8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

"BC" wrote in news:1102685610.504238.45520
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Jon Pike wrote:

If you check more carefully, you will find that the enlarger and
its
lens is *not* a perfect device either. Some of its problems are
*identical* to the problems faced by the scanner designer (lens
imperfections, film flatness issues, alignment of film carrier
etc.)

Never said it was perfect, but they -are- the best we have right now
for
all practical purposes, and they -do- show much more detail than any
scans
I've seen to date.

As I've pointed out earlier, there are obvious reasons why the optics
in scanners, especially drum scanners, have a significant advantage
over enlarging lenses. Can you point to any well done study that
actually proves that traditional enlarging is "the best we have right
now for all practical purposes". Every time I've ever heard a
statement like that it sounds like wishful thinking without any basis
in experimental fact.

Simple.
No scanner anywhere can clearly resolve actual grain. Or grain clumps. Or
whatever the hell you want to call it.
Enlarger lenses can.

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

"BC" wrote in news:1102685610.504238.45520
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Jon Pike wrote:

If you check more carefully, you will find that the enlarger and
its
lens is *not* a perfect device either. Some of its problems are
*identical* to the problems faced by the scanner designer (lens
imperfections, film flatness issues, alignment of film carrier
etc.)

Never said it was perfect, but they -are- the best we have right now
for
all practical purposes, and they -do- show much more detail than any
scans
I've seen to date.

As I've pointed out earlier, there are obvious reasons why the optics
in scanners, especially drum scanners, have a significant advantage
over enlarging lenses. Can you point to any well done study that
actually proves that traditional enlarging is "the best we have right
now for all practical purposes". Every time I've ever heard a
statement like that it sounds like wishful thinking without any basis
in experimental fact.

Simple.
No scanner anywhere can clearly resolve actual grain. Or grain clumps. Or
whatever the hell you want to call it.
Enlarger lenses can.

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

"Skip M" wrote in
news:APhud.542$2r.530@fed1read02:

I
"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
"Skip M" wrote in
news:ts9ud.129$2r.45@fed1read02:

And, vis a vis your earlier statement, film doesn't have higher
resolution than digital. Some film may have higher resolution than
some digital cameras, same with accutance. But I'd challenge you to
find a film that competes with the high resolution MF backs,

Any medium format film.

or the
Mamiya ZD, or 35mm that competes with the Canon 1Ds mkII, or even
the 20D.

Any 35mm film.

You can discuss lpmm, but in real life, film does not offer
discernable advantages over digital, any more. The only reason I
continue to shoot film is that I like some of the papers available
for printing negs better than the papers available for digital
prints.



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

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

"Skip M" wrote in
news:APhud.542$2r.530@fed1read02:

I
"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
"Skip M" wrote in
news:ts9ud.129$2r.45@fed1read02:

And, vis a vis your earlier statement, film doesn't have higher
resolution than digital. Some film may have higher resolution than
some digital cameras, same with accutance. But I'd challenge you to
find a film that competes with the high resolution MF backs,

Any medium format film.

or the
Mamiya ZD, or 35mm that competes with the Canon 1Ds mkII, or even
the 20D.

Any 35mm film.

You can discuss lpmm, but in real life, film does not offer
discernable advantages over digital, any more. The only reason I
continue to shoot film is that I like some of the papers available
for printing negs better than the papers available for digital
prints.



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

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

Jon Pike wrote:
[]
Simple.
No scanner anywhere can clearly resolve actual grain. Or grain
clumps. Or whatever the hell you want to call it.
Enlarger lenses can.

The amusement aspect grows by the posting!

Jon Pike wrote:
[]
Simple.
No scanner anywhere can clearly resolve actual grain. Or grain
clumps. Or whatever the hell you want to call it.
Enlarger lenses can.

The amusement aspect grows by the posting!

Jon Pike posted:
Petros wrote in
:

Jon Pike posted:
"Fitpix" wrote in
:


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

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in
news:QY0ud.33168 :


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it
achieve this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a
body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since
you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

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

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I
worked in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before
there was even the idea of digital you still had people burning
through dozens of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same
type of peole fill their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it
being film or digital many people will pick up "photography" and
never put a bit of thought to an image, I think we could call them
snapshooters.

I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from
anyone actually -doing- photography.

One thing I have
noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a
better camera = better photography and of course we know that
really is not true.

Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people.

With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding
a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it
off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their
individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the
deciding factor, not the medium.

Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to
have better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital,
all you have to do is learn photoSHOP.

Again, you're exhibiting unrealistic ideals. That's like saying that
the only way to be a great architect is to learn how to draw a
building using a T-square, compass and triangles instead of using CAD,
or the only way to be a great painter is to learn all the basics, from
cave painting to modernism. Here's a painting by Jan van Eyck, which
according to you, probably wouldn't be considered a real painting or a
great one, since he never looked at the subject, but painted the image
upside-down as it was cast through a lens. You caould argue that
anyone with a brush could do the same thing, without learning how to
paint. BTW, the original format is 1:1, matching the lens ratio.

http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck2.JPG


Trolling again?
That's not what I'm saying at all.
There's a difference between requiring someone to know tintypes,
degarrotypes, and pinhole cameras,
and requiring that they actually know what f/stops and shutter speeds do.
You don't learn these things when you pick up a digicam and just start
clicking away with all settings on full auto. Even if you know photoshop
inside and out, you're still not doing photoGRAPHY if you don't have a
handle on such simple basics.

