8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

"Skip M" wrote in
news:ccpud.602$2r.11@fed1read02:


had a feeling you'd answer like that. That is just indicative of
either
your bias or your ignorance. There is no 35mm film that can compete
in resolution terms or any other basis with the 1Ds mkII, and very
few that can compete with the 20D. And medium format can't keep up
with the 22-25mp of the digital backs But I'm sure you already know
that, and are merely trolling.
I probably won't killfile you, just for the amusement your further
answers may provide.

Where's your proof of that?
Don't have any?
Didn't think so.

And "proof" doesn't mean "it looks better to me!"
It means quantified, measured results.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Funny thing, but yes, I do...

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

Next time, don't be so broad in either your statements or beliefs.
Remember, this graph was done before the 20D, 1D mkII and 1Ds mkII,
and the Nikon D2h were introduced.
So, K64 is right there with the 20D and 1D mkII, Velvia is right
there with the 1Ds mkII. Tech Pan still has a slight advantage but it
is no longer in production.

ROFL!

You know how he created that graph? He looked at things and said "this
looks better than that to me..."


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Skip M" wrote in
news:ccpud.602$2r.11@fed1read02:


had a feeling you'd answer like that. That is just indicative of
either
your bias or your ignorance. There is no 35mm film that can compete
in resolution terms or any other basis with the 1Ds mkII, and very
few that can compete with the 20D. And medium format can't keep up
with the 22-25mp of the digital backs But I'm sure you already know
that, and are merely trolling.
I probably won't killfile you, just for the amusement your further
answers may provide.

Where's your proof of that?
Don't have any?
Didn't think so.

And "proof" doesn't mean "it looks better to me!"
It means quantified, measured results.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Funny thing, but yes, I do...

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

Next time, don't be so broad in either your statements or beliefs.
Remember, this graph was done before the 20D, 1D mkII and 1Ds mkII,
and the Nikon D2h were introduced.
So, K64 is right there with the 20D and 1D mkII, Velvia is right
there with the 1Ds mkII. Tech Pan still has a slight advantage but it
is no longer in production.

ROFL!

You know how he created that graph? He looked at things and said "this
looks better than that to me..."


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
"Skip M" wrote in
news:ccpud.602$2r.11@fed1read02:


had a feeling you'd answer like that. That is just indicative of
either
your bias or your ignorance. There is no 35mm film that can compete
in resolution terms or any other basis with the 1Ds mkII, and very
few that can compete with the 20D. And medium format can't keep up
with the 22-25mp of the digital backs But I'm sure you already know
that, and are merely trolling.
I probably won't killfile you, just for the amusement your further
answers may provide.

Where's your proof of that?
Don't have any?
Didn't think so.

And "proof" doesn't mean "it looks better to me!"
It means quantified, measured results.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Funny thing, but yes, I do...

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

Next time, don't be so broad in either your statements or beliefs.
Remember, this graph was done before the 20D, 1D mkII and 1Ds mkII,
and the Nikon D2h were introduced.
So, K64 is right there with the 20D and 1D mkII, Velvia is right
there with the 1Ds mkII. Tech Pan still has a slight advantage but it
is no longer in production.

ROFL!

You know how he created that graph? He looked at things and said "this
looks better than that to me..."


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

My, you have a way with things that don't fit your way of looking at them,
don't you?
Prove it, and while you're at it, disprove the other links he cites.
Neopets, sheesh.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
wrote in
:

You're entirely missing the point. What all the digital supporters
seem to be saying is that, although they have no real basis for it,
they -think- that all the important information is being captured.

And what you're saying is that, although you have no real basis for
it, you -think- that important information is being lost.

No, I've seen results of tests saying that there is a 10% measured loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.
That, to me, is important.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Show us one, or more, of those tests.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Harvey" wrote in news:u7sud.1040$Sr1.558
@newsfe6-win.ntli.net:

I thought throughout this thread you'd been trying to say the that film
outperforms digital?

Are you incapable of doing simple math?
Tell me, what do you think the percent difference from 88 to 79 is?
Which number is higher, 55 or 88?

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Harvey" wrote in news:u7sud.1040$Sr1.558
@newsfe6-win.ntli.net:

I thought throughout this thread you'd been trying to say the that film
outperforms digital?

Are you incapable of doing simple math?
Tell me, what do you think the percent difference from 88 to 79 is?
Which number is higher, 55 or 88?

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

So the bit Jon likes is where there appears to be a change from 88 to
79 when measuring off the film (using just 40x magnification, which is
a factor of 10 below what Jon-boy was suggesting as a bare minimum
(although he has a bit of trouble with magnification ratios..).

