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

8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1131  
Old December 12th 04, 04:41 AM
Tetractys
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote:


So, after all your rambling, you've shown yourself
unable to answer a question as simple as "what do
you think the scientific method is?"


No, that's not true, Jon. I told you that I prefer to
start with Maxwell's distrust of objects unobservable
in principle, setting a firm ontological basis. I then
stated that I lean toward enhanced naive empiricism.

Go ahead and throw out all the keywords and catch
phrases you want, but in the end, if you can't answer
such a simple question


I did answer it. Sorry I didn't use words out of your
rather small glossary. It's funny, you know, that you
decried another poster for possessing credentials.
Now you seem to have a problem with me because
I'm familiar with the terminology of scientific method.

you're just trolling.


No, I don't think so. I think you have a control problem.
When presented with ideas and interpretations you
don't comprehend, you become angry and start making
demands that the discussion center on you and the
areas you're comfortable with.

For example, I clearly answered many, in fact most of
your points in two posts now, but you chose to ignore
them all and insist I define scientific method for you.
But you've shown you're unfamiliar with the territory,
so it becomes a rather unfruitful exercise in debating
with a petulant child, which I'm not really all that keen on.

I assume you're angling toward some sort of elementary
school definition like: observation, hypothesis, experimentation,
conclusion, all that painfully useless rubbish pounded into
children in elementary biology classes.

I'd rather start with ontology, and have done so. If you
can't define that which is, then proceed to epistemology
and the nature of knowledge and belief, then the sort
of fifth-grade rote recitation you seem to be fixated on
has no underpinning.

Frankly, I doubt that would trouble you.

If you do manage to get past all that, then perhaps you
can start discussing falsifiability. That's a real meat and
potatoes issues you'd probably enjoy.

See, if you get to demand that I define scientific method,
then I get to ask your position on falsifiability. You know,
a lot of naive empiricists such as yourself believe it to be
necessary and sufficient to define method. I abjure this
position, though, as I have already stated -- really Jon,
must I type everything twice? -- and prefer an enhanced
naive empiricism. Would you care to know the
enhancement I lean toward?

I'll tell you, but first you must, in return, tell me your
position on falsifiability. It's fundamental, and of course
if your thoughts about scientific method theory is -- what
was it you said, "100% accurate" -- then you must have
a position on falsifiability.

Oh, and if you're not familiar with "all the keywords and
catch phrases," then, Jon, how can you certify your
positions as "100% accurate?"


  #1132  
Old December 12th 04, 04:41 AM
Tetractys
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote:


So, after all your rambling, you've shown yourself
unable to answer a question as simple as "what do
you think the scientific method is?"


No, that's not true, Jon. I told you that I prefer to
start with Maxwell's distrust of objects unobservable
in principle, setting a firm ontological basis. I then
stated that I lean toward enhanced naive empiricism.

Go ahead and throw out all the keywords and catch
phrases you want, but in the end, if you can't answer
such a simple question


I did answer it. Sorry I didn't use words out of your
rather small glossary. It's funny, you know, that you
decried another poster for possessing credentials.
Now you seem to have a problem with me because
I'm familiar with the terminology of scientific method.

you're just trolling.


No, I don't think so. I think you have a control problem.
When presented with ideas and interpretations you
don't comprehend, you become angry and start making
demands that the discussion center on you and the
areas you're comfortable with.

For example, I clearly answered many, in fact most of
your points in two posts now, but you chose to ignore
them all and insist I define scientific method for you.
But you've shown you're unfamiliar with the territory,
so it becomes a rather unfruitful exercise in debating
with a petulant child, which I'm not really all that keen on.

I assume you're angling toward some sort of elementary
school definition like: observation, hypothesis, experimentation,
conclusion, all that painfully useless rubbish pounded into
children in elementary biology classes.

I'd rather start with ontology, and have done so. If you
can't define that which is, then proceed to epistemology
and the nature of knowledge and belief, then the sort
of fifth-grade rote recitation you seem to be fixated on
has no underpinning.

Frankly, I doubt that would trouble you.

If you do manage to get past all that, then perhaps you
can start discussing falsifiability. That's a real meat and
potatoes issues you'd probably enjoy.

See, if you get to demand that I define scientific method,
then I get to ask your position on falsifiability. You know,
a lot of naive empiricists such as yourself believe it to be
necessary and sufficient to define method. I abjure this
position, though, as I have already stated -- really Jon,
must I type everything twice? -- and prefer an enhanced
naive empiricism. Would you care to know the
enhancement I lean toward?

I'll tell you, but first you must, in return, tell me your
position on falsifiability. It's fundamental, and of course
if your thoughts about scientific method theory is -- what
was it you said, "100% accurate" -- then you must have
a position on falsifiability.

Oh, and if you're not familiar with "all the keywords and
catch phrases," then, Jon, how can you certify your
positions as "100% accurate?"


  #1133  
Old December 12th 04, 07:04 PM
Dave Martindale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike writes:

YOu're either not listening, or you're blatently trolling.
We're not discussing "image quality."
We're discussing "theoretical equivalent resolution."


The original message said:

I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the
equivalent to 35mm film quality?

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent
resolution? Are they the equivalent to 35mm?

The word "quality" is in the very first sentence. That is what we're
discussing. A part of the discussion is about resolution limits.
It is an open question whether part about "equivalent resolution" was
actually talking about limiting resolution, as measured by spatial
resolution targets, or about *apparent* resolution which depends on the
whole MTF curve shape.

So yes, the only number I'll be paying attention to in this discussion, is
a number that pertains to resolution.


It seems to be only you who wants to confine the discussion to limiting
resolution, and not any of the other things that might contribute to
"equivalent quality". If you do that, you're ignoring the original
question and reframing it to suit your own agenda.

Dave
  #1134  
Old December 12th 04, 07:04 PM
Dave Martindale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike writes:

YOu're either not listening, or you're blatently trolling.
We're not discussing "image quality."
We're discussing "theoretical equivalent resolution."


The original message said:

I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the
equivalent to 35mm film quality?

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent
resolution? Are they the equivalent to 35mm?

The word "quality" is in the very first sentence. That is what we're
discussing. A part of the discussion is about resolution limits.
It is an open question whether part about "equivalent resolution" was
actually talking about limiting resolution, as measured by spatial
resolution targets, or about *apparent* resolution which depends on the
whole MTF curve shape.

So yes, the only number I'll be paying attention to in this discussion, is
a number that pertains to resolution.


It seems to be only you who wants to confine the discussion to limiting
resolution, and not any of the other things that might contribute to
"equivalent quality". If you do that, you're ignoring the original
question and reframing it to suit your own agenda.

Dave
  #1135  
Old December 12th 04, 07:04 PM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"me" wrote in message
...

Film, I'm bored,
me


What, bored with film, already?
(Sorry, I know I said I was done, but I couldn't resist pointing out your
capitulation.)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


  #1136  
Old December 12th 04, 07:04 PM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"me" wrote in message
...

Film, I'm bored,
me


What, bored with film, already?
(Sorry, I know I said I was done, but I couldn't resist pointing out your
capitulation.)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


  #1137  
Old December 12th 04, 07:19 PM
Dave Martindale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike writes:

What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.


No, it shows that when a single test piece of film was scanned on a
single CCD scanner in one trial, there was a 10% loss of limiting
resolution. Extrapolating this result to other scanners, particularly
drum scanners with completely different optics and scanning mechanisms,
is extremely unscientific.

Besides, the very same tests show that the resolution of the scanned
film is only 28 lp/mm at 50% contrast. This is far worse than any of
the digital cameras tested. Since we know the resolution of the film
plus scanner is 79 lp/mm, the scanner contrast must be quite high at
only 1/3 this frequency, so the low 50% MTF must be due to the film
only.

So, this test allows us to conclude, with at least as much justification
as your "10%" claim, that scanned film has a 44% resolution loss at 50%
contrast compared to an 8 MP camera. This seems to be much more
relevant to the original question that started the thread.

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.


Anyone who thinks that data from a linear CCD scanner that scans the
full width of the frame simultaneously is in any way applicable to a
drum scanner that illuminates and measures only one point on the film at
once is seriously out to lunch. Except for the name "scanner", the two
devices have virtually nothing in common in optics or electronics.

Dave
  #1138  
Old December 12th 04, 07:19 PM
Dave Martindale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike writes:

What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.


No, it shows that when a single test piece of film was scanned on a
single CCD scanner in one trial, there was a 10% loss of limiting
resolution. Extrapolating this result to other scanners, particularly
drum scanners with completely different optics and scanning mechanisms,
is extremely unscientific.

Besides, the very same tests show that the resolution of the scanned
film is only 28 lp/mm at 50% contrast. This is far worse than any of
the digital cameras tested. Since we know the resolution of the film
plus scanner is 79 lp/mm, the scanner contrast must be quite high at
only 1/3 this frequency, so the low 50% MTF must be due to the film
only.

So, this test allows us to conclude, with at least as much justification
as your "10%" claim, that scanned film has a 44% resolution loss at 50%
contrast compared to an 8 MP camera. This seems to be much more
relevant to the original question that started the thread.

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.


Anyone who thinks that data from a linear CCD scanner that scans the
full width of the frame simultaneously is in any way applicable to a
drum scanner that illuminates and measures only one point on the film at
once is seriously out to lunch. Except for the name "scanner", the two
devices have virtually nothing in common in optics or electronics.

Dave
  #1139  
Old December 12th 04, 07:19 PM
Dave Martindale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Pike writes:

What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.


No, it shows that when a single test piece of film was scanned on a
single CCD scanner in one trial, there was a 10% loss of limiting
resolution. Extrapolating this result to other scanners, particularly
drum scanners with completely different optics and scanning mechanisms,
is extremely unscientific.

Besides, the very same tests show that the resolution of the scanned
film is only 28 lp/mm at 50% contrast. This is far worse than any of
the digital cameras tested. Since we know the resolution of the film
plus scanner is 79 lp/mm, the scanner contrast must be quite high at
only 1/3 this frequency, so the low 50% MTF must be due to the film
only.

So, this test allows us to conclude, with at least as much justification
as your "10%" claim, that scanned film has a 44% resolution loss at 50%
contrast compared to an 8 MP camera. This seems to be much more
relevant to the original question that started the thread.

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.


Anyone who thinks that data from a linear CCD scanner that scans the
full width of the frame simultaneously is in any way applicable to a
drum scanner that illuminates and measures only one point on the film at
once is seriously out to lunch. Except for the name "scanner", the two
devices have virtually nothing in common in optics or electronics.

Dave
  #1140  
Old December 12th 04, 11:26 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'me', I've seen your work, and don't need to return to that thread to
take a wild guess that you were, as usual, posting abuse and stupidity
without a shred of any useful, relevant information. Just like here -
there is absolutely f@ck-all ontopic, decent information in your posts.
It is clear your entire life is devoted to pretending you are a
photographer and stalking anyone who bites (CHOMP!) on your trolling.

Well, I'm happy to do that. So stalk away and abuse away. And I'll
just continue to point out your lame posts.

I'm here for information - you are here to try to make a man of
yourself. But you're clearly ****ing into a headwind. I'm happy for
you and I to both be judged on content of posts. Repeated
kindergarten-level cliches, along with zero information or examples,
added to continual abuse of anyone who doesn't lick your ass, seems to
be your style. My style is a little different. And if you post this
CRAP on a public forum, whether or not it is aimed at me, don't be too
shocked and surprised if I point out your inadequacies.



So, if you reckon that's 'begging for abuse', knock yourself out.
Everyone here is REAL impressed with you. And you do SO much good for
your cause.
(The last two sentences were sarcasm. You might need to look it up.)

 




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
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 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 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.