Yep, I'm trolling, because you invite it with your comments, and the
fact that you don't give up, which makes it fun. You go off on tangents
with so many posters to try and prove your points that it's
unbelievable! Don't you have a life?

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

Jon Pike posted:
Petros wrote in
:

Jon Pike posted:
"Fitpix" wrote in
:


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

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in
news:QY0ud.33168 :


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it
achieve this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a
body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since
you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

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

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I
worked in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before
there was even the idea of digital you still had people burning
through dozens of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same
type of peole fill their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it
being film or digital many people will pick up "photography" and
never put a bit of thought to an image, I think we could call them
snapshooters.

I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from
anyone actually -doing- photography.

One thing I have
noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a
better camera = better photography and of course we know that
really is not true.

Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people.

With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding
a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it
off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their
individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the
deciding factor, not the medium.

Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to
have better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital,
all you have to do is learn photoSHOP.

Again, you're exhibiting unrealistic ideals. That's like saying that
the only way to be a great architect is to learn how to draw a
building using a T-square, compass and triangles instead of using CAD,
or the only way to be a great painter is to learn all the basics, from
cave painting to modernism. Here's a painting by Jan van Eyck, which
according to you, probably wouldn't be considered a real painting or a
great one, since he never looked at the subject, but painted the image
upside-down as it was cast through a lens. You caould argue that
anyone with a brush could do the same thing, without learning how to
paint. BTW, the original format is 1:1, matching the lens ratio.

http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck2.JPG


Trolling again?
That's not what I'm saying at all.
There's a difference between requiring someone to know tintypes,
degarrotypes, and pinhole cameras,
and requiring that they actually know what f/stops and shutter speeds do.
You don't learn these things when you pick up a digicam and just start
clicking away with all settings on full auto. Even if you know photoshop
inside and out, you're still not doing photoGRAPHY if you don't have a
handle on such simple basics.

Yep, I'm trolling, because you invite it with your comments, and the
fact that you don't give up, which makes it fun. You go off on tangents
with so many posters to try and prove your points that it's
unbelievable! Don't you have a life?

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

Jon Pike posted:
Petros wrote in
:

Jon Pike posted:
"Fitpix" wrote in
:


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

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in
news:QY0ud.33168 :


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it
achieve this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a
body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since
you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

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

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I
worked in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before
there was even the idea of digital you still had people burning
through dozens of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same
type of peole fill their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it
being film or digital many people will pick up "photography" and
never put a bit of thought to an image, I think we could call them
snapshooters.

I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from
anyone actually -doing- photography.

One thing I have
noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a
better camera = better photography and of course we know that
really is not true.

Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people.

With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding
a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it
off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their
individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the
deciding factor, not the medium.

Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to
have better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital,
all you have to do is learn photoSHOP.

Again, you're exhibiting unrealistic ideals. That's like saying that
the only way to be a great architect is to learn how to draw a
building using a T-square, compass and triangles instead of using CAD,
or the only way to be a great painter is to learn all the basics, from
cave painting to modernism. Here's a painting by Jan van Eyck, which
according to you, probably wouldn't be considered a real painting or a
great one, since he never looked at the subject, but painted the image
upside-down as it was cast through a lens. You caould argue that
anyone with a brush could do the same thing, without learning how to
paint. BTW, the original format is 1:1, matching the lens ratio.

http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck2.JPG


Trolling again?
That's not what I'm saying at all.
There's a difference between requiring someone to know tintypes,
degarrotypes, and pinhole cameras,
and requiring that they actually know what f/stops and shutter speeds do.
You don't learn these things when you pick up a digicam and just start
clicking away with all settings on full auto. Even if you know photoshop
inside and out, you're still not doing photoGRAPHY if you don't have a
handle on such simple basics.

Yep, I'm trolling, because you invite it with your comments, and the
fact that you don't give up, which makes it fun. You go off on tangents
with so many posters to try and prove your points that it's
unbelievable! Don't you have a life?

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

Jon Pike posted:
"BC" wrote in news:1102685610.504238.45520
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Jon Pike wrote:

If you check more carefully, you will find that the enlarger and
its
lens is *not* a perfect device either. Some of its problems are
*identical* to the problems faced by the scanner designer (lens
imperfections, film flatness issues, alignment of film carrier
etc.)

Never said it was perfect, but they -are- the best we have right now
for
all practical purposes, and they -do- show much more detail than any
scans
I've seen to date.

As I've pointed out earlier, there are obvious reasons why the optics
in scanners, especially drum scanners, have a significant advantage
over enlarging lenses. Can you point to any well done study that
actually proves that traditional enlarging is "the best we have right
now for all practical purposes". Every time I've ever heard a
statement like that it sounds like wishful thinking without any basis
in experimental fact.

Simple.
No scanner anywhere can clearly resolve actual grain. Or grain clumps. Or
whatever the hell you want to call it.
Enlarger lenses can.


Hmm. 3 microns is pretty close (according to this site
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html):

And this scanner goes to 3 microns:
http://www.aztek.com/Products/Premier.htm

And this one's probably even better:
http://www.screenusa.com/products.cf...&sub_nav=specs

The question still remains - What for? How many images can I store on
my computer @ approx. 5 GB each?!?

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos