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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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? As you have seen, this remains an unresolved (sic) issue. If you use 100 ISO/ASA or faster film, hand hold, in any light conditions other than midday light, then any of the current 6MP_ camera will out resolve film, have lower noise, and basically look better. If you use very slow film, on a tripod, with exceeding careful focus, bracketed shots, and extreme care in the dark room, you can still out resolve digital with film. For the majority of shooters, the fickle finger of fate points towards digital. Mitch |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard F. Man" wrote in :
You can believe in whatever you like. Most people don't look at photo with a microscope. I am looking at 11x14 and 13x19 prints from the 1Ds and. my 4000DPI ProviaF scans, and I cannot say one is better than the others. My eyes do not see this difference between 11MP and scanning 35mm. May be it's because I am using Leica. I don't know. In any case, good for ya that digital works for you, I'm sure I will be using digital at some point too (I already have a Minolta A2 and a Sony T1 but mostly using the M7). All these arguments are irrelevant. If you like what the digital provides, then great. If you like what films do for you, great too. I just don't understand this quest for "scientific comparison" when the best things to do is look at the pictures and say whether you like the pictures or not. You are right of course. But you have to know why all those comparisons are made. It is the same as the strange comparisons between two other good alternatives - storing music analog or digital. For some mysterious reason there are analog/film people that claim that the digital alternative is crap. And for some other mysterious reason there are those that tries to prove that they are wrong. Eventually film will (more or less) die for most uses, just like vinyl records and also eventually analog tape recorders and video recorders. There will still be a stubborn bunch of weirdies that maintain that it _has_ to be analog. But as this bunch grow smaller and smaller, then eventually no one cares to convince them any more. And - understand me correctly - there is absolutely no problems with vinyl records, analog tapes and photographic film. They are good alternatives. It is just that the market cannot support more than a certain amount of alternatives. /Roland |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard F. Man" wrote in :
You can believe in whatever you like. Most people don't look at photo with a microscope. I am looking at 11x14 and 13x19 prints from the 1Ds and. my 4000DPI ProviaF scans, and I cannot say one is better than the others. My eyes do not see this difference between 11MP and scanning 35mm. May be it's because I am using Leica. I don't know. In any case, good for ya that digital works for you, I'm sure I will be using digital at some point too (I already have a Minolta A2 and a Sony T1 but mostly using the M7). All these arguments are irrelevant. If you like what the digital provides, then great. If you like what films do for you, great too. I just don't understand this quest for "scientific comparison" when the best things to do is look at the pictures and say whether you like the pictures or not. You are right of course. But you have to know why all those comparisons are made. It is the same as the strange comparisons between two other good alternatives - storing music analog or digital. For some mysterious reason there are analog/film people that claim that the digital alternative is crap. And for some other mysterious reason there are those that tries to prove that they are wrong. Eventually film will (more or less) die for most uses, just like vinyl records and also eventually analog tape recorders and video recorders. There will still be a stubborn bunch of weirdies that maintain that it _has_ to be analog. But as this bunch grow smaller and smaller, then eventually no one cares to convince them any more. And - understand me correctly - there is absolutely no problems with vinyl records, analog tapes and photographic film. They are good alternatives. It is just that the market cannot support more than a certain amount of alternatives. /Roland |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... "Bart van der Wolf" wrote: SNIP We look at the same thing and come to very different conclusions; you see impressive, I see grossly uglyg. (Just joking, sort of.) I guess it all depends on expectations, given the image size of 2-3 metres. I do not expect to see any useful detail at such an extreme magnification, although I wouldn't object on having it (but I know it would take gigabyte images to be able to). I'm always in for some fun, but physics is physics, which often takes away the fun of fantacizing. That image is painfully noisy. It doesn't have a lot of bits of valid data. Expectations? At 2-3 metres output size, I don't expect to see high resolution, but I've shown before that there is probably more information in the film when scanning at a higher resolution: http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/f...0/se5400-5.htm , which also reduces grain aliasing. It also shows there is a difference related to the lightsource, diffuse vs collimated, and at a higher sampling density the film grain becomes bigger, pixel for pixel. When you print however, the noise/graininess gets reduced 3-4x or twice that in size, compared to monitor screen size. And then there is viewing distance... It's also quite soft: some number of times softer