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 |
#1071
|
|||
|
|||
So the bit Jon likes is where there appears to be a change from 88 to
79 when measuring off the film (using just 40x magnification, which is a factor of 10 below what Jon-boy was suggesting as a bare minimum (although he has a bit of trouble with magnification ratios..). This usinmg what could hardly be claimed as a 'state-of-the-art' 4000 dpi Nikon film scanner. Jon applies this figure now to all scanners of any kind. Who could argue with that? (O; He DOESN'T seem to want to talk about the bit where it says "Current Canon EOS-1D and 20D digital slr cameras outperform film in image quality and sharpness" How on earth did they come up with that conclusion, Jon-boy? (I'm trolling for Jesus..) |
#1072
|
|||
|
|||
So the bit Jon likes is where there appears to be a change from 88 to
79 when measuring off the film (using just 40x magnification, which is a factor of 10 below what Jon-boy was suggesting as a bare minimum (although he has a bit of trouble with magnification ratios..). This usinmg what could hardly be claimed as a 'state-of-the-art' 4000 dpi Nikon film scanner. Jon applies this figure now to all scanners of any kind. Who could argue with that? (O; He DOESN'T seem to want to talk about the bit where it says "Current Canon EOS-1D and 20D digital slr cameras outperform film in image quality and sharpness" How on earth did they come up with that conclusion, Jon-boy? (I'm trolling for Jesus..) |
#1073
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor" wrote in news:3200pjF3gpinlU1
@individual.net: Jon Pike wrote: [] http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev..._ccd/index.htm That's the very -last- time I'll post this. And even though you've seen it before, and are seeing it again here, you're still going to basically ignore it because it doesn't agree with what you believe or feel. This page shows... What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of resolution when film gets scanned. Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!", nobody has yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim. Until someone does, the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of resolution when film gets scanned) is from this page. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#1074
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor" wrote in news:3200pjF3gpinlU1
@individual.net: Jon Pike wrote: [] http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev..._ccd/index.htm That's the very -last- time I'll post this. And even though you've seen it before, and are seeing it again here, you're still going to basically ignore it because it doesn't agree with what you believe or feel. This page shows... What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of resolution when film gets scanned. Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!", nobody has yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim. Until someone does, the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of resolution when film gets scanned) is from this page. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#1075
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike wrote:
[] What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of resolution when film gets scanned. Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!", nobody has yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim. Until someone does, the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of resolution when film gets scanned) is from this page. 1 - There is no statement of the scanner loss on the 50% MTF figure which, the author states, is considered to be "better indicator of camera system sharpness". 2 - The author shows that digital is better than film using the 50% MTF measure. 3 - Once again, you have ignored the points made in a post and changed the topic to suit your own agenda. David |
#1076
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike wrote:
[] What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of resolution when film gets scanned. Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!", nobody has yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim. Until someone does, the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of resolution when film gets scanned) is from this page. 1 - There is no statement of the scanner loss on the 50% MTF figure which, the author states, is considered to be "better indicator of camera system sharpness". 2 - The author shows that digital is better than film using the 50% MTF measure. 3 - Once again, you have ignored the points made in a post and changed the topic to suit your own agenda. David |
#1077
|
|||
|
|||
Isn't it astonishing, Jon, that hundreds, nay thousands, of
professional photographers around the world are staying silent on this one. Yes, there are websites going up all over the web, by professionals and amateurs alike, and they all seem to agree on the rough line in the sand where the resolution of digital tips over, and some sort of 'equivalence' can be claimed. For color photography, that equivalence seems agreed at somewhere around 6-12 Mp. And all of those photog's (I know several of them, even though I don't claim to be one myself) are leaving it up to you to fight the 'good fight'. None of them are chiming in. (I think we can discount 'me' and 'teflon' as very genuine trolls with nary a reference or coherent thought so far.) Why do those *real* professionals not leap to your defence? Why are many of them here arguing *against* you? Do you recognise some of these names, Jon? If not, you need to get out more.. Back in the good ole days I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 and Velvia, and I would marvel at how wonderful the images looked when projected. I did a lot of landscape work for tourism bureaux libraries. Of course when I viewed those images by projection, I was using a fine projection lens (and of course, sitting back somewhat!). When getting up close to the screen, you could indeed resolve the grain on Ektachromes and other faster slide films, but K25? - no way (by it's nature..). When you did that, it was clear that resolving that grain was pointless, as it took MANY grains to provide any useful image data. When you got up that close to those projected images, you could observe the other effects that caused problems, like the quality of the lens (and I went through several projection lenses before finding one that exceeded the quality of my camera lenses), camera shake, film flatness, etc. It's a good way to learn the best techniques, and which bits of your kit are good or bad.. When the digital age arrived and film scanners came along, I experimented with several different models and resolutions, eventually settling on a 4000 dpi scanner for it resolved very close to *everything* I was able to detect by studying the projected images up close. 10% loss? - maybe on an absolutely nailed K25/Velvia with a very good lens. But for typical 160-400 ISO portrait/wedding print film (where most of my dollars used to come from when I WAS a professional photog..), it missed NOTHING of any use. I repeat, NOTHING. **** Anything that required more than 4000 dpi should NEVER, I repeat NEVER have been shot on 35mm!! **** (You may quote me on that..) For the record, I used Bronica 6x7 equipment for anything that might involve enlarging beyond that which 35mm is capable of - the dividing line is about 11"x8", depending on the subject matter, IMHO. And I *did* spend a lot of time looking at projected *negative* images (yes, I had no life!) on my old Rollei-Leitz-Super-Colorplan lens to come to that conclusion.. When Roger's site first came along (it was quite unique when it first appeared), I noted that his conclusions and observations met very closely with what I had *experienced*, and what I could see with my own eyes. So that is MY personal experience, Jon. Why don't you tell us all about your ACTUAL experience with this stuff..? How about some examples of your work, or a rundown on your involvement in this, rather than just endless argument? - you seem very shy when that request comes up... Why is that? Like I said, here's a quick afternoon of *my* work when I tried out a new camera - warts and all.. http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm I'd hate to be called a hypocrite.. (O; |
#1078
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:QJqud.619$2r.247@fed1read02... "me" wrote in message ... I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film cameras. I guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards. :-) Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-( me Skippy doesn't get upset, whoever that is. Nor do I. I'm done with this, you're having too much fun being obtuse. :-((( Don't go away mad, just go away Film, I let him go for now, me ;-) |
#1079
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:QJqud.619$2r.247@fed1read02... "me" wrote in message ... I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film cameras. I guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards. :-) Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-( me Skippy doesn't get upset, whoever that is. Nor do I. I'm done with this, you're having too much fun being obtuse. :-((( Don't go away mad, just go away Film, I let him go for now, me ;-) |
#1080
|
|||
|
|||
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:xQqud.622$2r.171@fed1read02... "me" wrote in message ... "Skip M" wrote in message news:Wypud.604$2r.560@fed1read02... "me" wrote in message ... "Skip M" wrote in message news:7fpud.603$2r.527@fed1read02... "me" wrote in message ... Who gives a dam what you do? Film is better no matter how hard some people try not to accept it! me It looks like you're getting a little desperate to not accept the idea that digital has caught up with film, in fact did so some time ago, and in some cases, surpasses it. That is the mantra of digital dullards in every NG. Film; do I have to say it? me I'll tell you what, show me some of your work. And look at mine and tell me which is digital and which is film. And not on my website. I'll mail you prints. As long as you mail me some, too. Like I said, I shoot both. If you don't like digital, what are you doing posting to the digital NG? Take yourself out of the conversation, and be secure in your own little world. Photography rules, no matter how you do it... I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film cameras. I guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards. :-) Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-( me I haven't noticed you posting much of use over here, either... Work on those reading skills. You appear to be having trouble making up your mind, a minute ago you said you were done with me. Still don't want to compare images? I'm waiting... You *ass*ume incorrectly that I feel a need to prove something to you, I do not. You have a need to prove something to me, which you can not. Film, rules |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? | Chris | Digital Photography | 5 | September 25th 04 07:43 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |