Resolving power of a sensor.

Recently I had the opportunity to very closely examine images from my old
RZ67 (haven't used it for 2 years) and some 1D MkIII Canon images. The part
which surprised me most was in the resolving power of the sensor - or the
lack of it, compared to current version film.

This anti-alias filter deliberately blurs the image before it reaches the
sensor. Doing that destroys detail that a nice camera like the RZ preserves.
To a lesser extent Fujifilm (but digital?) s5 Pro also uses an anti-alias
filter but not as strong as the Canon so it's images "appear" to resolve as
much detail from a smaller sensor.

I shot a roll of Portra VC at a recent shoot and scanned the film on my new
"wet Bed" scanner. As close to a perfect scan as I've seen lately. The
results really are chalk and cheese under close examination. Sure the
digital image "looks" stunning, more so than the film shot but at pixel
depth resolution, the RZ images shows considerably more detail that wouldn't
ordinarily be seen unless you made a very large print.

How this will fit in with a market geared to quantity of image rather than
quality of a few, I'm not sure but it certainly will fit in nicely with my
very big landscapes.

Douglas

On Nov 24, 7:02 am, "Douglas" wrote:
Recently I had the opportunity to very closely examine images from my old
RZ67 (haven't used it for 2 years) and some 1D MkIII Canon images. The part
which surprised me most was in the resolving power of the sensor - or the
lack of it, compared to current version film.

This anti-alias filter deliberately blurs the image before it reaches the
sensor. Doing that destroys detail that a nice camera like the RZ preserves.
To a lesser extent Fujifilm (but digital?) s5 Pro also uses an anti-alias
filter but not as strong as the Canon so it's images "appear" to resolve as
much detail from a smaller sensor.

I shot a roll of Portra VC at a recent shoot and scanned the film on my new
"wet Bed" scanner. As close to a perfect scan as I've seen lately. The
results really are chalk and cheese under close examination. Sure the
digital image "looks" stunning, more so than the film shot but at pixel
depth resolution, the RZ images shows considerably more detail that wouldn't
ordinarily be seen unless you made a very large print.

How this will fit in with a market geared to quantity of image rather than
quality of a few, I'm not sure but it certainly will fit in nicely with my
very big landscapes.

Douglas

No samples, of course, just Doug's word. I think the comparison is a
little closer than Doug claims. But note that he refers to the 1D Mk
III - isn't that just the 10Mp version?

Interesting that in February 2006 ("Digicams with MF film quality"),
Douglas said this:

Images from "digicams" with high quality lenses like the FZ20 and FZ30
Panasonics which use Leica lenses, can be enlarged to this size (24"x36")
with quality as good as the best 645 cameras and films.

Would you buy a car from this person? (O: And now he has made this
'discovery'....

Any side of the fence you prefer, Doug?

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:31:21 -0800, mark.thomas.7 wrote:

On Nov 24, 7:02 am, "Douglas" wrote:
Recently I had the opportunity to very closely examine images from my
old RZ67 (haven't used it for 2 years) and some 1D MkIII Canon images.
The part which surprised me most was in the resolving power of the
sensor - or the lack of it, compared to current version film.

This anti-alias filter deliberately blurs the image before it reaches
the sensor. Doing that destroys detail that a nice camera like the RZ
preserves. To a lesser extent Fujifilm (but digital?) s5 Pro also uses
an anti-alias filter but not as strong as the Canon so it's images
"appear" to resolve as much detail from a smaller sensor.

I shot a roll of Portra VC at a recent shoot and scanned the film on my
new "wet Bed" scanner. As close to a perfect scan as I've seen lately.
The results really are chalk and cheese under close examination. Sure
the digital image "looks" stunning, more so than the film shot but at
pixel depth resolution, the RZ images shows considerably more detail
that wouldn't ordinarily be seen unless you made a very large print.

How this will fit in with a market geared to quantity of image rather
than quality of a few, I'm not sure but it certainly will fit in nicely
with my very big landscapes.

Douglas

No samples, of course, just Doug's word. I think the comparison is a
little closer than Doug claims. But note that he refers to the 1D Mk
III - isn't that just the 10Mp version?

Interesting that in February 2006 ("Digicams with MF film quality"),
Douglas said this:

Images from "digicams" with high quality lenses like the FZ20 and FZ30
Panasonics which use Leica lenses, can be enlarged to this size
(24"x36") with quality as good as the best 645 cameras and films.

Would you buy a car from this person? (O: And now he has made this
'discovery'....

Any side of the fence you prefer, Doug?

I'm happy enough just to see the pickets up your arse.



--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!

On Nov 24, 12:26 pm, Douglas wrote:
(nothing but crap)

And if my first repost wasn't sufficient, then there was *this*
posting by Doug:

http:...(link no longer valid).. is a 10D image I enlarged with Genuine Fractals 3.0.
It is 24" x 36" and about 2 years old. The print image is well over 100 mega-
bytes in size and highly detailed. This picture is as clear and sharp as a
Cibachrome (Illfochrome) print made from a 6x7 cm transparency. "

But now, Doug seems to have a very different view.

When his mouth runs like that (and it happens so often it is
embarrassing) the final result is.. zero cred. Well deserved, so
enjoy!

Doug, feel free to offer more insults rather than explain why you keep
changing your mind, and keep refusing to show examples to prove your
point. That way you *certify* your credibility level.