I've got a 30mp digital camera

John Adams wrote:
frederick wrote:

You've got a thread running with over 40 posts up as I type this, and
all based on the implied premise of "film vs digital" - a debate which
should have died years ago.

Well, it's not ready to die quite yet because you need a top end DSLR to
beat or match 35mm film. When the P&S cameras can beat film then it will
be time to put the argument to bed.

The best P&S cameras of today can easily beat 35mm film in good
conditions. It's difficult conditions where they get into trouble.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Charlie Self wrote:
On Nov 7, 3:14 am, John Adams wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:

By the way, most magazines use a 150 screen, effectively way below 300
DPI. Scan a page and check it out.
Isn't that LPI and not DPI? I haven't worked in printing for a long time
but I seem to remember scans were done at 300dpi in general. But we
did higher quality work than magazines too.

"The Benday Dots printing process, named after illustrator and printer
Benjamin Day, is similar to Pointillism. Depending on the effect,
color and optical illusion needed, small colored dots are closely-
spaced, widely-spaced or overlapping. Magenta dots, for example, are
widely-spaced to create pink. 1950s and 1960s pulp comic books used
Benday dots in the four process colors (cyan, magenta, yellow and
black) to inexpensively create shading and secondary colors such as
green, purple, orange and flesh tones."

LPI is basically a different type of measurement.

Editors want 300 DPI shots, but that is to allow for cropping and
positioning.

You did higher quality work than what magazines? Arizona Higways?

That's 300 PPI, but it's pretty clear what you mean.

--
john mcwilliams

John Adams wrote:
HankB wrote:

All that education and you confuse pixel count with image quality?


I'm a bit rusty, also, I read a website a few years back that claimed
you would need 50mp to match 35mm film quality.

That does it, then. If it was on a website, it hadda be accurate.

--
lsmft

"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

You can also use a micrometer to measure pretzels.

It's not about resolution!

Of course it's about resolution, although measuring resolution is hard.

No, it is not. Resolution without accuracy is meaningless. One can add
easily add more bits or bytes that are meaningless.

I can design a digital scale that resolves weight to 1 x 10^-6 kilograms but
has an accuracy of only 1 x 10^-2 kilograms. The extra resolution is noise.

John McWilliams wrote:

That does it, then. If it was on a website, it hadda be accurate.

Well, wasn't I directed to another website to prove I was wrong? Duh!

Chris Malcolm wrote:

The best P&S cameras of today can easily beat 35mm film in good
conditions. It's difficult conditions where they get into trouble.


Not going by that same website I was directed to. I read more there than
just that one page. You need a full size sensor with large pixels and
not the compacted noisy sensors on P&S digital cameras.

Charlie Self wrote:

You did higher quality work than what magazines? Arizona Higways?


Like limited edition prints for artists.

Pete D wrote:

Nah, you are just a naughty little boy thats looking for attention, you got
it so you should be happy now.



I look at it more like performance art and not looking for attention.

John Adams wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:

The best P&S cameras of today can easily beat 35mm film in good
conditions. It's difficult conditions where they get into trouble.

Not going by that same website I was directed to. I read more there than
just that one page. You need a full size sensor with large pixels and
not the compacted noisy sensors on P&S digital cameras.

Read another page. The advantages of the bigger sensor are in
difficult conditions when the amount of light approaches the noise
level of the smaller ones.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
John Adams wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:

The best P&S cameras of today can easily beat 35mm film in good
conditions. It's difficult conditions where they get into trouble.

Not going by that same website I was directed to. I read more there than
just that one page. You need a full size sensor with large pixels and
not the compacted noisy sensors on P&S digital cameras.

Read another page. The advantages of the bigger sensor are in
difficult conditions when the amount of light approaches the noise
level of the smaller ones.

Chris-

You are debating with a name shifting pest, which is a lower form of Troll.

--
john mcwilliams

Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?