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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"Petros" wrote in message
... Harvey posted: "Petros" wrote in message ... Skip M posted: "Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. Why would it be impossible? For a 24 MB Jpeg (assuming best quality, lowest compression) you would need a 250 MB tif source file. Not even the 20D is capable of that. It would be about 12,000 x 8,000 pixels, or 96 megapixels. -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos Sorry, bud, you're wrong. The native file from my 20D, Jpeg Large/Fine is 23.4M. It produces a RAW file that when converted to Tiff 16 bit that is 46.8M. I'd threaten to send it you, but it's too large for my server. ;-) -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"Petros" wrote in message
... Harvey posted: "Petros" wrote in message ... Skip M posted: "Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. Why would it be impossible? For a 24 MB Jpeg (assuming best quality, lowest compression) you would need a 250 MB tif source file. Not even the 20D is capable of that. It would be about 12,000 x 8,000 pixels, or 96 megapixels. -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos Sorry, bud, you're wrong. The native file from my 20D, Jpeg Large/Fine is 23.4M. It produces a RAW file that when converted to Tiff 16 bit that is 46.8M. I'd threaten to send it you, but it's too large for my server. ;-) -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"Petros" wrote in message
... Harvey posted: "Petros" wrote in message ... Skip M posted: "Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. Why would it be impossible? For a 24 MB Jpeg (assuming best quality, lowest compression) you would need a 250 MB tif source file. Not even the 20D is capable of that. It would be about 12,000 x 8,000 pixels, or 96 megapixels. -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos Sorry, bud, you're wrong. The native file from my 20D, Jpeg Large/Fine is 23.4M. It produces a RAW file that when converted to Tiff 16 bit that is 46.8M. I'd threaten to send it you, but it's too large for my server. ;-) -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, me too...
-- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com "Fitpix" wrote in message ... You may be able to say it with confidence, but your equipment's limitations curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph. Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a 400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know, since I can't make that comparison. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com Ektar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish that ISO 25 was just perfect for! D www.pbase.com/fitpix |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, me too...
-- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com "Fitpix" wrote in message ... You may be able to say it with confidence, but your equipment's limitations curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph. Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a 400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know, since I can't make that comparison. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com Ektar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish that ISO 25 was just perfect for! D www.pbase.com/fitpix |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
In message 8A5od.161889$hj.22322@fed1read07,
"Skip M" wrote: Ektar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish that ISO 25 was just perfect for! 1) These digital SLRs are over-rated in ISO, compared to film. Using an external meter, you will expose darker than with the camera's metering. Therefore, you could say that ISO 100 on the 20D is like ISO 64 with film. 2) There is lots of dynamic headroom in the 20D. In low-contrast conditions (like an overcast day), I often set the EC to +2 without blowing out highlights. That brings us to ISO 16, compared to film. 3) ND filters. -- John P Sheehy |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
In message 8A5od.161889$hj.22322@fed1read07,
"Skip M" wrote: Ektar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish that ISO 25 was just perfect for! 1) These digital SLRs are over-rated in ISO, compared to film. Using an external meter, you will expose darker than with the camera's metering. Therefore, you could say that ISO 100 on the 20D is like ISO 64 with film. 2) There is lots of dynamic headroom in the 20D. In low-contrast conditions (like an overcast day), I often set the EC to +2 without blowing out highlights. That brings us to ISO 16, compared to film. 3) ND filters. -- John P Sheehy |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
In message 8A5od.161889$hj.22322@fed1read07,
