Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix

frank wrote:
On Dec 27, 11:32 pm, Noons wrote:
frank wrote,on my timestamp of 27/12/2008 7:42 PM:



On Dec 26, 1:17 pm, "Ken Hart1" wrote:
"Noons" wrote in message

...
snip

LOL! Dunno about others, but I've also been enjoying 70MP on
my Arax 6X6 for years, around 50MP on the Fuji 645S, as well as
20MP on various types of sensor on my F, F2, F4 and F6.
In fact, I can now get 20MP from images taken in 1980,1970 and
even some Kodachromes from 1958. And nearly 100MP from 6X7
stuff.
Oh, and it didn't cost me the price of a small car to get all
that, most of the gear works even without batteries and I don't
have problems focusing in the dark. And every time I get dust on
the sensor, I replace it with a fresh, brand new sensor.
But of course, I'm "behind the times", I'm "old school" and
I don't know what "real photography" is all about.
Yup.
Sure.
yaaaaaawn
It's not "real photography" unless it involves a darkroom,
precious metals, and toxic chemicals...

Don't forget the cyanide...

I think you haven't had enough of it yet...

You've obviously never processed Kodak E-4 kits with the small
plastic
bottle of cyanide you had to mix then add to the other solution, I
think it was bleach. I think there was something similar in the E-6
and C-41 kits, its been a while, I just send it out.

Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and
that
is not how the world works. Sorry. Film will capture infinitely
better
photos than digital.

Once Beseler came out with their kits, much easier to process slides
and negs and prints.

Do have a friend who went back to Hassy and slides as digital didn't
cut it, he's having a hell of a time getting chemicals. B&H won't
ship to him. He's getting some out of the UK or all places. Nice to
see other side of the pond has the right attitudes. He's scanning,
not
sure what he's using to scan.

I've moved from there, and lots photo shops have closed. Moved twice
from there and last place had no decent shops. For size of city, was
disgusted. Might have found one here.

Though from some of the UK film mags, they have other quirks the US
doesn't.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
This does not mean there is no place for film. But to claim film is
better in every way is foolish at best. It's not even better in a
few ways.

It does have a greater tolerance to over-exposure, whereas digital just
clips at peak white.

[cross-posting trimmed]

David

David J. Littleboy wrote:

But it's not relevant to the discussion and therefore doesn't make the
point.

It does, because it directly contradicts the statement that the difference
between film and digital is that the former is continuous.
And because, as someone already pointed out, and as you repeat below, the
discrete levels of digtal are fine enough too for it all to be considered
continuous.

It _is_ relevant to the discussion that digital does a better job at
representing images than analog for the very reason the film nuts claim
film is better, namely the number of distinct levels is larger in digital
systems due to the lower noise.

And that last bit is not so. For several reasons.
The number of distinct levels in silverhalide emulsions is undefined.
And this number of distinct levels is not restricted by anything (unlike
digital, where the number of steps is set by the electronics, the size,
clustering and layers of grain in processed silver halide emulsions can and
will indeed create a scale that is as near as anyone could ask for
continuous).
And noise does nothing that would change a virtual continuous scale into one
with distinct steps.

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[]
This does not mean there is no place for film. But to claim film is
better in every way is foolish at best. It's not even better in a
few ways.

It does have a greater tolerance to over-exposure, whereas digital just
clips at peak white.

People keep saying that, but that wasn't my experience.

First, specular sunlight reflections from things can burn holes in any film,
so whether you only have the 5 stops above medium gray of the dSLRs, or the
whatever stops of C-41 film, doesn't make a lot of practical difference
(Reala is particularly useless in such situations). Also, if you want color
accuracy, don't think about overexposing.

Second, there's a nasty "bait and switch" game going on here. The films with
the great over-exposure tolerance aren't the films you'd want to use, and
the films you'd want to use aren't the ones with the great over-exposure
tolerance.

There may be some exceptions, but I've never met a consumer film, an ISO 400
film, or an ISO 800 film that could make a decent (by my definition, of
course) 11x14 from 645.

I basically found that the only film that was really usable (for making the
quality prints I was interested in) was Provia 100F, and that has quite a
bit less headroom than the 5D. (Fuji Pro160 NC and TMX100 are nice, too, but
I prefer scanning Provia to negative films.)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
[]
There may be some exceptions, but I've never met a consumer film, an
ISO 400 film, or an ISO 800 film that could make a decent (by my
definition, of course) 11x14 from 645.

I basically found that the only film that was really usable (for
making the quality prints I was interested in) was Provia 100F, and
that has quite a bit less headroom than the 5D. (Fuji Pro160 NC and
TMX100 are nice, too, but I prefer scanning Provia to negative films.)

Thanks for that, David. My own experience has been with the consumer
films which may have that greater headroom, so I'll just accept your
observations.

Cheers,
David

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

But it's not relevant to the discussion and therefore doesn't make the
point.

It does, because it directly contradicts the statement that the difference
between film and digital is that the former is continuous.

The problem with invoking quanta in this argument is that you run the risk
of being accused of making trivial arguments, simply because you are.

And because, as someone already pointed out, and as you repeat below, the
discrete levels of digtal are fine enough too for it all to be considered
continuous.

You've missed my point: the naive understanding of "analog" and "continuous"
are quite wrong. An "analog" signal with 1 part in 256 of noise, only has
256 different levels that can be discriminated. It really is a "digital"
signal. The meaning of a particular, measured level in the signal is
"somewhere between x-1/512 and x+1/512", which is exactly the meaning of an
8-bit digital measurement.

It _is_ relevant to the discussion that digital does a better job at
representing images than analog for the very reason the film nuts claim
film is better, namely the number of distinct levels is larger in digital
systems due to the lower noise.

And that last bit is not so. For several reasons.
The number of distinct levels in silverhalide emulsions is undefined.

It's more complicated than that. It is very well defined if you specify a
spatial resolution. A given area of film will be able to represent it's
density with a very well-defined noise level.

The fun thing about film, is that you get very high resolution at very high
noise, and much lower resolution at the nominal density range. And image
contrast interacts here, too. Film is great for imaging signs and license
plates but terrible at low-contrast textures.

And this number of distinct levels is not restricted by anything (unlike
digital, where the number of steps is set by the electronics, the size,
clustering and layers of grain in processed silver halide emulsions can
and will indeed create a scale that is as near as anyone could ask for
continuous).

It's restricted by the resolution. This is why film types get silly. The
resolution-noise product is a constant (roughly speaking) for each emulsion
type. So they think they have infinite DR, when they only have that at zero
resolution.

And noise does nothing that would change a virtual continuous scale into
one with distinct steps.

Again, noise defines the number of _distinguishable_ levels; it tells you
what a particular value actually means.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote,on my timestamp of 29/12/2008 9:42 PM:



You've missed my point: the naive understanding of "analog" and "continuous"
are quite wrong. An "analog" signal with 1 part in 256 of noise, only has
256 different levels that can be discriminated.

No it does not. The number 256 is purely arbitrary, can be ANY
number. YOU have picked it, not analog's physical nature.


It really is a "digital"
signal.

No it is not. It CAN be digitized. That does not make
it a digital signal by any stretch of the imagination.


The meaning of a particular, measured level in the signal is
"somewhere between x-1/512 and x+1/512", which is exactly the meaning of an
8-bit digital measurement.


It can equally be somewhere between x-1/4096 and x+1/4096.
The actual number is a function of the digitization process,
not a nature of the original. And it has nothing to do with
"resolution" or rez-noise product.

You see, this is the continuous confusion you labor
under. Analog is only "digital" if you chose to digitize it.
Otherwise, it clearly and simply, is not.

You keep confusing the digitization process with the analog
signal: the two could not be more independent.

And that last bit is not so. For several reasons.
The number of distinct levels in silverhalide emulsions is undefined.

It's more complicated than that. It is very well defined if you specify a
spatial resolution. A given area of film will be able to represent it's
density with a very well-defined noise level.

Specifying a spatial resolution is part and parcel of
the digitization process. It is not in the nature of analog.


The fun thing about film, is that you get very high resolution at very high
noise, and much lower resolution at the nominal density range.

Completely false, of course. Resolution has nothing to do with light
intensity levels on the registration media.


And image
contrast interacts here, too.

It interacts ANYWHERE, with ANY sensor, be it digital
or analog!


And this number of distinct levels is not restricted by anything (unlike
digital, where the number of steps is set by the electronics, the size,
clustering and layers of grain in processed silver halide emulsions can
and will indeed create a scale that is as near as anyone could ask for
continuous).

It's restricted by the resolution.

No it is not. "Resolution" only exists in the minds of those
trying to digitize everything.

This is why film types get silly.

And digital types don't make sense.

The
resolution-noise product is a constant (roughly speaking) for each emulsion
type.

No. It is a constant of the digitization YOU chose
to use. Nothing could be more arbitrary. The noise
level is a constant of the film type, the resolution
is a function of the digitization process. The product
of the two can never be a constant for each emulsion
type.


So they think they have infinite DR, when they only have that at zero
resolution.

No they don't think that at all.


And noise does nothing that would change a virtual continuous scale into
one with distinct steps.

Again, noise defines the number of _distinguishable_ levels; it tells you
what a particular value actually means.

Absolutely and completely wrong. The digitization chosen is the
process that defines the number of levels, which stretch between
the noise level and the maximum information the media can register.

How many levels you get is a pure function of what digitization
you use, not of the analog media. You can digitize even with
4 bits, does that mean film only registers 16 different
intensities between noise and saturation? Of course not.

Now, do you understand the complete and utter sillyness
of your "mathematical" argument?

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Noons wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:44?am, Peter Irwin wrote:


Every grain in film is either on or off. You get the impression
of continuous tone because there are a huge number of grains.

Completely false, of course. There is no such thing as
"on and off grain" in film, that is a demented and stupid conclusion
from an online site run by a moron who hasn't used film in decades.

I'm sorry that as a child you were so humiliated by parents or
schoolteachers, but don't you think it's time you grew up and stopped
trying to get revenge by sneering at strangers in newsgroups?

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote,on my timestamp of 29/12/2008 10:39 PM:


Every grain in film is either on or off. You get the impression
of continuous tone because there are a huge number of grains.

Completely false, of course. There is no such thing as
"on and off grain" in film, that is a demented and stupid conclusion
from an online site run by a moron who hasn't used film in decades.

I'm sorry that as a child you were so humiliated by parents or
schoolteachers, but don't you think it's time you grew up and stopped
trying to get revenge by sneering at strangers in newsgroups?


I'm sorry you're too ignorant to believe anything you
read online without due critical process.
It is a hallmark of those that have not finished
their growing process. Their constant reliance on
ad-hominem attacks when their perceived reality
is threatened by the truth is the characteristic
that immediately defines such.
BTW: you headers are those of a well known
troll.

David J Taylor wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[]
This does not mean there is no place for film. But to claim film is
better in every way is foolish at best. It's not even better in a
few ways.

It does have a greater tolerance to over-exposure, whereas digital just
clips at peak white.

Yes that is one advantage of negative film over digital.

Forgive us who avoid overexposure.

Relevant x-post to med format restored.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.