This usinmg what could hardly be claimed as a 'state-of-the-art' 4000
dpi Nikon film scanner. Jon applies this figure now to all scanners of
any kind. Who could argue with that? (O;

He DOESN'T seem to want to talk about the bit where it says "Current
Canon EOS-1D and 20D digital slr cameras outperform film in image
quality and sharpness"
How on earth did they come up with that conclusion, Jon-boy?
(I'm trolling for Jesus..)

So the bit Jon likes is where there appears to be a change from 88 to
79 when measuring off the film (using just 40x magnification, which is
a factor of 10 below what Jon-boy was suggesting as a bare minimum
(although he has a bit of trouble with magnification ratios..).

This usinmg what could hardly be claimed as a 'state-of-the-art' 4000
dpi Nikon film scanner. Jon applies this figure now to all scanners of
any kind. Who could argue with that? (O;

He DOESN'T seem to want to talk about the bit where it says "Current
Canon EOS-1D and 20D digital slr cameras outperform film in image
quality and sharpness"
How on earth did they come up with that conclusion, Jon-boy?
(I'm trolling for Jesus..)

Isn't it astonishing, Jon, that hundreds, nay thousands, of
professional photographers around the world are staying silent on this
one. Yes, there are websites going up all over the web, by
professionals and amateurs alike, and they all seem to agree on the
rough line in the sand where the resolution of digital tips over, and
some sort of 'equivalence' can be claimed. For color photography, that
equivalence seems agreed at somewhere around 6-12 Mp.

And all of those photog's (I know several of them, even though I don't
claim to be one myself) are leaving it up to you to fight the 'good
fight'. None of them are chiming in. (I think we can discount 'me'
and 'teflon' as very genuine trolls with nary a reference or coherent
thought so far.)

Why do those *real* professionals not leap to your defence? Why are
many of them here arguing *against* you? Do you recognise some of
these names, Jon? If not, you need to get out more..

Back in the good ole days I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 and Velvia, and
I would marvel at how wonderful the images looked when projected. I
did a lot of landscape work for tourism bureaux libraries. Of course
when I viewed those images by projection, I was using a fine projection
lens (and of course, sitting back somewhat!). When getting up close to
the screen, you could indeed resolve the grain on Ektachromes and other
faster slide films, but K25? - no way (by it's nature..). When you did
that, it was clear that resolving that grain was pointless, as it took
MANY grains to provide any useful image data. When you got up that
close to those projected images, you could observe the other effects
that caused problems, like the quality of the lens (and I went through
several projection lenses before finding one that exceeded the quality
of my camera lenses), camera shake, film flatness, etc. It's a good
way to learn the best techniques, and which bits of your kit are good
or bad..

When the digital age arrived and film scanners came along, I
experimented with several different models and resolutions, eventually
settling on a 4000 dpi scanner for it resolved very close to
*everything* I was able to detect by studying the projected images up
close. 10% loss? - maybe on an absolutely nailed K25/Velvia with a
very good lens. But for typical 160-400 ISO portrait/wedding print
film (where most of my dollars used to come from when I WAS a
professional photog..), it missed NOTHING of any use. I repeat,
NOTHING.

****
Anything that required more than 4000 dpi should NEVER, I repeat NEVER
have been shot on 35mm!!
****
(You may quote me on that..)

For the record, I used Bronica 6x7 equipment for anything that might
involve enlarging beyond that which 35mm is capable of - the dividing
line is about 11"x8", depending on the subject matter, IMHO. And I
*did* spend a lot of time looking at projected *negative* images (yes,
I had no life!) on my old Rollei-Leitz-Super-Colorplan lens to come to
that conclusion..

When Roger's site first came along (it was quite unique when it first
appeared), I noted that his conclusions and observations met very
closely with what I had *experienced*, and what I could see with my own
eyes.

So that is MY personal experience, Jon. Why don't you tell us all
about your ACTUAL experience with this stuff..?

How about some examples of your work, or a rundown on your involvement
in this, rather than just endless argument? - you seem very shy when
that request comes up... Why is that?


Like I said, here's a quick afternoon of *my* work when I tried out a
new camera - warts and all..

http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm
I'd hate to be called a hypocrite..

(O;

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:QJqud.619$2r.247@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...


I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film
cameras.
I
guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards.
:-)
Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-(
me


Skippy doesn't get upset, whoever that is. Nor do I. I'm done with this,
you're having too much fun being obtuse.

:-(((
Don't go away mad, just go away
Film, I let him go for now,
me
;-)