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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
....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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |