8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

So the bit Jon likes is where there appears to be a change from 88 to
79 when measuring off the film (using just 40x magnification, which is
a factor of 10 below what Jon-boy was suggesting as a bare minimum
(although he has a bit of trouble with magnification ratios..).

This usinmg what could hardly be claimed as a 'state-of-the-art' 4000
dpi Nikon film scanner. Jon applies this figure now to all scanners of
any kind. Who could argue with that? (O;

He DOESN'T seem to want to talk about the bit where it says "Current
Canon EOS-1D and 20D digital slr cameras outperform film in image
quality and sharpness"
How on earth did they come up with that conclusion, Jon-boy?
(I'm trolling for Jesus..)

So the bit Jon likes is where there appears to be a change from 88 to
79 when measuring off the film (using just 40x magnification, which is
a factor of 10 below what Jon-boy was suggesting as a bare minimum
(although he has a bit of trouble with magnification ratios..).

This usinmg what could hardly be claimed as a 'state-of-the-art' 4000
dpi Nikon film scanner. Jon applies this figure now to all scanners of
any kind. Who could argue with that? (O;

He DOESN'T seem to want to talk about the bit where it says "Current
Canon EOS-1D and 20D digital slr cameras outperform film in image
quality and sharpness"
How on earth did they come up with that conclusion, Jon-boy?
(I'm trolling for Jesus..)

"David J Taylor" wrote in news:3200pjF3gpinlU1
@individual.net:

Jon Pike wrote:
[]
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev..._ccd/index.htm

That's the very -last- time I'll post this.
And even though you've seen it before, and are seeing it again here,
you're still going to basically ignore it because it doesn't agree
with what you believe or feel.

This page shows...

What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.
Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!", nobody has
yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim. Until someone does,
the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of resolution when film gets
scanned) is from this page.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"David J Taylor" wrote in news:3200pjF3gpinlU1
@individual.net:

Jon Pike wrote:
[]
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/rev..._ccd/index.htm

That's the very -last- time I'll post this.
And even though you've seen it before, and are seeing it again here,
you're still going to basically ignore it because it doesn't agree
with what you believe or feel.

This page shows...

What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.
Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!", nobody has
yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim. Until someone does,
the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of resolution when film gets
scanned) is from this page.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon Pike wrote:
[]
What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.
Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!",
nobody has yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim.
Until someone does, the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of
resolution when film gets scanned) is from this page.

1 - There is no statement of the scanner loss on the 50% MTF figure which,
the author states, is considered to be "better indicator of camera system
sharpness".

2 - The author shows that digital is better than film using the 50% MTF
measure.

3 - Once again, you have ignored the points made in a post and changed the
topic to suit your own agenda.

David

Jon Pike wrote:
[]
What this page most clearly shows, is that there is a 10% loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.
Although everybody says "that's not the same for all scanners!",
nobody has yet posted quantified evidence to back up that claim.
Until someone does, the -only- data we have on the subject (loss of
resolution when film gets scanned) is from this page.

1 - There is no statement of the scanner loss on the 50% MTF figure which,
the author states, is considered to be "better indicator of camera system
sharpness".

2 - The author shows that digital is better than film using the 50% MTF
measure.

3 - Once again, you have ignored the points made in a post and changed the
topic to suit your own agenda.

David

Isn't it astonishing, Jon, that hundreds, nay thousands, of
professional photographers around the world are staying silent on this
one. Yes, there are websites going up all over the web, by
professionals and amateurs alike, and they all seem to agree on the
rough line in the sand where the resolution of digital tips over, and
some sort of 'equivalence' can be claimed. For color photography, that
equivalence seems agreed at somewhere around 6-12 Mp.

And all of those photog's (I know several of them, even though I don't
claim to be one myself) are leaving it up to you to fight the 'good
fight'. None of them are chiming in. (I think we can discount 'me'
and 'teflon' as very genuine trolls with nary a reference or coherent
thought so far.)

Why do those *real* professionals not leap to your defence? Why are
many of them here arguing *against* you? Do you recognise some of
these names, Jon? If not, you need to get out more..

Back in the good ole days I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 and Velvia, and
I would marvel at how wonderful the images looked when projected. I
did a lot of landscape work for tourism bureaux libraries. Of course
when I viewed those images by projection, I was using a fine projection
lens (and of course, sitting back somewhat!). When getting up close to
the screen, you could indeed resolve the grain on Ektachromes and other
faster slide films, but K25? - no way (by it's nature..). When you did
that, it was clear that resolving that grain was pointless, as it took
MANY grains to provide any useful image data. When you got up that
close to those projected images, you could observe the other effects
that caused problems, like the quality of the lens (and I went through
several projection lenses before finding one that exceeded the quality
of my camera lenses), camera shake, film flatness, etc. It's a good
way to learn the best techniques, and which bits of your kit are good
or bad..

When the digital age arrived and film scanners came along, I
experimented with several different models and resolutions, eventually
settling on a 4000 dpi scanner for it resolved very close to
*everything* I was able to detect by studying the projected images up
close. 10% loss? - maybe on an absolutely nailed K25/Velvia with a
very good lens. But for typical 160-400 ISO portrait/wedding print
film (where most of my dollars used to come from when I WAS a
professional photog..), it missed NOTHING of any use. I repeat,
NOTHING.

****
Anything that required more than 4000 dpi should NEVER, I repeat NEVER
have been shot on 35mm!!
****
(You may quote me on that..)

For the record, I used Bronica 6x7 equipment for anything that might
involve enlarging beyond that which 35mm is capable of - the dividing
line is about 11"x8", depending on the subject matter, IMHO. And I
*did* spend a lot of time looking at projected *negative* images (yes,
I had no life!) on my old Rollei-Leitz-Super-Colorplan lens to come to
that conclusion..

When Roger's site first came along (it was quite unique when it first
appeared), I noted that his conclusions and observations met very
closely with what I had *experienced*, and what I could see with my own
eyes.

So that is MY personal experience, Jon. Why don't you tell us all
about your ACTUAL experience with this stuff..?

How about some examples of your work, or a rundown on your involvement
in this, rather than just endless argument? - you seem very shy when
that request comes up... Why is that?


Like I said, here's a quick afternoon of *my* work when I tried out a
new camera - warts and all..

http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm
I'd hate to be called a hypocrite..

(O;

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:QJqud.619$2r.247@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...


I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film
cameras.
I
guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards.
:-)
Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-(
me


Skippy doesn't get upset, whoever that is. Nor do I. I'm done with this,
you're having too much fun being obtuse.

:-(((
Don't go away mad, just go away
Film, I let him go for now,
me
;-)

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:QJqud.619$2r.247@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...


I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film
cameras.
I
guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards.
:-)
Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-(
me


Skippy doesn't get upset, whoever that is. Nor do I. I'm done with this,
you're having too much fun being obtuse.

:-(((
Don't go away mad, just go away
Film, I let him go for now,
me
;-)

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:xQqud.622$2r.171@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:Wypud.604$2r.560@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:7fpud.603$2r.527@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...

Who gives a dam what you do?
Film is better no matter how hard some people try not to accept
it!
me

It looks like you're getting a little desperate to not accept the
idea
that
digital has caught up with film, in fact did so some time ago, and
in
some
cases, surpasses it.

That is the mantra of digital dullards in every NG.
Film; do I have to say it?
me


I'll tell you what, show me some of your work. And look at mine and
tell
me
which is digital and which is film. And not on my website. I'll mail
you
prints. As long as you mail me some, too.
Like I said, I shoot both. If you don't like digital, what are you
doing
posting to the digital NG? Take yourself out of the conversation, and
be
secure in your own little world.
Photography rules, no matter how you do it...

I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film
cameras.
I
guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards.
:-)
Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-(
me


I haven't noticed you posting much of use over here, either...

Work on those reading skills. You appear to be having trouble making up your
mind, a minute ago you said you were done with me.

Still don't want to compare images? I'm waiting...

You *ass*ume incorrectly that I feel a need to prove something to you, I do
not. You have a need to prove something to me, which you can not.
Film, rules