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 |
#471
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:14:16 GMT, "Neil Gould" wrote: And, those of us who have been involved in the "fiddling with images in the digital domain" since the mid '70s have heard these same claims of quality equivalence made for the last 25 years, and contend that "we still aren't really there, yet". What sorts of digital imaging did you do in the mid 1970's, Neil? Strictly digital, working in video. As I recall, memory was around $100K per megabyte back then. Back then, a megabyte was an unimaginable amount of memory for most of us. For more information, Google "Quantel Paintbox". I remember spending several hundred $ to upgrade my PC to 384K... around 1983 or so. Around that time, I added 1.5 mb to my PC (Intel Above Board) at a cost of a couple thousand $. I remember specifically buying my PC with monochrome screen and Hercules graphics adapter, because the VGA color standard was so god-awful back then. I had a Targa board in mine; a dual monitor setup with 16 bit graphics which folks were touting as being "imperceptably different from live video" and Targa output to film recorders as being "as good as 35 mm". And, the same pseudo-techobabble was being spouted to support such claims. They were as wrong then as they are now. The technology for making good images with affordable computers is less than ten years old. My point is that the bar keeps getting raised. To make images on the level of Pixar animations is still exhorbitantly expensive. And, good as they are, they still don't fool me. ;-) Regards, Neil |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
missing MF converts Not just feared future fate, but present hurt.
Recently, Jack posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message Recently, Jack posted: More likely they will just make Hasselblad-branded digital cameras (with panasonic guts) and sell them for twice the going rate for digicams. And, the difference between Panasonic and Fuji guts would be...? At least Panasonic has a history as a primary manufacturer of pro-quality sensors and interface circuitry in the video world. Neil Nothing. I have nothing against Panasonic. They make fine stuff. Good enough for Leica. They just don't have the same top end brand recognition as Hasselblad or Leica. Zeiss and Kyocera would be another example. All branding. My point is that they *do* have good brand recognition in pro video. As digital still cameras are derivative of that technology, and as Panasonic is one of very few primary manufacturers of digital sensors, their name *should* be more of a draw than Fuji. So, it's marketing. Good enough for Leica, indeed. Neil I guess I'm a little uncertain how Fuji plays into this at all. They've partnered with Hasselblad to manufacture the H1. Neil |
#473
|
|||
|
|||
is film < 42 lpmm? MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
"Hzakas" wrote in message ... nyquist limits Excuse me, but what are "nyquist limits"? That's the first time I've heard the term, except for a fellow high school classmate with the name Arill Nyquist. The highest spatial frequency (finest detail) that can be reliably represented in a sampled (~digitized) image. Named after Harry Nyquist. See figure 1. in http://www.geocities.com/bioelectroc...ry/nyquist.htm Bart Bart |
#474
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-) MF's bright future?
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message "David J. Littleboy" wrote: Drum scans are only a tiny improvement over 4000 dpi scans. One really has to eyeball them at insane magnifications to see any difference. Sounds like you are judging images on a computer monitor, so obviously it would be tough to see a difference. However, I have many kilos of printed samples and work that show the (commercial) printed differences of drum scanning. A monitor is clearly a _better_ way to compa you can adjust the magnification to see what's really there. Okay, so your choice of "quality" is a 72 dpi monitor with an RGB colour space. Wow, I am impressed . . . such wonders of technology . . . have you considered becoming an imaging professional . . . oh, the miracles of modern science . . . .. . . . . . . And there isn't anything there. I am suspecting there is another place where there isn't anything . . . . . . . .. . ;-) What you are probably seeing is a better calibrated overall system. Obviously, since this is my profession. I would not expect the average amateur to even begin to comprehend what it takes to develop that kind of a working system. Of course, I should mention that many people could probably guess, and get close to being right about 90% of the time. The problem for professionals, is that 10% of the time being wrong would put you out of a job. But if you look at the actual files, the differences are simply miniscule. I don't place my final trust in monitors, even well calibrated monitors. There is still a need for having proofing done prior to publication. The difference is miniscule compared to even the difference between even 6x7 and 6x9 (for those of us printing to the A4 aspect ratio.) Is that only for inkjet prints? No, it's a matter of percentages. Maybe drums scrape a tad more off the film. But it's a miniscule difference. Arguing that it's anything more than that is seriously untenable. It is noticeable with some images, and at some print sizes, though also noticeable upon comparison. The reality is that drum scans are rarely used, since the price/performance/time/file managing are other factors. Also, film scanners have been very good for the last four years, and still are improving. My claim above is equivalent to saying "Nikon 8000 scans of 56x79 will look better printed at 16x20 than any drum scan of (the same film, same lens, detailed subject from a bit further away) 49 x 69." Printed how? On inkjet? I think a Heidleberg (or similar) CTP system would allow a better judgement on printed quality. I should add that a poorly done drum scan could be worse than a well done film scan. Scanning is a skill, and just using the defaults will rarely yield the best results. If you thing that's wrong, prove it. I'll send you a 5-pack of Velvia 100 120 (not 100F) (that you probably can;t get where you are) if you can come up with a fair proof that drums get more from n x m than the Nikon gets from (n x 1.1) x (m x 1.1). I already have an great example from