8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

In article ,
says...
You're looking a very small segment of the image.

Nonetheless, the output was likely sharpened prior to printing.

You don't have any idea how big a segment you're looking at.
And why not? Because as usual, he doesn't tell you. It's obviously been
resized so really, you have no clue whatsoever.

Hmmm, 100% crops... DPI information supplied... do the math.

See? More bad methodology.

No, more poor comprehension by you.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian C. Baird wrote in
:

In article , vader@death-
star.spam-trap.com says...
*yawn*
http://img110.exs.cx/img110/7159/dig...int_disadv.jpg
Now, put up or shut up.

That's ridiculously stupid.

You don't understand what's discussed at all, do you? But that's not a
surprise.

(Chrlz) wrote in news:3d02bc60.0412011450.6ccdbb50
@posting.google.com:

Jon, knock the chip off your shoulder - that 'bragging' comment is
just too ludicrous for words - answer the questions asked of you (eg,
which film gives 12 stops?), supply references (either printed or on
the web) to support your arguments, or...


.. just stfu.


Already have. go back and re-read the thread.

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

Brian C. Baird wrote in
:

In article ,
says...
Are you illiterate, blind, or just lazy?

I ask the same of you, good sir.

He has no reasons for chosing the film he chose, that's a HUGE
methodological flaw. He's got no reasons (other than high price tag
it seems) for the scanning equipment he chose. Again, HUGE flaw.

Actually, drum scanners provide the highest resolution and color depth
available. That's why they cost multiple thousands of dollars.

So what you're saying is that all drum scanners, because they cost a lot,
are fantastic. they're all the best you can get. That's what you're
saying?

I've used drum scanners in the past for commercial print work, so I am
familiar with their quality so I see no flaw in his choice of
equipment. Whenever I needed to reproduce a photograph with critical
color or a large final print size, I always paid the money to have the
service bureau scan the image because it would outperform my flatbed
scanner by a very large margin.

Great, now which specific scanner did you use? And which is he using?
DOH! You don't know, do you! Nope! And why not, duhhhh cause he didn't
tell you!

Does he need a reason for the film he tests? No, he's comparing
results of a particular film with digital. His findings are informal
at best, but not completely worthless as you suggest.

No, actually, he's making very wide ranging generalizations and expecting
everyone to swallow it whole-hog. He's not saying "this film is about
equal to this mp resolution," he's saying "all 35mm can't do any better
than this" and basing it on tests of only two kinds of film.
poor form!

He's not using standardized testing subjects.

Yes, because we know all meaningful photography is of black and white
test targets, right?

Actually, it's very meaningful. It can give you a tangible, reproducable,
QUANTIFIABLE (!!!) measurment of how well your equipment is performing.
Pictures of valleys and trees can't do that last I checked.

He's DIGITALLY MANIPULATING HIS RESULTS!

How? Where is the evidence for your claim?

Well, let's see. I didn't think I'd have to spell this out for you,
since, you know, you've done so much professional work and used so much
great equipment...

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
scroll down.
See where he's got his "comparative scans" ?
"Resolution Test Area 1: Grass Field"
Notice how, magically, all the images are the same size, even though they
were scanned in at different DPI?
Now, do I -really- have to continue on from there, or can you connect the
dots all on your own?

I've said all these things many times before, which is why I asked my
initial question in this post. Do you honestly not think that
digitally manipulating your results is a serious mistake? Especially
when it's not reported!

Again, how is he digitally manipulating his results?

If you're not smart enough to figure it out, then you're really not worth
corrosponding with anymore.

You seem to have your panties in a bunch. That's not very objective
of you.

*sigh*
typical usenet... just keep trolling.

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

"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
SNIP
What we have evidence of is a significantly large loss
of resolution when film gets scanned.

Actually we don't. Depending on the scanner we probably have a lower
modulation, but higher resolution (with lower ISO film).

Bart

In article ,
says...
Quite the opposite. Sorry.

Then howcome you're completely unable to recognize totally unscientific
'testing' and writing?

Because he isn't publishing papers in a major journal, he's providing
some testing to show that digital can, and often does, exceed film
quality.

If someone decides to catch bugs by driving their trucks into them,
and then tries to do a taxonomical description, you really don't have
to conduct your own experiment to be able to say "that's stupid.
You've squished your bugs, you can't tell anything from them now."

That's a strained analogy at best.

It's not strained at all. Bad methodology is bad methodology.

I don't think you can tell the difference.

Additionally, you'd still be able
to categorize a large amount of the bugs because the bodies aren't
completely destroyed, only smushed. Then there's the whole DNA
thing...

Obviously you've never done any taxanomic work with insects. And, what,
you think people have DNA samples from all the millions of different
species that exist today?

It's taxonomic, and no, I don't spend my days categorizing bugs. Do I
have to?

The real error in that experiment is you'd only collect bugs that
happen to be in or around the road. This is fine if you're trying to
search for that, but useless otherwise.

See how it's not strained? I even included for you the problems of
chosing a small sample size, just like he did!

You're comparing apples and oranges.

In any case, you analogy isn't going to make your claims any more
valid so I suggest you get testing!

I'm not MAKING any claims. I'm pointing out how INvalid HIS claims are!

And doing a poor job of it!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article , vader@death-
star.spam-trap.com says...
Now, put up or shut up.

That's ridiculously stupid.

You don't understand what's discussed at all, do you? But that's not a
surprise.

I understand completely what you're trying to say, and it's ridiculously
stupid.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Hi Stephen,

The short answer is that you can readily see what the differences are by
simply shooting some (fine grained) film using good technique (tripod..)
and using a low-pass filter in front of your lens. You will find that
shots without the filter will show more details, such as fine hairs and
face line cracks in portraiture, crisper edges in branches in landscapes,
and so on. Ideally, you could use an anti-aliasing filter from one of the
mfgers to see impact of that specific level of filtering (e.g., kodak?).

Most of us do this "experiment" when we opt to shoot with a softening or
"fog" filter. The result of this smoothing or smearing effect is to reduce
the resolution of the shot, producing a more "flattering" portrait for
example ;-) Various strengths of filtering are available (softar #1,#2,..)

Another way for interested persons to perform the same experiment is to
use the chart at http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/film_ccd/index.htm
as a modest guide. Simply compare a rather good prime lens (here, 85mm
f/1.8 at f/8) yielding 88 lpmm on film (astia 100f) with good technique
against a rather poorer lens (perhaps a zoom?) delivering only 55 lpmm.

Again, this is the difference between a quality pro fixed lens and a
cheapy $100-ish consumer zoom. Most of us shooting film have experience
with how such quality differences will show up as reduced resolution and
sharpness or crispness on our images made with the cheapy zoom vs. the
higher $$ prime fixed lens, yes?

Lots of us have paid major $$ to buy pro quality lenses to get this extra
level of performance too. So my point is that we already have the
experience (at least as far as resolution is concerned) of the current
digital vs. film quality debate. Shooting digital cameras with maximum
resolutions of 55 lpmm (8.2 to 11 MP dSLRs) versus film cameras with
resolutions of circa 88 lpmm is easy to setup experiment for comparison.

I think it also answers Stephen's query - does it matter? is this fine
contrast and high resolution detail even seen in the image?

The answer is evidently YES!, it matters a lot, and many of us have spent
kilobucks to buy the better lenses which can deliver not just a paltry 55
lpmm but over 80 lpmm imagery. There are visible differences in crispness
of images, esp. at boundaries of (facial, tree branch..) lines and complex
imagery, where a high quality photograph is clearly superior to one shot
with a cheapy zoom on fast film (i.e., lower resolution) ;-)

Similarly, shooting with a fog filter or softening filter or anti-aliasing
(aka low pass filter) will all give similar experience with loss of
resolution ("smoothing" or smearing) of the image details. Again, this is
an easy "experiment" to run, and will show to each individual how such
losses would impact their particular types and subjects of photography...

Final caveat - if you don't use good technique, shoot handheld at slow
speeds in smoky nightclubs, use fast grainy films, or otherwise rarely get
more than 40 lpmm let alone 50 lpmm resolution on your imagery, then these
tests are superfluous. You won't be able to get images with high
resolution (e.g., 88 lpmm here) due to bad technique, so you won't see
much difference against digital cameras (might even be an improvement ;-)

grins bobm



--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

In article ,
says...
Actually, drum scanners provide the highest resolution and color depth
available. That's why they cost multiple thousands of dollars.

So what you're saying is that all drum scanners, because they cost a lot,
are fantastic. they're all the best you can get. That's what you're
saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Again, your ability for
misinterpreting simple statements is astounding.

I've used drum scanners in the past for commercial print work, so I am
familiar with their quality so I see no flaw in his choice of
equipment. Whenever I needed to reproduce a photograph with critical
color or a large final print size, I always paid the money to have the
service bureau scan the image because it would outperform my flatbed
scanner by a very large margin.

Great, now which specific scanner did you use? And which is he using?
DOH! You don't know, do you! Nope! And why not, duhhhh cause he didn't
tell you!

It doesn't matter, really. You make it seem like there would be huge
differences in output quality like you'd find with desktop flatbed
scanners.

Does he need a reason for the film he tests? No, he's comparing
results of a particular film with digital. His findings are informal
at best, but not completely worthless as you suggest.

No, actually, he's making very wide ranging generalizations and expecting
everyone to swallow it whole-hog. He's not saying "this film is about
equal to this mp resolution," he's saying "all 35mm can't do any better
than this" and basing it on tests of only two kinds of film.
poor form!

Honestly, 35mm films don't differ THAT much in practical usage.

He's not using standardized testing subjects.

Yes, because we know all meaningful photography is of black and white
test targets, right?

Actually, it's very meaningful. It can give you a tangible, reproducable,
QUANTIFIABLE (!!!) measurment of how well your equipment is performing.
Pictures of valleys and trees can't do that last I checked.

Yes, but those tangible, reproduce, quantifiable results DO NOT tell you
everything you need to know about quality. Why? Quality can often be
subjective, or in the case of photography, linked to a lot of other
factors.

He's DIGITALLY MANIPULATING HIS RESULTS!

How? Where is the evidence for your claim?

Well, let's see. I didn't think I'd have to spell this out for you,
since, you know, you've done so much professional work and used so much
great equipment...

You again with the claims.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
scroll down.
See where he's got his "comparative scans" ?
"Resolution Test Area 1: Grass Field"
Notice how, magically, all the images are the same size, even though they
were scanned in at different DPI?

Your point?

Now, do I -really- have to continue on from there, or can you connect the
dots all on your own?

I'm really trying trying to figure out why simple things elude you so
often.

I've said all these things many times before, which is why I asked my
initial question in this post. Do you honestly not think that
digitally manipulating your results is a serious mistake? Especially
when it's not reported!

Again, how is he digitally manipulating his results?

If you're not smart enough to figure it out, then you're really not worth
corrosponding with anymore.

Back up your claim I'm not smart!

You're such an ignorant jackass, Jon.

You seem to have your panties in a bunch. That's not very objective
of you.

*sigh*
typical usenet... just keep trolling.

That's funny.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian C. Baird wrote in news:MPG.1c18290eae79331c98a3f3
@news.verizon.net:

You're such an ignorant jackass, Jon.

You seem to have your panties in a bunch. That's not very objective
of you.

*sigh*
typical usenet... just keep trolling.

That's funny.

See what I mean? Typical usenet troll. When you run out of intelligent
things to say, you resort to weak insults. I think everyone here sees you
now for what you really are.

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