Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (
More info?)
I agree with your "side by side" argument but mark my words.
When chemical film becomes almost obsolete and the GreenPeace people get
wind of the chemicals being used and lobby the governments against it's
usage, the oldtime photographers with conscience for the environment will go
underground, buying film on black markets and be labelled as "outlaws" and
"criminals" for persuing their black art.
Snitch lines against people with chemical film cameras will be launched and
digital people will turn against their "criminal" neighbours for displaying
cameras listed on the government taboo lists.
Take a look around. You may be replying to future criminals against our
environment. Don't be caught harboring a criminal. Break the ties now with
them before you get dragged down with them too. Even association with a
criminal chemical photographer may become a prisonable offence.
LOL
"Christopher Woodhouse" <chris.woodhouse@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BDAC43CC.3A5D1%chris.woodhouse@zetnet.co.uk...
> OK so we have had our bravado.....Digital and Film should be living side
by
> side, not trying to steal the other's pitch all the time. They are
different
> and will remain so.
>
> I make fine art images and do research for articles and books. From an
> artistic standpoint, I still prefer film, the same way that some painters
> didn't take up photography in the 19th century. For fine art work I am
> assuming that the eye can resolve 1 minute of arc (as a guideline) and my
> research was an exploration of the limits of digital cameras vs scanning
> primarily MF film.
>
> The reality check for monochrome work is that side by side, people choose
> the fibre based silver print over the inkjet or colour paper monoprint for
> its beauty. Of course, whilst monochrome 35mm may have an excess of
> artificial measured resolution, the smoothness of the enlargement over
about
> 8x loses the 'quality feel'. The reality check for colour is that, if you
> can put up with the hassle of setting it up, a projected 35mm Velvia slide
> (more so than a print from it) made with say a Leica projector is
unequalled
> in brilliance and life.
>
> The 2.67 pixels per line pair is the theoretical minimum, based on a
> definite integral calculation. The optical aberrations in the lens will in
> practice make this value closer to 3 as you say. It also works in reverse
> for lp/mm on inkjet printers and the file dpi sent to the printer.
>
> The projected image I'm referring to is the image formation on the sensor,
> not implying using a slide projector to check resolution.
>
> You CAN put shadow detail into slide films by using a small amount of
> pre-exposure, much in the same way as Adams did for monofilm. Precisely
> done, it can lift shadow detail slightly. The problem with RAW file
> manipulation is that the shadow areas on a digital image contain the worst
> apparent noise. Pulling the curve shape in that area may not create
> posterisation, but it can, if done to extreme, emphasise the sensor noise.
>
> I have access to a new 1DS and I will be measuring it out of interest
later
> on this month. The problem is that it weighs more than my 5x4.
>
> On 31/10/04 7:38 pm, in article cm3f6g$8nc$1@nnrp.gol.com, "David J.
> Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Christopher Woodhouse" <chris.woodhouse@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Christopher Woodhouse" <chris.woodhouse@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Have you actually measured both?
> >>>
> >>> You'll have to argue with R. Clark, who has. (It sounds as though you
> > didn't
> >>> read his page.)
> >>
> >> I have, and Koren's. Unlike Clark, Koren doesn't offer an opinion, just
> > the
> >> test method. The measurements are taken at 50% MTF contrast. That was
the
> >> statement you made, which is incorrect.
> >
> > What measurements, what statement? At one point I was talking about
_noise_
> > when producing prints with equivalent apparent detail. That's the Velvia
50
> > vs. 1D mk2 at various ISO values.
> >
> >> You talk about no particular hardware, so my results apply to 'any
digital
> >> camera'.
> >
> > I refered to a 1D mk2 vs. Velvia comparison page.
> >
> >> If you are going to make a statement about resolution, get it right,
just
> >> because you lose the argument, don't change the game. If you want to
talk
> >> about enlargement it is a different ballgame.
> >
> > Enlargement is the _only_ thing I want to talk about. I want to make
> > photographs, not count angels on heads of pins.
> >
> >> A resolution test chart,
> >> enlarged with a run of the mill Schneider Componon resolves more lines
per
> >> millimeter on print than an 8 Mpixel digicam (with enhance sharpening).
> >
> > ??? Projecting a resolution test chart sounds even less relevant.
> >
> >> The nyquist criterion is a special case incidentally.
> >> To guarantee 50% MTF
> >> contrast for any phase between projected image and sensor array you
need
> >> about 2.6 pixels per line pair.
> >
> > That sounds, if anything, low. Most of the digital camera test charts
I've
> > seen peter out (when observed at 100% pixels on the screen) at about 3
> > pixels per line pair.
> >
> >> Of course you don't understand resolution either. 'Looks as good' is a
> >> rather wide barn door.
> >
> > "Looks as good" is the _only_ barn door. If a performance measurement
misses
> > the "looks as good" reality check, then that measurement is measuring
the
> > wrong thing.
> >
> > You've presented numbers (which I suspect are correct) that presumably
are
> > being used to claim/predict a certain perceptual result. The prediction
is
> > off by a mile.
> >
> >> But if we are talking resolution, then the two images
> >> of the resolution chart will indeed, bear out the resolutions I
mentioned,
> >> if viewed at about 325mm.
> >
> > I didn't say you got the wrong answer: I said that the answer you got
misses
> > the barn door. By a mile. You predicted similar quality in a prints
2.7^2
> > times the area, and that's just silly.
> >
> >> As it comes out of the camera / or film, I have measured the dynamic
range
> >> of about 8 digital SLR's and compacts. They hover around the 6 stop
range.
> >> Yes, you can stretch the shadow detail if you import in RAW mode. That
is
> >> called manipulation. You can also achieve the same effect with Velvia
at
> > the
> >> exposure point and during scanning, if you know what you are doing.
> >
> > Recording in RAW mode and processing to a 16-bit tiff is standard
procedure
> > for dSLR work. If you aren't measuring correctly processed images, you
are
> > artificially limiting dSLR performance. And there's no way to rescue
shadow
> > detail from slide films.
> >
> >>>> Contax 139 Quartz, 100mm f3.5 lens. (£200) APX25mm - 92 line PAIRS
> > per
> >>> mm
> >>>> Olympus 8080 (8 Mpixel) - referenced to 35mm frame - (£700) - 33
lp/mm
> >>>> Fuji S2 - referenced to 35mm frame (depends on orientation) (£1200) -
> >>> lower
> >>>> limit - 35 lp/mm, upper limit 45lp/mm
> >>>> Velvia in above 35mm camera - 60lp/mm
> >>>
> >>> You failed to do the obvious _reality check_. Since 92 is over 2.7
times
> > 33,
> >>> your numbers predict that a print 2.7 times larger from the APX25
ought
> > to
> >>> look about the same as a print from the 8080. Make an 8x10 from the
> > 8080.
> >>> You should find that it looks pretty decent. Now make a 21.6 x 27"
print
> >>> from the APX25. Crop out an 8x10 segment of the 21.6x27 print (a 23x
> >>> enlargement) and tell me it looks as good as the 8x10 from the 8080.
(It
> >>> won't even be close, of course.)
> >
> > This reality check remains.
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
> >
> >
>
But who's quibbling.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram