8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

Jon Pike writes:

(Dave Martindale) wrote in
:

snip

We are trying to discuss your insistence that a film scanner has to
capture film grain or it is somehow "missing" something. But I see
you won't actually discuss the issue - all you do is refer to
something else irrelevant to this subject. Either you know you're
wrong and won't admit it, or you have the attention span of an insect.

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. It really
would be easy to silence us all: just show us an image that displays
this detail that would be lost in scanning.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

(Dave Martindale) wrote in
:

snip

We are trying to discuss your insistence that a film scanner has to
capture film grain or it is somehow "missing" something. But I see
you won't actually discuss the issue - all you do is refer to
something else irrelevant to this subject. Either you know you're
wrong and won't admit it, or you have the attention span of an insect.

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. It really
would be easy to silence us all: just show us an image that displays
this detail that would be lost in scanning.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

wrote in message
...
Jon Pike writes:

(Dave Martindale) wrote in
:

snip

We are trying to discuss your insistence that a film scanner has to
capture film grain or it is somehow "missing" something. But I see
you won't actually discuss the issue - all you do is refer to
something else irrelevant to this subject. Either you know you're
wrong and won't admit it, or you have the attention span of an insect.

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. It really
would be easy to silence us all: just show us an image that displays
this detail that would be lost in scanning.

Would you like that sent parcel post or express mail? Pardon me for butting
in again.
Film rules!
me

wrote in message
...
Jon Pike writes:

(Dave Martindale) wrote in
:

snip

We are trying to discuss your insistence that a film scanner has to
capture film grain or it is somehow "missing" something. But I see
you won't actually discuss the issue - all you do is refer to
something else irrelevant to this subject. Either you know you're
wrong and won't admit it, or you have the attention span of an insect.

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. It really
would be easy to silence us all: just show us an image that displays
this detail that would be lost in scanning.

Would you like that sent parcel post or express mail? Pardon me for butting
in again.
Film rules!
me

In article , Jon Pike
wrote:

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.

nor do you learn them when you pick up a film camera and just start
clicking away with all settings on full auto.

many digicams have manual settings and many film cameras are purely
automatic. lack of features in a given camera is not a shortcoming of
the medium, but of the choice of camera. and there is still plenty to
learn, even with a camera on automatic, such as lighting, composition,
etc.

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.

so learn the basics.

if the person wants to learn photography, they'll learn with whatever
tools they have. motivation to learn is the key, not choice of camera
or medium.

In article , Jon Pike
wrote:

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.

nor do you learn them when you pick up a film camera and just start
clicking away with all settings on full auto.

many digicams have manual settings and many film cameras are purely
automatic. lack of features in a given camera is not a shortcoming of
the medium, but of the choice of camera. and there is still plenty to
learn, even with a camera on automatic, such as lighting, composition,
etc.

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.

so learn the basics.

if the person wants to learn photography, they'll learn with whatever
tools they have. motivation to learn is the key, not choice of camera
or medium.

In article , Jon Pike
wrote:

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.

nor do you learn them when you pick up a film camera and just start
clicking away with all settings on full auto.

many digicams have manual settings and many film cameras are purely
automatic. lack of features in a given camera is not a shortcoming of
the medium, but of the choice of camera. and there is still plenty to
learn, even with a camera on automatic, such as lighting, composition,
etc.

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.

so learn the basics.

if the person wants to learn photography, they'll learn with whatever
tools they have. motivation to learn is the key, not choice of camera
or medium.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

"me" wrote in message
...

Who gives a dam what you do?
Film is better no matter how hard some people try not to accept it!
me


It looks like you're getting a little desperate to not accept the idea that
digital has caught up with film, in fact did so some time ago, and in some
cases, surpasses it.

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