some brochures Epson sent me for their high end scanners. They compare a scan done on their gear to a Howtek drum scan. It is obvious that the drum scan has better detail rendition, tonality, and has greater apparent sharpness. The funny thing about the comparison is that I still like the image in either form, so when one technology looses a little to the other, as long as the image is compelling, the difference is purely academic. film in any machine is a waste of effort over scanned 35 mm, or even direct digital. Inkjet printers have far too much dot gain to show good results at anything other than large poster size. I don't see any dots in the R800. Even with my nose 4" from the paper. Of course you don't, and that is how dot gain works. Dot Gain refers to the spreading of ink, and in inkjet printers this mimics a continuous tone behaviour. Specifically the definition of Dot Gain is: a defect in which dots of ink print larger than they should, causing darker tones, or stronger colours. The other properties of inks are colour, viscosity, tack, body, length, and drying. Inkjet inks are very soft (body), long, low tack, and slow drying in comparison to inks used in presses. Combined with an infinitely greater choice of papers for commercial printing, these systems easily show the limitations of inkjet printing, by comparison. I have several printers loupes, which are similar to photographers loupes, yet show a scale calibration; these printers loupes are what is used for comparison, not sticking your nose close to the paper. ;-) The only places I know of that film has any advantage are (1) projecting, and (2) when some nut thinks s/he wants to see film. Whoa there David! Now you are stating that someone who uses film is a nut? Care to explain that one? A paying customer who insists that images be delivered on film, not in digital format, obviously... You mean prints? I have a couple charity organizations that I do work for that want photographic prints of their events, though that is a rare form of output for me. Is that what you mean? What are the others??? Anything near pure Yellow, or pure Cyan, though obviously you cannot see those on a monitor. Until the move is away from the Bayer pattern, direct digital is stuck with those limitations. Many films are not stuck with those colour response limitations. The comparisons I've seen show digital having less hue shift throughout the spectrum than film. When I photographed Yellow Ferrari autos, and old blue (almost pure Cyan) Bugatti autos, my film choices allowed those colours to come out accurately. One job included using a rented PhaseOne back, and the Yellow was off, no matter what adjustments I did. In fact, the digital captures would have required greater time post processing than just scanning the transparencies. The Bugatti blue was rendered almost purple blue by the PhaseOne. At another automotive session, I tried out a Sony F717 as a proofing device, alongside my Polaroid proofer. The assistant I used for that session had a Nikon direct digital SLR along (forgot which model). I had brought along a PowerBook to allow better viewing of the digital images. The reality is that colour picker readings of the digital images failed to properly capture anything near Yellow or Cyan, and even did a worse job with red automobiles. At least the film had the correct information, which made scanning and post processing quite easy. Anyway, I felt that highlighting a specific situation would better express my words. Obviously, if you are just photographing people, the colour ranges are restrictive enough that direct digital should work well enough. I think that you misunderstand Bayer demosaicing. Bayer results in lower _resolution_ in the color information, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the color rendition of the system. In terms of color rendition, film is very similar to digital, since they're both recording R, G, and B channels. (Bayer systems have trouble with test charts that are cyan against magenta, but then the human eye does too.) The RGB colour space used for direct digital is limited in range, as it must be by the design. There are real world conditions in which cyan and magenta coloured objects appear, and there are some films that do a great job at capturing those colours. There can still be difficulties scanning to capture those colour ranges, though at least when you can see it on the light table, you know what the colours should be, and how they should print. I thought I should include one article on Bayer filtering: http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/Bayer/bayer2.html Please feel free to comment. Why don't you just enjoy your digicam, Rafe? It would make matters sooo much simpler! ;-) Why don't film Luddites stop saying silly wrong things about digital??? What about those of us who use both technologies? Are we "nuts" as well? Why is it too many people argue about this has to be an "either/or" exclusionary choice. I don't see anyone saying seriously stupid negative things about film. I do see a lot of insane overestimates of the ability of film systems to resolve detail and color... Obviously, not all of us do all our shots well stepped down, and with the camera locked onto a tripod, nor do many of us ever want to photograph only test charts. Colour films are capable of near 100 lpmm under somewhat realistic conditions, and better under highly controlled conditions. Direct digital SLRs are (theoretically) limited to the maximum resolution of their chip dimension and maximum file sizes, with the best systems so far giving a possible 50 to 67 lpmm, under ideal controlled conditions. At many printed sizes, and some printing methods, it would be tough to see much difference. It is now entirely viable and accepted to make compelling images with nearly anything, direct digital, film, Polaroids, pin hole images, or even without a camera. Do we dismiss the images of the past because they were captured on film? (Oh, shame that was not a digital camera, he could have done such a better job . . . or some other nonsense). There are reasons behind choices, and even more reasons for combined approaches. Some of the people who post here seem to imply there is only "one" answer to all imaging . . . and I do think that is wrong. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon! |
#475
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-) MF's bright future?