"Skip M" wrote: Ektar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish that ISO 25 was just perfect for! 1) These digital SLRs are over-rated in ISO, compared to film. Using an external meter, you will expose darker than with the camera's metering. Therefore, you could say that ISO 100 on the 20D is like ISO 64 with film. 2) There is lots of dynamic headroom in the 20D. In low-contrast conditions (like an overcast day), I often set the EC to +2 without blowing out highlights. That brings us to ISO 16, compared to film. 3) ND filters. -- John P Sheehy |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Skip M posted:
"Petros" wrote in message ... Harvey posted: "Petros" wrote in message ... Skip M posted: "Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. Why would it be impossible? For a 24 MB Jpeg (assuming best quality, lowest compression) you would need a 250 MB tif source file. Not even the 20D is capable of that. It would be about 12,000 x 8,000 pixels, or 96 megapixels. -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos Sorry, bud, you're wrong. The native file from my 20D, Jpeg Large/Fine is 23.4M. It produces a RAW file that when converted to Tiff 16 bit that is 46.8M. I'd threaten to send it you, but it's too large for my server. ;-) From http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/CanonEOS20D.shtml (Canon USA seems to be down, and Canon UK does not give file size info) File sizes: (1) Large/Fine: Approx. 3.6MB (3504 x 2336 pixels) (2) Large/Normal: Approx. 1.8MB (3504 x 2336 pixels) (3) Medium/Fine: Approx. 2.2MB (2544 x 1696 pixels) (4) Medium/Normal: Approx. 1.1MB (2544 x 1696 pixels) (5) Small/Fine: Approx. 1.2MB (1728 x 1152 pixels) (6) Small/Normal: Approx. 0.6MB (1728 x 1152 pixels) (7) RAW: Approx. 8.7MB (3504 x 2336 pixels) * Exact file sizes depend on the subject, ISO speed, processing parameters, etc. Actually, you're the one who's wrong An uncompressed 24 bit TIF file @ 3504x2336 px will be 23.42 MegaBytes, which on average will give about the 3.6 MegaByte JPEG with EXIF info mentioned at the top of this list. If you convert your RAW file to 48 bit TIF then you can have a large file, but one that you can't do much with on a commercial printer or imager. A 48 bit TIF is really only good at the editing stage since you can do more color manipulation with less damage. When you go to print or to create a JPG file, you need to convert to 24 bit. (unless you're printing to your desktop printer, in which case your image app is converting it for you) So 1)Your 8 MegaPixel camera is not outputting a 23.4 MegaByte JPG file because it's technically impossible from that camera, 2)The RAW file from your camera is not a JPG or TIF, but a lossless compressed 48 bit file that can be converted to a 46.8 MegaByte 48 bit uncompressed TIF or a 23.4 MegaByte 24 bit TIF, 3)You do not have a 96 MegaPixel camera -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Skip M posted:
"Petros" wrote in message ... Harvey posted: "Petros" wrote in message ... Skip M posted: "Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. Why would it be impossible? For a 24 MB Jpeg (assuming best quality, lowest compression) you would need a 250 MB tif source file. Not even the 20D is capable of that. It would be about 12,000 x 8,000 pixels, or 96 megapixels. -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos Sorry, bud, you're wrong. The native file from my 20D, Jpeg Large/Fine is 23.4M. It produces a RAW file that when converted to Tiff 16 bit that is 46.8M. I'd threaten to send it you, but it's too large for my server. ;-) From http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/CanonEOS20D.shtml (Canon USA seems to be down, and Canon UK does not give file size info) File sizes: (1) Large/Fine: Approx. 3.6MB (3504 x 2336 pixels) (2) Large/Normal: Approx. 1.8MB (3504 x 2336 pixels) (3) Medium/Fine: Approx. 2.2MB (2544 x 1696 pixels) (4) Medium/Normal: Approx. 1.1MB (2544 x 1696 pixels) (5) Small/Fine: Approx. 1.2MB (1728 x 1152 pixels) (6) Small/Normal: Approx. 0.6MB (1728 x 1152 pixels) (7) RAW: Approx. 8.7MB (3504 x 2336 pixels) * Exact file sizes depend on the subject, ISO speed, processing parameters, etc. Actually, you're the one who's wrong An uncompressed 24 bit TIF file @ 3504x2336 px will be 23.42 MegaBytes, which on average will give about the 3.6 MegaByte JPEG with EXIF info mentioned at the top of this list. If you convert your RAW file to 48 bit TIF then you can have a large file, but one that you can't do much with on a commercial printer or imager. A 48 bit TIF is really only good at the editing stage since you can do more color manipulation with less damage. When you go to print or to create a JPG file, you need to convert to 24 bit. (unless you're printing to your desktop printer, in which case your image app is converting it for you) So 1)Your 8 MegaPixel camera is not outputting a 23.4 MegaByte JPG file because it's technically impossible from that camera, 2)The RAW file from your camera is not a JPG or TIF, but a lossless compressed 48 bit file that can be converted to a 46.8 MegaByte 48 bit uncompressed TIF or a 23.4 MegaByte 24 bit TIF, 3)You do not have a 96 MegaPixel camera -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos |
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 |