than a dSLR original would be taken with a similar quality (US$700 or so prime) lens. I'm a bit disappointed by such a cheap 'argument'. Although we both don't have a 1Ds (Mark II) to prove or disprove such a statement, I do expect something more to substantiate that claim (comparable image, web-link, scientific paper, experiment, any proof). I haven't played around with noise reduction and downsampling that image, but it sure looks to be 3 or 4 times worse than dSLR originals _per pixel_. Sounds pretty subjective to me. From a 24x36 frame, I'm not convinced that that quality a scan would be worth a whole lot more than 8MP. Fortunately, it's from a 645 frame, so it's more like 16 to 20 MP, and would make a lovely A3, and maybe even a decent Super A3, although that would take some work getting the NeatImage parameters right. I wouldn't duck the challenge, if you would like me to do a run with NeatImage on it. Of course I'd have to start with a JPEG copy, but even then... A Canon 1Ds and even more likely the MarkII version, would be capable of equalling such a result, but with an even lower noise/graininess level. Yes, although I suspect we are actually _disagreeing_ here. My take is that 16MP would edge out 645 scanned at that quality, and I suspect you are saying the 16MP would be similar to 35mm at that quality, which I very much doubt. You suspect right, and we both can unfortunately not prove it without access to such a camera. I was so grossed out by the grain noise that I never bothered shooting any Tech Pan after that. It's only recently that I noticed that it seems to be capturing more detail than I first thought. (I think it may be doing a bit better than Velvia 100F.) And now Tech Pan's gone. It is unfortunate, however I think this time we can only accuse Kodak of showing some common sense. Volumes must be seriously under pressure with so many (good enough) digital alternatives. I do on the other hand see how this will inconvenience all those who have a workflow based on this relatively affordable film based alternative for relatively high resolution black and white film. Clearly lens resolution, combined with the sensor (or film), poses a limit to what can be resolved. It requires larger sensor arrays, or larger film, to better that result. Yup. I've been saying for a while now that 16MP looks to be about right for 24x36 digital, We agree! ;-) Higher sampling density would only improve the images if higher dynamic range can be achieved at the same time. The next step might involve 14-16 bit AD conversion if the well depth is big enough to store 100,000 electrons/sensor. so it's interesting that Canon jumped there so quickly. They are serious about being a technology leader, something which is expensive, but pays off if the technology can trickle down and be used in cheaper versions. Also, patenting may bring revenues. 11x14s at 300 dpi. Hmm. I've never seen an 11x14 from 35mm I've thought was acceptable (which is why I shoot 645). For inkjet printing 300 ppi would be at the lower end or the acceptable range, but for some of the photographic sensitized paper printers, it is about as high as they can go (400 ppi max). It does also depend on the inherent resolution of the pixel (real angular resolution). Bart |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... "Bart van der Wolf" wrote: SNIP We look at the same thing and come to very different conclusions; you see impressive, I see grossly uglyg. (Just joking, sort of.) I guess it all depends on expectations, given the image size of 2-3 metres. I do not expect to see any useful detail at such an extreme magnification, although I wouldn't object on having it (but I know it would take gigabyte images to be able to). I'm always in for some fun, but physics is physics, which often takes away the fun of fantacizing. That image is painfully noisy. It doesn't have a lot of bits of valid data. Expectations? At 2-3 metres output size, I don't expect to see high resolution, but I've shown before that there is probably more information in the film when scanning at a higher resolution: http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/f...0/se5400-5.htm , which also reduces grain aliasing. It also shows there is a difference related to the lightsource, diffuse vs collimated, and at a higher sampling density the film grain becomes bigger, pixel for pixel. When you print however, the noise/graininess gets reduced 3-4x or twice that in size, compared to monitor screen size. And then there is viewing distance... It's also quite soft: some number of times softer than a dSLR original would be taken with a similar quality (US$700 or so prime) lens. I'm a bit disappointed by such a cheap 'argument'. Although we both don't have a 1Ds (Mark II) to prove or disprove such a statement, I do expect something more to substantiate that claim (comparable image, web-link, scientific paper, experiment, any proof). I haven't played around with noise reduction and downsampling that image, but it sure looks to be 3 or 4 times worse than dSLR originals _per pixel_. Sounds pretty subjective to me. From a 24x36 frame, I'm not convinced that that quality a scan would be worth a whole lot more than 8MP. Fortunately, it's from a 645 frame, so it's more like 16 to 20 MP, and would make a lovely A3, and maybe even a decent Super A3, although that would take some work getting the NeatImage parameters right. I wouldn't duck the challenge, if you would like me to do a run with NeatImage on it. Of course I'd have to start with a JPEG copy, but even then... A Canon 1Ds and even more likely the MarkII version, would be capable of equalling such a result, but with an even lower