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote: I don't see any dots in the R800. Even with my nose 4" from the paper. So. You also believe that your R800 is producing a finer screen than, say, a ~3600 lpi imagesetter? Or, a 15,000 lpi film recorder? Curious, indeed. My eyes don't resolve 3600 dpi. They just don't. And neither do anyone elses. I can take my scans to a lab, or I can take my film to a lab, or I can R800. For enlargements of 10X or so, I really don't see a big difference. (Other than all I get is a crop from the R800.) What I hear from you and Gordon is a denial of the reality that amateurs have access to imaging technology that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from what you all as pros have. As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets. That is okay for amateurs, but far from the realm of commercial printing. Obviously, commercial printing is not cost effective for very short runs, individual outputs, nor for home usage. I urge you to go to a printing industry trade show, or just to get more information on this industry. It is much further beyond inkjet than most people could ever imagine. You can also contact International Paper, and get a copy of the Pocket Pal Graphic Arts Production Handbook, and read up on the various commercial printing technologies. Creo also have some great white papers on this technology, including their new patented Staccato printing method. AGFA also have a great deal of printed information and books about the Graphic Arts and Printing industries. Pantone are another company with many publications about colour issues and printing. Until you are knowledgeable of my industry, you have no basis to criticize it, nor to dismiss the available technology. I am well aware of inkjet systems, and I know of many printing systems that can deliver greater resolution, greater colour range, and even create prints not possible on inkjet systems (metallics are just one example). If you want to discuss printing technologies, I am happy to do so. However, I urge you to expand your knowledge prior to attempting to make all encompassing statements. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon! |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
is film < 42 lpmm? MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
MikeWhy wrote:
"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message ... Are modern lenses with 100 ISO films able to reach 100+ lpmm (bob is right), or are modern high quality lenses with 100 ISO films unable to reach even 42 lpmm (6 MP equiv., and rafe is right)? Let's just say neither, and I now regret my "arses" comment earlier. However, film's 100+ lpmm isn't making it onto paper, and I take nothing else back. dpreview publishes resolution figures for digitals in their camera reviews. Depending on the numbers you accept, the 10D yields 57 lpmm to 75 lpmm (1450 lpi or 1900 lpi). This is through a real world lens, shooting a test chart. This detail can be printed, since there is no subsequent loss in the digital chain. The specifications for the 10D indicate a CMOS sensor of 22.7 mm by 15.1 mm. Taking the maximum possible file output size of 3072 by 2048 pixels, gives a maximum possible resolution of 67.7 lpmm by 67.8 lpmm. While I can almost believe the 57 lpmm figure, since that would account for losses due to the anti-aliasing filter, that figure of 75 lpmm seems impossible. How could they possibly capture more resolution in lpmm than the sensor is capable of recording? For film's 100 lpmm to match the 10D's performance in print, the enlarger and paper resolution combined cannot be worse than 132 lpmm. (1/57 = 1/100 + 1/132). Using Bob's number, 42 lpmm for digital, we get a more realistic figure for the enlarger and paper: 67 lpmm (1/41.5 = 1/108 + 1/67), subject to focusing and alignment errors in addition to printing lens resolution. It's a pretty close match, wouldn't you say, Bob? Not the 2:1 advantage some would have us believe. It is definitely getting close. There are very few published reports of tests done on resolution targets for direct digital cameras. The few reports that have appeared are often subject to a great deal of criticism. My contention is that it is entirely viable to create compelling images with either technology, and I do not find one to be exclusionary in usage to the other. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon! |
#477
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-) MF's bright future?
In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote: As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets. That is okay for amateurs, but far from the realm of commercial printing. Yeah, just check out this cheap amateurish desktop inkjet stuff: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-update.shtml Just one question - how many amateurs have their own forklift, do you suppose? |
#478
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-) MF's bright future?
