8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

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

No, no, no, Jon! No fair using the plural here!

Yes, perfectly fair. He tested several things, so there were several tests
done.

saying that there is a 10% measured loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.
That, to me, is important.

Because it reinforces the opinion you already had.

No, because I don't throw away 10% of my equipment's abilities on a whim.



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

wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

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

No, no, no, Jon! No fair using the plural here!

Yes, perfectly fair. He tested several things, so there were several tests
done.

saying that there is a 10% measured loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.
That, to me, is important.

Because it reinforces the opinion you already had.

No, because I don't throw away 10% of my equipment's abilities on a whim.



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

wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

"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?

There you go again. You figure the only number you can find that
favors film is really the only number needed to describe image
quality.

YOu're either not listening, or you're blatently trolling.
We're not discussing "image quality."
We're discussing "theoretical equivalent resolution."
So yes, the only number I'll be paying attention to in this discussion, is
a number that pertains to resolution.

Ah, by the way Jon, didn't you claim that most film was capable of 100
or 200 cycles/mm?

Nope.


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

wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

"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?

There you go again. You figure the only number you can find that
favors film is really the only number needed to describe image
quality.

YOu're either not listening, or you're blatently trolling.
We're not discussing "image quality."
We're discussing "theoretical equivalent resolution."
So yes, the only number I'll be paying attention to in this discussion, is
a number that pertains to resolution.

Ah, by the way Jon, didn't you claim that most film was capable of 100
or 200 cycles/mm?

Nope.


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

"Carl" wrote in message
...
me wrote:

Your lack of respect for me is truly gratifying.
Thank You,
me

Mind you we obviously hit the target didn't we!

Safety in numbers?
Film, I'm bored,
me

"Carl" wrote in message
...
me wrote:

Your lack of respect for me is truly gratifying.
Thank You,
me

Mind you we obviously hit the target didn't we!

Safety in numbers?
Film, I'm bored,
me

Jon Pike writes:

YOu're either not listening, or you're blatently trolling.
We're not discussing "image quality."
We're discussing "theoretical equivalent resolution."

The original message said:

I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the
equivalent to 35mm film quality?

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent
resolution? Are they the equivalent to 35mm?

The word "quality" is in the very first sentence. That is what we're
discussing. A part of the discussion is about resolution limits.
It is an open question whether part about "equivalent resolution" was
actually talking about limiting resolution, as measured by spatial
resolution targets, or about *apparent* resolution which depends on the
whole MTF curve shape.

So yes, the only number I'll be paying attention to in this discussion, is
a number that pertains to resolution.

It seems to be only you who wants to confine the discussion to limiting
resolution, and not any of the other things that might contribute to
"equivalent quality". If you do that, you're ignoring the original
question and reframing it to suit your own agenda.

Dave

Jon Pike writes:

YOu're either not listening, or you're blatently trolling.
We're not discussing "image quality."
We're discussing "theoretical equivalent resolution."

The original message said:

I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the
equivalent to 35mm film quality?

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent
resolution? Are they the equivalent to 35mm?

The word "quality" is in the very first sentence. That is what we're
discussing. A part of the discussion is about resolution limits.
It is an open question whether part about "equivalent resolution" was
actually talking about limiting resolution, as measured by spatial
resolution targets, or about *apparent* resolution which depends on the
whole MTF curve shape.

So yes, the only number I'll be paying attention to in this discussion, is
a number that pertains to resolution.

It seems to be only you who wants to confine the discussion to limiting
resolution, and not any of the other things that might contribute to
"equivalent quality". If you do that, you're ignoring the original
question and reframing it to suit your own agenda.

Dave

"me" wrote in message
...

Film, I'm bored,
me


What, bored with film, already?
(Sorry, I know I said I was done, but I couldn't resist pointing out your
capitulation.)

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

"me" wrote in message
...

Film, I'm bored,
me


What, bored with film, already?
(Sorry, I know I said I was done, but I couldn't resist pointing out your
capitulation.)

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