I've got a 30mp digital camera

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Charles" wrote:
"John Adams" wrote:
Yea, I shoot slide film on my Nikon 35mm and then scan them into my PC
with my Canoscan. Surpasses the results of any DC on the market.

This is, of course, simply wrong.

Here's what happens when you compare 35mm to medium format and the 5D.

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...anon%205D).htm



Another example more closely related to film VS. digital cameras is he
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/photo...-eye-clip.html
The image is from a 20D. This is a full resolution pixel depth clip from an
original image dimension of 2336 x 3504 pixels or - 32" x 48" image size.
The photo it came from is he
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/photo...ooka-palm.html

Back in 1978 I made colour enlargements 20" x 30" from 100 ISO film. They
showed substantial grain at that size and sharpness declined considerably
compared to an 8" x 12" which I use (even today) as a benchmark print size
to judge image sharpness and quality.

Some inroads have been made into image quality of scanned film in recent
times with film designed to be scanned, rather than printed through. Just
the same, I think any 35mm film would be unable to produce this clean an
enlargement at this size - period.

Douglas

"John Adams" wrote in message
m...
Douglas wrote:

Recent films may have better scanning capabilities than traditional ones
but never will a scan of a 35 mm film, come close to producing image
quality produced by an 8 megapixel digital camera.

Douglas
Yea, sure, that's why high quality print shops use film drum scanners
instead of asking their clients to use digital cameras for their artwork.

Here's drum scanned 35mm, drum scanned 6x6, and a dSLR.

Scanned 35mm is really really bad compared to the dSLR and the medium
format.

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...anon%205D).htm

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

John Adams wrote:
frederick wrote:

... of mush

Nope, results are very good. Until you get a slide scanner and test it
out your comments are invalid.

I scan my 35mm film on a drum scanner producing 137 MByte files
with fine grained slide film. Gorgeous results!
But it's not as good as that from an 8 megapixel DSLR.

Just because you can scan X megapixels doesn't mean
there is information to scan! Also scanning film is
second generation sampling, whereas electronic sensors
are first generation sampling of the focal plane.

Old news:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

Then my 8-megapixel camera can beat 4x5 image quality:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics
(I've stopped using 4x5 for 2 years now).

Roger

David J. Littleboy wrote:

This is, of course, simply wrong.

Here's what happens when you compare 35mm to medium format and the 5D.

Now compare the 35mm straight to print without the scanner in between
the process. But I will concede that I really want a good quality DSLR
now. Time to move up from my 2.1mp Olympus.

"John Adams" wrote in message
m...
Douglas wrote:

Recent films may have better scanning capabilities than traditional ones
but never will a scan of a 35 mm film, come close to producing image
quality produced by an 8 megapixel digital camera.

Douglas
Yea, sure, that's why high quality print shops use film drum scanners
instead of asking their clients to use digital cameras for their artwork.
Just so you know. I've been doing photography for 30 years and have a
technical college degree in printing production and advanced courses in
desktop publishing. I've also taken art courses and studio photography. I
was developing my own film and producing my own prints when you were
probably still in diapers.

That would certainly take some doing Douglas is about 60.

David J. Littleboy wrote:

(There are films that allow 35mm to do quite a bit better, but they're
either discontinued or not really practical.

Yea, I've used Kodak Recording film with ISO 25.

The OP was being silly

I prefer to use the word troll rather than silly.

"John Adams" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

This is, of course, simply wrong.

Here's what happens when you compare 35mm to medium format and the 5D.

Now compare the 35mm straight to print without the scanner in between the
process.

I've never seen a 35mm print that's even close to what the 5D coughs up
every time.

But I will concede that I really want a good quality DSLR now. Time to
move up from my 2.1mp Olympus.

Most 35mm users who acquired a 6MP dSLR never shot 35mm again.

As a long-term MF user, I think that's simply because 35mm was never ready
for prime time. Lots of people think 35mm's wonderful though. I wouldn't
think of showing someone an 11x14 or 12x18 from 35mm film. That's 645/5D
territory.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"John Adams" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

This is, of course, simply wrong.

Here's what happens when you compare 35mm to medium format and the 5D.

Now compare the 35mm straight to print without the scanner in between the
process.

I've never seen a 35mm print that's even close to what the 5D coughs up
every time.

But I will concede that I really want a good quality DSLR now. Time to
move up from my 2.1mp Olympus.

Most 35mm users who acquired a 6MP dSLR never shot 35mm again.

As a long-term MF user, I think that's simply because 35mm was never ready
for prime time. Lots of people think 35mm's wonderful though. I wouldn't
think of showing someone an 11x14 or 12x18 from 35mm film. That's 645/5D
territory.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Actually I do 12x18 prints from my 6MP camera, beautiful prints at that
size.

Pete D wrote:


That would certainly take some doing Douglas is about 60.



Ok, he's back to diapers now but they call them depends instead.

frederick wrote:

lol - you dimwitted presumptuous troll.
Where is it that you get the idea that the posters to this group were
born yesterday?


If I am the troll and you are replying to me doesn't that make you the
dimwitted one? Why, yes, it most certainly does! And you were the dorks
that started with the presumptions.