Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
.. .
C&M wrote:

While I agree megapixels and film cannot be directly translated, please
take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml for
an interesting discussion film and digital resolution.

Medium format was not even introduced, I merely stated 35mm Velvia 50
was calculate to have a 21.4 megapixel equivelence. Now this is using
today's sensors, so with new sensors it may be less. In any case, MF
obviously is untouchable in quality, but the site referenced in
interesting nontheless. Enjoy!

Look again. The same site has a test of the original 1Ds, compared to
medium format. The result is that MF does indeed still win, but only
with a very small margin. I quote just a few sentenses: "There is no
area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only
superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19".

Hmm. Doesn't that mean that 645 is better than the 1Dsg.

Seriously, all he discovered was that the "dot gain" on his 4 pl printer*
was
large enough that it was a good match for 255 dpi direct digital images.
(And also that his Flextight scanner is a dog and that his film workflow has
problems.)

*: There are 2 pl and even 1.5 pl droplet size inkjets out there. With
those, there is a difference between 255 dpi images and higher res images.
But not the printer he used.

And if you read the fine print carefully, you'll note that he didn't make
13x19 prints, he made 10.5 x 16 prints (255 dpi from the 1Ds).

"The
645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the
resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in
the sky is clearly inferior."

The man's never heard of NeatImage. Or ICE. Sheesh, even PS's despecle will
clean up sky grain somewhat.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ds-field.shtml

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan