A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digital vs Film Resolution



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old September 30th 04, 01:23 PM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bart van der Wolf" wrote:
"TRR" wrote:


After the techies resolve this argument I submit the quality of your
printer makes it all moot. Not much has been said here in that

regard.

That just depends on output size. If the image magnification is high
enough, the output medium will outresolve the image.


Exactly. FWIW, current A4 inkjets are _way_ ahead of 6MP digital at A4 (8.25
x 11.5), so if you like detail in your images, there's still room for
improvement in the cameras. (The Epson R800 is very nice.)

In earlier tests at A4 with the Epson 960, I found that my 645 scans provide
more detail than the 960 could render, but that the 960 could render
everything recorded in the 1Ds samples I downloaded. So you need at least
11MP for A4. (If you're as greedy as I.)

(Note that this question ("how _well_ can I print?") is a rather different
question from the usual "how _big_ can I print?". The latter question
invariably turns into a competition over who has the lowest standards almost
immediately.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #62  
Old September 30th 04, 01:23 PM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bart van der Wolf" wrote:
"TRR" wrote:


After the techies resolve this argument I submit the quality of your
printer makes it all moot. Not much has been said here in that

regard.

That just depends on output size. If the image magnification is high
enough, the output medium will outresolve the image.


Exactly. FWIW, current A4 inkjets are _way_ ahead of 6MP digital at A4 (8.25
x 11.5), so if you like detail in your images, there's still room for
improvement in the cameras. (The Epson R800 is very nice.)

In earlier tests at A4 with the Epson 960, I found that my 645 scans provide
more detail than the 960 could render, but that the 960 could render
everything recorded in the 1Ds samples I downloaded. So you need at least
11MP for A4. (If you're as greedy as I.)

(Note that this question ("how _well_ can I print?") is a rather different
question from the usual "how _big_ can I print?". The latter question
invariably turns into a competition over who has the lowest standards almost
immediately.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #63  
Old September 30th 04, 01:51 PM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bart van der Wolf" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
SNIP
Here it is in action on Tech Pan (requiescat in pacem).

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ugly-c2.jpg


Yes, that's a useful example for several reasons. A bit of analysis
may help to understand what we're actually looking at (see
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ for more/other examples).

On my 19inch CRT (approx. 36cm image width) at 1024x768 resolution,
that (0.25x0.25in or 6.35x6.35mm) film crop produces a bit more than
one screen's width. A 35mm film scanned at that resolution would span
almost 6 screen widths, and a Medium-Format film would span some 8.5
screen widths, so we're actually looking at a small part of a roughly
2 - 3 metres (7 - 10 feet) wide image. Impressive.


We look at the same thing and come to very different conclusions; you see
impressive, I see grossly uglyg. (Just joking, sort of.)

That image is painfully noisy. It doesn't have a lot of bits of valid data.

It's also quite soft: some number of times softer than a dSLR original would
be taken with a similar quality (US$700 or so prime) lens.

I haven't played around with noise reduction and downsampling that image,
but it sure looks to be 3 or 4 times worse than dSLR originals _per pixel_.
From a 24x36 frame, I'm not convinced that that quality a scan would be
worth a whole lot more than 8MP. Fortunately, it's from a 645 frame, so it's
more like 16 to 20 MP, and would make a lovely A3, and maybe even a decent
Super A3, although that would take some work getting the NeatImage
parameters right.

A Canon 1Ds and even more likely the MarkII version, would be capable
of equalling such a result, but with an even lower noise/graininess
level.


Yes, although I suspect we are actually _disagreeing_ here. My take is that
16MP would edge out 645 scanned at that quality, and I suspect you are
saying the 16MP would be similar to 35mm at that quality, which I very much
doubt.

I was so grossed out by the grain noise that I never bothered shooting any
Tech Pan after that. It's only recently that I noticed that it seems to be
capturing more detail than I first thought. (I think it may be doing a bit
better than Velvia 100F.)

And now Tech Pan's gone.

Clearly lens resolution, combined with the sensor (or film),
poses a limit to what can be resolved. It requires larger sensor
arrays, or larger film, to better that result.


Yup. I've been saying for a while now that 16MP looks to be about right for
24x36 digital, so it's interesting that Canon jumped there so quickly.
11x14s at 300 dpi. Hmm. I've never seen an 11x14 from 35mm I've thought was
acceptable (which is why I shoot 645).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #64  
Old September 30th 04, 01:51 PM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bart van der Wolf" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
SNIP
Here it is in action on Tech Pan (requiescat in pacem).

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ugly-c2.jpg


Yes, that's a useful example for several reasons. A bit of analysis
may help to understand what we're actually looking at (see
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ for more/other examples).

