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 |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message .. . C&M wrote: While I agree megapixels and film cannot be directly translated, please take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml for an interesting discussion film and digital resolution. Medium format was not even introduced, I merely stated 35mm Velvia 50 was calculate to have a 21.4 megapixel equivelence. Now this is using today's sensors, so with new sensors it may be less. In any case, MF obviously is untouchable in quality, but the site referenced in interesting nontheless. Enjoy! Look again. The same site has a test of the original 1Ds, compared to medium format. The result is that MF does indeed still win, but only with a very small margin. I quote just a few sentenses: "There is no area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19". Hmm. Doesn't that mean that 645 is better than the 1Dsg. Seriously, all he discovered was that the "dot gain" on his 4 pl printer* was large enough that it was a good match for 255 dpi direct digital images. (And also that his Flextight scanner is a dog and that his film workflow has problems.) *: There are 2 pl and even 1.5 pl droplet size inkjets out there. With those, there is a difference between 255 dpi images and higher res images. But not the printer he used. And if you read the fine print carefully, you'll note that he didn't make 13x19 prints, he made 10.5 x 16 prints (255 dpi from the 1Ds). "The 645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in the sky is clearly inferior." The man's never heard of NeatImage. Or ICE. Sheesh, even PS's despecle will clean up sky grain somewhat. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ds-field.shtml David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
C&M wrote: While I agree megapixels and film cannot be directly translated, please take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml for an interesting discussion film and digital resolution. Medium format was not even introduced, I merely stated 35mm Velvia 50 was calculate to have a 21.4 megapixel equivelence. Now this is using today's sensors, so with new sensors it may be less. In any case, MF obviously is untouchable in quality, but the site referenced in interesting nontheless. Enjoy! Look again. The same site has a test of the original 1Ds, compared to medium format. The result is that MF does indeed still win, but only with a very small margin. I quote just a few sentenses: "There is no area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19". "The 645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in the sky is clearly inferior." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ds-field.shtml Enjoy! Thanks for your replies. I have never contended that medium format was going to be surpassed by digital. I am an advocate of film and will not purchases digital for some time (I use an EOS3 - 35mm). MF is and will be for some time the format of choice for discerning photographers. I didn't realize Luminous Landscapes had a bad reputation. Interesting. |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
C&M wrote: While I agree megapixels and film cannot be directly translated, please take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml for an interesting discussion film and digital resolution. Medium format was not even introduced, I merely stated 35mm Velvia 50 was calculate to have a 21.4 megapixel equivelence. Now this is using today's sensors, so with new sensors it may be less. In any case, MF obviously is untouchable in quality, but the site referenced in interesting nontheless. Enjoy! Look again. The same site has a test of the original 1Ds, compared to medium format. The result is that MF does indeed still win, but only with a very small margin. I quote just a few sentenses: "There is no area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19". "The 645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in the sky is clearly inferior." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ds-field.shtml Enjoy! Thanks for your replies. I have never contended that medium format was going to be surpassed by digital. I am an advocate of film and will not purchases digital for some time (I use an EOS3 - 35mm). MF is and will be for some time the format of choice for discerning photographers. I didn't realize Luminous Landscapes had a bad reputation. Interesting. |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
David J. Littleboy wrote:
Look again. The same site has a test of the original 1Ds, compared to medium format. The result is that MF does indeed still win, but only with a very small margin. I quote just a few sentenses: "There is no area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19". Hmm. Doesn't that mean that 645 is better than the 1Dsg. Yes, it does. But is it a coincidence that you deleted my next quote? That said ""The 645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in the sky is clearly inferior." Doesn't that mean that the 1Ds is better than 645?g Also, do remember that we are discussing the 1Ds MARK II, and that this comparison is with the original 1Ds, not the MARK II. -- Johan W. Elzenga johanatjohanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/ |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
C&M wrote in message news:FkE8d.8576$1g5.4826@trnddc07...
While I agree megapixels and film cannot be directly translated, please take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml for an interesting discussion film and digital resolution. Medium format was not even introduced, I merely stated 35mm Velvia 50 was calculate to have a 21.4 megapixel equivelence. Now this is using today's sensors, so with new sensors it may be less. In any case, MF obviously is untouchable in quality, but the site referenced in interesting nontheless. Enjoy! I really dscourage anyone from basing any argument on what they read on sites like Luminous Landsape. The reports can be conflicting and confusing- in nother report they concluded that 1Ds was better than 6x7. I'm afraid they are trying to sell certain products- their coparison methdology is far from being flawless (I don't know whay they base their "comparisions" on mediore lenses like that of Pentax.) Pesonally I don't take their reviews seriously at all since I found that my observations differs drmatically from their "conclusions" in more that one instance. regards, J. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | Digital Photography | 104 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 92 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
Canon 10d or Nikon D70. | Dmanfish | Digital Photography | 102 | August 18th 04 12:26 PM |