems more or less comparable to the
1Ds', again the grain in the sky is clearly inferior."

Doesn't that mean that the 1Ds is better than 645?g

Also, do remember that we are discussing the 1Ds MARK II, and that this
comparison is with the original 1Ds, not the MARK II.


--
Johan W. Elzenga johanatjohanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
  #315  
Old October 6th 04, 05:09 PM
Jytzel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C&M wrote in message news:FkE8d.8576$1g5.4826@trnddc07...

While I agree megapixels and film cannot be directly translated, please
take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml for
an interesting discussion film and digital resolution.

Medium format was not even introduced, I merely stated 35mm Velvia 50
was calculate to have a 21.4 megapixel equivelence. Now this is using
today's sensors, so with new sensors it may be less. In any case, MF
obviously is untouchable in quality, but the site referenced in
interesting nontheless. Enjoy!


I really dscourage anyone from basing any argument on what they read
on sites like Luminous Landsape. The reports can be conflicting and
confusing- in nother report they concluded that 1Ds was better than
6x7. I'm afraid they are trying to sell certain products- their
coparison methdology is far from being flawless (I don't know whay
they base their "comparisions" on mediore lenses like that of Pentax.)
Pesonally I don't take their reviews seriously at all since I found
that my observations differs drmatically from their "conclusions" in
more that one instance.

regards,
J.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 104 September 3rd 04 01:01 PM
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) Steven M. Scharf 35mm Photo Equipment 92 September 3rd 04 01:01 PM
Canon 10d or Nikon D70. Dmanfish Digital Photography 102 August 18th 04 12:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.