noise/graininess level. Yes, although I suspect we are actually _disagreeing_ here. My take is that 16MP would edge out 645 scanned at that quality, and I suspect you are saying the 16MP would be similar to 35mm at that quality, which I very much doubt. You suspect right, and we both can unfortunately not prove it without access to such a camera. I was so grossed out by the grain noise that I never bothered shooting any Tech Pan after that. It's only recently that I noticed that it seems to be capturing more detail than I first thought. (I think it may be doing a bit better than Velvia 100F.) And now Tech Pan's gone. It is unfortunate, however I think this time we can only accuse Kodak of showing some common sense. Volumes must be seriously under pressure with so many (good enough) digital alternatives. I do on the other hand see how this will inconvenience all those who have a workflow based on this relatively affordable film based alternative for relatively high resolution black and white film. Clearly lens resolution, combined with the sensor (or film), poses a limit to what can be resolved. It requires larger sensor arrays, or larger film, to better that result. Yup. I've been saying for a while now that 16MP looks to be about right for 24x36 digital, We agree! ;-) Higher sampling density would only improve the images if higher dynamic range can be achieved at the same time. The next step might involve 14-16 bit AD conversion if the well depth is big enough to store 100,000 electrons/sensor. so it's interesting that Canon jumped there so quickly. They are serious about being a technology leader, something which is expensive, but pays off if the technology can trickle down and be used in cheaper versions. Also, patenting may bring revenues. 11x14s at 300 dpi. Hmm. I've never seen an 11x14 from 35mm I've thought was acceptable (which is why I shoot 645). For inkjet printing 300 ppi would be at the lower end or the acceptable range, but for some of the photographic sensitized paper printers, it is about as high as they can go (400 ppi max). It does also depend on the inherent resolution of the pixel (real angular resolution). Bart |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:23:06 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: "Bart van der Wolf" wrote: "TRR" wrote: 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. That just depends on output size. If the image magnification is high enough, the output medium will outresolve the image. Exactly. FWIW, current A4 inkjets are _way_ ahead of 6MP digital at A4 (8.25 x 11.5), so if you like detail in your images, there's still room for improvement in the cameras. (The Epson R800 is very nice.) In earlier tests at A4 with the Epson 960, I found that my 645 scans provide more detail than the 960 could render, but that the 960 could render everything recorded in the 1Ds samples I downloaded. So you need at least 11MP for A4. (If you're as greedy as I.) (Note that this question ("how _well_ can I print?") is a rather different question from the usual "how _big_ can I print?". The latter question invariably turns into a competition over who has the lowest standards almost immediately.) I'm curious... (note I havent shot 35mm since I was 8 and I'm 37 now, lol) If I took a photo with 35mm film and with say a 300D (6MP) then produced 3 prints of say the top corner (1/4 size) of the images with... 1, the original 35mm blown up to say A3 2, the 300D blown up to A3 3, a scan of the 35mm (high res scan) blown up to A3 Which would have the aparent best quality, especially if the software didnt reduce the output for the digital to a lower DPI and actually used some upscaleing system (aka Qimage) Would the original end up showing grain where as the scan and printing software would actually hide the grain due to its printing/upscaleing/lancos or some other combination. Also would the digital with upscaling produce an image equal to one or both or none of the above. Would the result be subjective as some bits of the resultant print might look better while others would look worse compared to the film original enlargment or the digital scan enlargment. The reason why I wonder is that, and I know its not how to produce good quality prints, the current 1 hour (agfa) systems actually have a very low resolution... and where film is involved they develop the film, scan the result, then print from the scan at 380dpi for 6/4's and 260dpi for 8/12's or perhaps peoples idea of perfection has reduced significently.... It should be noted that the prints dpi is not actually the "on paper" dpi only the intermediate files processed dpi as the system does some other things to that file before it scans over the paper... while they dont specify what they do, i'm guessing its similar to the way Qimage upscales before sending the data to the actual printer (or in this case the LED/Lasers) Enquiring about the apparent "low res" of the agfa I found out that the max res for all makes of mini labs are 400dpi; none actually resolve to 600dpi so potentially a home printer exceeds the out put of the mini labs. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan -- Jonathan Wilson. www.somethingerotic.com |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:23:06 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: "Bart van der Wolf" wrote: "TRR" wrote: 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. That just depends on output size. If the image magnification is high enough, the output medium will outresolve the image. Exactly. FWIW, current A4 inkjets are _way_ ahead of 6MP digital at A4 (8.25 x 11.5), so if you like detail in your images, there's still room for improvement in the cameras. (The Epson R800 is very nice.) In earlier tests at A4 with the Epson 960, I found that my 645 scans provide more detail than the 960 could render, but that the 960 could render everything recorded in the 1Ds samples I downloaded. So you need at least 11MP for A4. (If you're as greedy as I.) (Note that this question ("how _well_ can I print?") is a rather different question from the usual "how _big_ can I print?". The latter question invariably turns into a competition over who has the lowest standards almost immediately.) I'm curious... (note I havent shot 35mm since I was 8 and I'm 37 now, lol) If I took a photo with 35mm film and with say a 300D (6MP) then produced 3 prints of say the top corner (1/4 size) of the images with... 1, the original 35mm blown up to say A3 2, the 300D blown up to A3 3, a scan of the 35mm (high res scan) blown up to A3 Which would have the aparent best quality, especially if the software didnt reduce the output for the digital to a lower DPI and actually used some upscaleing system (aka Qimage) Would the original end up showing grain where as the scan and printing software would actually hide the grain due to its printing/upscaleing/lancos or some other combination. Also would the digital with upscaling produce an image equal to one or both or none of the above. Would the result be subjective as some bits of the resultant print might look better while others would look worse compared to the film original enlargment or the digital scan enlargment. The reason why I wonder is that, and I know its not how to produce good quality prints, the current 1 hour (agfa) systems actually have a very low resolution... and where film is involved they develop the film, scan the result, then print from the scan at 380dpi for 6/4's and 260dpi for 8/12's or perhaps peoples idea of perfection has reduced significently.... It should be noted that the prints dpi is not actually the "on paper" dpi only the intermediate files processed dpi as the system does some other things to that file before it scans over the paper... while they dont specify what they do, i'm guessing its similar to the way Qimage upscales before sending the data to the actual printer (or in this case the LED/Lasers) Enquiring about the apparent "low res" of the agfa I found out that the max res for all makes of mini labs are 400dpi; none actually resolve to 600dpi so potentially a home printer exceeds the out put of the mini labs. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan -- Jonathan Wilson. www.somethingerotic.com |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Bart van der Wolf" wrote: It's also quite soft: some number of times softer than a dSLR original would be taken with a similar quality (US$700 or so prime) lens. I'm a bit disappointed by such a cheap 'argument'. Although we both don't have a 1Ds (Mark II) to prove or disprove such a statement, I do expect something more to substantiate that claim (comparable image, web-link, scientific paper, experiment, any proof). Sheesh. You're one fussy bloke. Oh, Alright. I'll do the work. Sheesh. I don't have a 1DsM2, but I do have a camera (300D) with roughly the same pixel pitch and the power pole is still here, so here goes. Check my math (I'm cropping everything to a 1:1.414 aspect ratio): 1DsM2 = 3328 x 4714 (cropped to 24x34) Since 35mm = 24x34 mm = (4000 x 24/25.4) x (1.414 x 4000 x 24/25.4) 35mm = 3780 x 5340. (Nikon 8000 pixels) 645 = 39x56 mm = 6140 x 8818 (Nikon 8000 pixels) So upsampling a 300D shot with a 22mm lens by 1.85x would give the same pixel magnification as a 4000 dpi scan of 645. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473562/large And upsampling a 300D shot with a 35mm lens by 1.15x would give the same pixel magnification as a 4000 dpi scan of 35mm with a 35mm lens. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473670/large (Click original to compare, obviously. The digital shots were handheld with 300D + 17-40/4.0 at f/8 at 22 and 35mm focal lengths.) Anyway, we'll argue as to whether there's a significant difference between the simulated 1DsM2 (300D with the 17-40 at 22m (35mm in 645 = 22mm in 35mm)) and 645 + Tech Pan. (It looks pretty close to me: the grain in the Tech Pan makes it seem to have more detail than it actually does.) But everyone will admit that in the simulated 1DsM2 vs. simulated 35mm comparison, digital kicks film's butt something fierce. Anyway, my theory was that 16MP 24x36 dSLR would kick 35mm's butt and be about equal to 645, and that's what I'm seeing here. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Dick LeadWinger wrote in :
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? When I compare the prints from my 5 mega pixel Nikon Coolpix to the prints from color film on my Nikon FM2 with some of the best lenses Nikon made, the Coolpix is clearly superior. They might not have more resolution from a technical count the line pairs definition, but the prints are better. (I get them printed on a Fuji Frontier). I wasn't using pro labs to process the film, just the standard small town labs that most rec. photographers use. B&W film is a different story. Bob -- Delete the inverse SPAM to reply |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Roland Karlsson wrote in
: "jjs" wrote in : Then your hard drive crashes. Then your negative album is stolen or cought in a fire. Or your part of the world hit by a meteor. Or a hurricane. Hmmm. But those events would take out the RAID, too. ;-) Bob -- Delete the inverse SPAM to reply |
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 10:58 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 10:51 PM |