On my 19inch CRT (approx. 36cm image width) at 1024x768 resolution,
that (0.25x0.25in or 6.35x6.35mm) film crop produces a bit more than
one screen's width. A 35mm film scanned at that resolution would span
almost 6 screen widths, and a Medium-Format film would span some 8.5
screen widths, so we're actually looking at a small part of a roughly
2 - 3 metres (7 - 10 feet) wide image. Impressive.


We look at the same thing and come to very different conclusions; you see
impressive, I see grossly uglyg. (Just joking, sort of.)

That image is painfully noisy. It doesn't have a lot of bits of valid data.

It's also quite soft: some number of times softer than a dSLR original would
be taken with a similar quality (US$700 or so prime) lens.

I haven't played around with noise reduction and downsampling that image,
but it sure looks to be 3 or 4 times worse than dSLR originals _per pixel_.
From a 24x36 frame, I'm not convinced that that quality a scan would be
worth a whole lot more than 8MP. Fortunately, it's from a 645 frame, so it's
more like 16 to 20 MP, and would make a lovely A3, and maybe even a decent
Super A3, although that would take some work getting the NeatImage
parameters right.

A Canon 1Ds and even more likely the MarkII version, would be capable
of equalling such a result, but with an even lower noise/graininess
level.


Yes, although I suspect we are actually _disagreeing_ here. My take is that
16MP would edge out 645 scanned at that quality, and I suspect you are
saying the 16MP would be similar to 35mm at that quality, which I very much
doubt.

I was so grossed out by the grain noise that I never bothered shooting any
Tech Pan after that. It's only recently that I noticed that it seems to be
capturing more detail than I first thought. (I think it may be doing a bit
better than Velvia 100F.)

And now Tech Pan's gone.

Clearly lens resolution, combined with the sensor (or film),
poses a limit to what can be resolved. It requires larger sensor
arrays, or larger film, to better that result.


Yup. I've been saying for a while now that 16MP looks to be about right for
24x36 digital, so it's interesting that Canon jumped there so quickly.
11x14s at 300 dpi. Hmm. I've never seen an 11x14 from 35mm I've thought was
acceptable (which is why I shoot 645).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #65  
Old September 30th 04, 02:34 PM
Tom Nakashima
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Nakashima" wrote in message
...

One of the main reason why I switched to digital, is because of storage
and
preserving of the negatives and slides. I also find it easier to make
files
and folders, than to file slides and negatives in archival sleeves and
binders. I can reference to files a lot easier.



"jjs" wrote in message ...

Then your hard drive crashes.


Always back up on CDs, thought everyone does that...guess not.
-tom


  #66  
Old September 30th 04, 02:38 PM
Jaxak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

....you hot-swop it, because you have raid 5

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Tom Nakashima" wrote in message
...

One of the main reason why I switched to digital, is because of storage
and
preserving of the negatives and slides. I also find it easier to make
files
and folders, than to file slides and negatives in archival sleeves and
binders. I can reference to files a lot easier.


Then your hard drive crashes.




  #67  
Old September 30th 04, 05:12 PM
Dave Martindale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jjs" writes:

Then your hard drive crashes.


That's what backups are for. All my digital images are stored on two
different sets of CDs, one of which is physically at work. A hard drive
crash won't lose more than a few very recently shot images.

On the other hand, if our house burns down, one set of digital images
will survive, but likely all of my negatives and transparencies and
prints will be destroyed. It's hard to provide that level of backup for
the analog images.

Dave
  #68  
Old September 30th 04, 05:23 PM
Roland Karlsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jjs" wrote in :

Then your hard drive crashes.


Then your negative album is stolen or cought in a fire.
Or your part of the world hit by a meteor.


/Roland
  #69  
Old September 30th 04, 05:27 PM
Roland Karlsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Böwzér" wrote in
:

A good scanner will probably record more detail than you
can get with the best optical/chemical printing methods.


Roland, that's the theory, but in my experience, wet prints still win,
especially with negs. However, the newer digicams, like the D2X may
change that.


I don't understand this answer - how can the D2X improve
optical/chemical prints from a negative?


/Roland
  #70  
Old September 30th 04, 05:27 PM
Roland Karlsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Böwzér" wrote in
:

A good scanner will probably record more detail than you
can get with the best optical/chemical printing methods.


Roland, that's the theory, but in my experience, wet prints still win,
especially with negs. However, the newer digicams, like the D2X may
change that.


I don't understand this answer - how can the D2X improve
optical/chemical prints from a negative?


/Roland
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs KM Medium Format Photography Equipment 724 December 7th 04 10:58 AM
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? Toralf Digital Photography 213 July 28th 04 06:30 PM
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 9 June 19th 04 05:48 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.