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... "David J. Littleboy" wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote: I don't see any dots in the R800. Even with my nose 4" from the paper. So. You also believe that your R800 is producing a finer screen than, say, a ~3600 lpi imagesetter? Or, a 15,000 lpi film recorder? Curious, indeed. My eyes don't resolve 3600 dpi. They just don't. And neither do anyone elses. I can take my scans to a lab, or I can take my film to a lab, or I can R800. For enlargements of 10X or so, I really don't see a big difference. (Other than all I get is a crop from the R800.) This remains the bottom line here. The printing isn't the limiting factor for making 13x19s: the imaging system is. For the landscapey things I'm trying to do, even 645 is thinking about getting to be a bit iffy at 13x19*. If at some time my eyes get educated and I comprehend the infinite cosmic beauty of pro prints, I can take my film or digital originals to the lab. Until then, the R800 is better than most magazine reproduction. *: One thing your ranting has me thinking about, though, is that maybe I should forget 13x19, and concentrating on getting the most possible out of the R800 at A4. As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets. You're missing a great way to make prints. Your loss. But you are also missing the point that the printing technology is irrelevant to the questions at hand. I urge you to go to a printing industry trade show, or just to get more information on this industry. Why? I like the quality of inkjets. At A4, the R800 provides good color and great sharpness. I've got a lot to learn to provide originals up to R800 capabilities (well, 645 + 8000 has the detail bit overkilled). If I ever get to the state of needing better, I know who to ask. But, more significantly, at A4 it provides better detail than 35mm (I think) or 6MP digital (I know). In terms of detail rendered, the A4 inkjets seem a good match for the 1Ds. Until you are knowledgeable of my industry, you have no basis to criticize it, I'm not criticizing it, I'm criticizing your claim that it's relevant. 13x19 from 35mm is soft because of the 35mm, not because of the printer. And I can tell the difference between the amount of detail rendered with any of these tools (screen, inkjet, whatever) by adjusting the magnification. If you want to discuss printing technologies, I am happy to do so. I don't. I never intended to. You're the one who claims they're relevant*. Since I can take my originals to a lab, they're irrelevant to the question at hand. *: Every time I claim "A is better than B" (where A and B are imaging technologies), you go off on a rant on how either my scanner or printer is a dog. You're wrong every time, simply because even if they are dogs, it either is irrelevant (printer) or isn't a large enough difference (scanner) to affect the claim. This was supposed to be a thread about MF vs. digital. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#479
|
|||
|
|||
is film < 42 lpmm? MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... MikeWhy wrote: "Bob Monaghan" wrote in message ... Are modern lenses with 100 ISO films able to reach 100+ lpmm (bob is right), or are modern high quality lenses with 100 ISO films unable to reach even 42 lpmm (6 MP equiv., and rafe is right)? Let's just say neither, and I now regret my "arses" comment earlier. However, film's 100+ lpmm isn't making it onto paper, and I take nothing else back. dpreview publishes resolution figures for digitals in their camera reviews. Depending on the numbers you accept, the 10D yields 57 lpmm to 75 lpmm (1450 lpi or 1900 lpi). This is through a real world lens, shooting a test chart. This detail can be printed, since there is no subsequent loss in the digital chain. The specifications for the 10D indicate a CMOS sensor of 22.7 mm by 15.1 mm. Taking the maximum possible file output size of 3072 by 2048 pixels, gives a maximum possible resolution of 67.7 lpmm by 67.8 lpmm. While I can almost believe the 57 lpmm figure, since that would account for losses due to the anti-aliasing filter, that figure of 75 lpmm seems impossible. How could they possibly capture more resolution in lpmm than the sensor is capable of recording? I'll second this. Dpreview calls the vertical resolution of the 10D to be 1450 lph which is 725/14 = 48 lp/mm. For film's 100 lpmm to match the 10D's performance in print, the enlarger and paper resolution combined cannot be worse than 132 lpmm. (1/57 = 1/100 + 1/132). Using Bob's number, 42 lpmm for digital, we get a more realistic figure for the enlarger and paper: 67 lpmm (1/41.5 = 1/108 + 1/67), subject to focusing and alignment errors in addition to printing lens resolution. It's a pretty close match, wouldn't you say, Bob? Not the 2:1 advantage some would have us believe. It is definitely getting close. There are very few published reports of tests done on resolution targets for direct digital cameras. Both Dpreview and Imaging Resource report test charts. You can eyeball them yourself if you don't like what the reviews say. The only significant "cameras" missing from these tests are the digital backs. The few reports that have appeared are often subject to a great deal of criticism. My contention is that it is entirely viable to create compelling images with either technology, and I do not find one to be exclusionary in usage to the other. Not yet... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#480
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-) MF's bright future?
Chris Brown wrote:
In article , Gordon Moat wrote: As a professional, I don't do printed outputs to desktop inkjets. That is okay for amateurs, but far from the realm of commercial printing. Yeah, just check out this cheap amateurish desktop inkjet stuff: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-update.shtml Fairly small compared to a Roland or Encad, or even the larger Epson Printers. Still inkjet, so what is your point? Just one question - how many amateurs have their own forklift, do you suppose? Yeah, I would term Michael Reichmann and Luminous Landscape examples of the typical amateur. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |