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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
John McWilliams wrote: David Chien wrote: Canon just released their 16MP dSLR because their former model wasn't good enough. Canon releases a new 16 MP dSLR because: a.) They can, and b.) they will make money from it. There are other reasons, also. It doesn't render previous models either obsolete nor instantly less good than they were and are. Given the price of the one announced (not yet "released") is $8,000, it is not likely to dent the sales of the 20D ($1,500). Phil |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message ... In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film? The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.) The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the Provia. http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film, but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to make a practical difference in use. The bad news is that current inkjet printers, e.g. the Epson R800, can render a lot more than 6MP of detail at A4 (8x12). You need at least 11MP to make prints as detailed as the R800 is capable of. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message ... In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film? The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.) The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the Provia. http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film, but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to make a practical difference in use. The bad news is that current inkjet printers, e.g. the Epson R800, can render a lot more than 6MP of detail at A4 (8x12). You need at least 11MP to make prints as detailed as the R800 is capable of. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Alverson wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message ... Howard McCollister wrote: I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give you excellent 5x7s. 3-4 MP should do it. Keep in mind that you may decide you want to crop your original shot. Having more than 3-4 MP will allow you to do that and still get an excellent 5x7 final print. If you have just enough resolution to make a good 5x7 print and then you crop it, it'll start to show. Ken It is all a matter of degree. It may be argued that 35 film should never have been used because you might want to crop and you can crop a large format with less loss. For most people looking for the results stated, I believe that 3-4 is sufficient. Going larger is not bad, but may well be overkill for most people. Most people here are not most people in the real word. -- Joseph E. Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Its not just the quality of the printer that counts. Most film processing
labs today are converting to digital mini labs. If you take your film to Kmart, Walmar, Target or your local grocery chain, they are processing the negatives, then scanning them at 400 dpi in their computers. This is even true for most small photo or camera shops. Costs associated with disposal of processing chemicals, as well as incentives given to shops to upgrade equipment is making old fashioned light processing obsolete. The "prints" you get are made from digital images scanned from your film. Thus, as real honest to goodness darkrooms disappear, the digital cameras only need to catch up to the quality of the photo lab scanners. Bill B "jjs" wrote in message ... "TRR" wrote in message hlink.net... After the techies resolve this argument I submit the quality of your printer makes it all moot. Not much has been said here in that regard. Quality is still a moving target. Printers get better so one can reprint as the technology moves on. But then, digital camera technology will also move on. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message ... Given the price of the one announced (not yet "released") is $8,000, it is not likely to dent the sales of the 20D ($1,500). Nor any other dSLR... HMc |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
David J. Littleboy wrote:
The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.) The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the Provia. http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film, but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to make a practical difference in use. Please. Compare Apples to Apples. He's scanning with ICE at normal and GEM at 2, it is a known fact that such settings will soften the image a tad, meaning he needs to apply USM just a bit. I am not saying film is better than dSLR, but if you are going to argue for it, make a good sound comparison, not some hacked tests. -- // richard http://www.imagecraft.com |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
David J. Littleboy wrote:
The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.) The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the Provia. http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film, but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to make a practical difference in use. Please. Compare Apples to Apples. He's scanning with ICE at normal and GEM at 2, it is a known fact that such settings will soften the image a tad, meaning he needs to apply USM just a bit. I am not saying film is better than dSLR, but if you are going to argue for it, make a good sound comparison, not some hacked tests. -- // richard http://www.imagecraft.com |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard F. Man" wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.) The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the Provia. http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film, but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to make a practical difference in use. Please. Compare Apples to Apples. He's scanning with ICE at normal and GEM at 2, it is a known fact that such settings will soften the image a tad, meaning he needs to apply USM just a bit. I am not saying film is better than dSLR, but if you are going to argue for it, make a good sound comparison, not some hacked tests. They don't seem hacked at all. His tests very much reflect what I see in my 4000 dpi scans, and what every high-res scan I've ever seen looks like, namely god-awful crap. Here's a few examples. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ Again, I look at every frame I scan with a 60x microscope, and I really don't see the scans losing a significant amount of information. The difference between 35mm and 11MP seems to be a lot more than can be expained by hypothetical losses in scanning. There are bogus comparisons out there, but that's not one of them. The infamous Luminous Landscape page shows 6x7 capturing a lot more detail than 11MP digital (see the drum scan comparison image) and MR failing miserbly to get the information with his pet Imacon (a scanner that seems to me to be a buck-nekked emperor) and failing to make a decent print from the information he did get. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard F. Man" wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.) The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the Provia. http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film, but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to make a practical difference in use. Please. Compare Apples to Apples. He's scanning with ICE at normal and GEM at 2, it is a known fact that such settings will soften the image a tad, meaning he needs to apply USM just a bit. I am not saying film is better than dSLR, but if you are going to argue for it, make a good sound comparison, not some hacked tests. They don't seem hacked at all. His tests very much reflect what I see in my 4000 dpi scans, and what every high-res scan I've ever seen looks like, namely god-awful crap. Here's a few examples. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ Again, I look at every frame I scan with a 60x microscope, and I really don't see the scans losing a significant amount of information. The difference between 35mm and 11MP seems to be a lot more than can be expained by hypothetical losses in scanning. There are bogus comparisons out there, but that's not one of them. The infamous Luminous Landscape page shows 6x7 capturing a lot more detail than 11MP digital (see the drum scan comparison image) and MR failing miserbly to get the information with his pet Imacon (a scanner that seems to me to be a buck-nekked emperor) and failing to make a decent print from the information he did get. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 09:58 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
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 |