Difficult technical question on ISO & light

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:34:57 +1300, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>However, your cost calculations should include the cost of
>your film plus processing for those 10,000 images. It would indoubtedly cover
>the cost of digital storage had the shots originally been taken digitally, with
>scanning backs to equal your equivalent resolution.

Nope. The cost of processing film is minimal but compare that
to the cost of the equipment needed to manage the digital files and to
make a comparable image in digital (if it were possible) plus add in
the mandatory upgrading costs and (re)training costs and you will see
how truly expensive digital is.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:d7bao0hm3qomoil91i6apo3642jg3q51ns@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:17:31 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>The rods and cones of the retina constitute a digital sensing plane
>
> Unfortunately I don't really believe this is the case. Can you
> show me something stating that the retina operates in a digital
> fashion ? Particularly binary, trinary or whatever ?

You have something there, John. W.G. posited an impossibly ambigous
statement. The rods and cones are not the retina and neither are they on the
same plane as the retina. Rods and cones are sensors of hue and luminosity,
while the retina is a processing layer of their input. Tentatively I can
accept that the rods and cones are 'digital like', but the retinal layer is
another story.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:39:18 GMT, Gregory W Blank
> <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
>
> >> The storage medium is irrelevant.
> >
> >Oh really? Try storaging the the roughly 10,000 images, 35mm, 120
> >4x5, 8x10. I have on film at full digital equivalent resolution at the same
> >cost I have invested in their storage.
>
> And don't forget the backups !
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
> Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

Where does he store his negatives, I wonder? What if the place burns down? Of
course digital backups cost - but dupe negs cost more, and they lose quality,
which digital doesn't.

Colin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <418425A2.7782E24A@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> Where does he store his negatives, I wonder?

Now you don't have to, archival pages or sleeves in a humidity
control file room in archival acid free boxes.

>What if the place burns down? Of
> course digital backups cost - but dupe negs cost more, and they lose quality,
> which digital doesn't.

So what if your computer burns up? What if you drop your HD
what if there's a power surge,...etc etc,, make a real point please!!!
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:37:06 +1300, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
>Where does he store his negatives, I wonder?

My most valuable images (admittedly few) are stored in a
fireproof safe in my home.

>What if the place burns down?

The will possibly melt.

>Of course digital backups cost - but dupe negs cost more, and they lose quality,
>which digital doesn't.

Show me the data. Nor do I use dupe negs.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:37:06 +1300, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>Where does he store his negatives, I wonder? What if the place burns down? Of
>course digital backups cost - but dupe negs cost more, and they lose quality,
>which digital doesn't.

Try a couple of these issues ;

1) HDD failure.
2) Virus targeting image files.
3) File over-writing
4) File deletion
5) File corruption from power failure

For grins I just typed "delete .jpg" into the search utility
at http://search.symantec.com/custom/us/query.html . There are 13840
returns.

Regarding # 3, most digicams don't provide for using different
filenames. If you import a lot of images into your My Pictures
directory you run the risk of over-writing files with the same name.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:37:06 +1300, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >Where does he store his negatives, I wonder? What if the place burns down? Of
> >course digital backups cost - but dupe negs cost more, and they lose quality,
> >which digital doesn't.

Frankly and even realistically, I could store my negatives
in a cave (cold dark storage with stable relative humidity)
and they would last a thousands years longer than any
electronic storage medium.

A bird in the hand is worth any bunch of 1's and 0's
that don;t really exist...

>
> Try a couple of these issues ;
>
> 1) HDD failure.
> 2) Virus targeting image files.
> 3) File over-writing
> 4) File deletion
> 5) File corruption from power failure
>
> For grins I just typed "delete .jpg" into the search utility
> at http://search.symantec.com/custom/us/query.html . There are 13840
> returns.
>
> Regarding # 3, most digicams don't provide for using different
> filenames. If you import a lot of images into your My Pictures
> directory you run the risk of over-writing files with the same name.
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
> Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:01:43 -0500, in article
<04b7o0phjr9f9i2b4cg608vhe4csa0nd06@4ax.com>, John <use_net@puresilver.org>
wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:02:11 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
>
>>>Well, I shoot 4x5. Pixels will never be able to get that
>>>small or numerous to effectively compete there.
>>
>>Never. The man actually said "never" in a rather new technological
>>environment. I
>
> In comparison to film digital is certainly new however there
>are many challenges to making a sensor the size of a 4X5 sheet of
>film. Note that some of us still consider 4X5 small.
>
>
>Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org

No question there are challenges. But until we are butting up against the laws
of physics, they are almost certain to be solved.

SP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In message <418482E4.7DE34413@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

>Gop ahead. try to put a Leica lens on your little digital
>P&S. You'd just be wasting your money all all that good
>quality opitical resolution.

Optical resolution is not a brick wall. The contrast drops as you move
to higher frequencies. If the sensor in a digital camera has a proper
anti-aliasing filter in it, there is no such thing as a lens that is too
sharp, and the contrast, pixel-to-pixel, will be higher than it would be
with a softer lens, even if both can provide at least some contrast at
the nyquist.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In message <41847F73.7CAC2C2B@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

>Foveon 3D requires a much larger pixel to do what it does. It's
>an improvent in digital color over bayer pattern color filter
>arrays,

No, it's a technological farce. The color separation is poor, and it is
unable to deliver the color accuracy it promises. Rather than having a
neat set of three over-lapping bell curves for the three layers'
response to color, it has three weird shapes and the area between green
and blue have overlapping curves with almost no slope to them, so the
resolution of blue vs green is very flaky and the smallest
inconsistencies in doping cause huge blotches of off-color to appear in
skies and seas. It also seems very difficult to get skin colors right
if the rest of the image is porperly white-balanced.

>which reduce actual color pixels captured by 1/4 and
>interpolate the rest (amazing how little some of you seem
>to know about how digital works...),

Have you ever actually taken an image that had full RGB sampling per
pixel, and pixellated the hue channel, or given it a 2-pixel-radius
blur? Unless you zoomed in so that each pixel in the image was several
pixels high and wide, you would not see a difference A/B-ing between the
original and the color-blurred image. Human color resolution is *way*
below its luminance resolution.

Bayer is not as good as full RGB sampling at the same resolution, for
scientific imaging purposes, but for photography, it sacrifices very
little (unless you like to make mosaics from your pixels).

>but not an improvement
>in resolution. Unless Foveon somehow suspended the laws of
>physics (e.g., Nyquist.)

Sigma tried to suspend the nyquist issues, by releasing two DSLRs using
the Foveon chip without an anti-aliasing filter. The first one didn't
even have microlenses, to capture light falling outside of the well
boundaries. The result is horrible aliasing effects on the original
(SD9), and moderate aliasing artifacts on the next model (SD10).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <m0%gd.279548$wV.225757@attbi_s54>,
"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I presume you're speaking of Bill Gates.....

Knowing some of his history and being a
Mac advocate, I don't hold him in partcular
high regard.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <41847C96.4A785D83@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

> > In article <4183466e$0$10830$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
> >
> > > There was clearly (as we now know) a huge latent demand for the ability to,
> > > say, snap a picture of baby's first steps in the living room, or mom blowing
> > > out the candles on her birthday cake, then go into the bedroom or den and pump
> > > out a fine quality print immediately. This demand was by far the driving force
> > > in the market. Manufactures did extensive studies on that suspected demand,
> > > and responded accordingly. What exists right now is equal and more to the
> > > tasks that most consumers want to accomplish, and it's only getting better.

> > > Of course the lower denominator is going to win. Most people can't
> > > differentiate between superb and very good images even if you give them a
> > > loupe. Superb is overkill for the bulk of the population.
>
> So, lets just do away with Ansel Adams....
>
> Seeing his "superb" mural sized prints was what turned
> me from an amateur into a professional photographer.
> I could care less what a the snapshooting public shoots
> with. But when they see a real photograph in all it's glory,
> even a complete idiot knows the difference...

> Gregory W Blank wrote:

> > Lets hope the "industry" serves the desire to have those images last longer than
> > to the kids graduation.

Lets not; "I like some of Ansels work", and undoubtably his historic importance
has influenced the photo community beyond you, me or any of the pediantic
digidiots that soley advocate the film to be replaced by technology concept.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <vise52-jdc.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:


> It really is very simple. Even if we ignore the obvious bollocks about 35mm
> film being some sort of pixelated medium, if the claims about 35mm image
> quality and resolution made in this thread, appqarently endorsed by Kodak,
> were valid, then we would all be able to make sharp, grainless prints from
> 35mm film with 4 times the area of a similar quality print from a 6MP DSLR,
> such as an EOS 10D, or a Nikon D100. Since these cameras can make sharp,
> grainless prints at A4, then we should expect similar quality from 35mm at
> A2.
>
> Yet in the world of harsh physical reality, A2 prints from 35mm are just
> nasty. Ergo, 35mm does not have 4 times the "megapixels" of these digital
> cameras, unless we're talking about a very different kind of "megapixel" in
> each case, in which case the comparison is useless.
>
> This really isn't a matter of opinion. The quote cited is in disagreement
> with physical reality, therefore it is wrong. What you or I or anyone else
> actually thinks about it is irrelevant. Reality is king.
>
> If, by some chance, anyone actually is making A2 sized prints from 35mm that
> have the same image quality as A4 prints from a 6MP DSLR, please do let the
> rest of us mere mortals know how you're doing it.

A2, A3 are writing stationary terms not photo terms. Try 16x20 and 11x14
some not all of my 35mm film can go to 11x14 and using slow speed films
I have seen prints of very good quality printed to 16x 20 although more
uncommon. This being done with consumer grade camera gear not ultra
sharp lenses.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <b3te52-jdc.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> OK, I must admit, I'm having trouble with this. Anyone have any suggestions
> for a light source that will result in a decent exposure over a couple of
> hours, that I can easilly set up in an otherwise pitch-black room, and that
> won't result in either no image being recorded, or massive overexposure, at
> any sensible aperture?

So the light source would be a less costly solution than buying a $5.00 roll
of film and scanning it fro that particular application?
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

I gave up chemical film year ago. There is no good chemical film for
everyday usage. With digital pictures are everyday.

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:j4r9o0le2vtnkbfgs9bccsg2io444bc3bt@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:53:54 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> wrote:
>
> >If is is analogue. Why is there grainy salt and pepper marks all over
> >pictures?
>
> To much black light I guess ;>))
>
> Just use a good film like TMX and most of those holes will
> simply go away.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
> Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

What happens when you knock your camera onto the floor and the case pops
open and the film falls into the community sewage disposal?

"Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in message
news:1uYgd.3567$RA4.967@trnddc06...
> In article <cm13tk$jpj$3@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > Film is archival until it meets with an accident: fire, flood, mildew,
> > sleeves held together with glue that breaks down in the summer heat.
Parents
> > on a cleaning rampage.
> >
> > Digital can actually be archived. It take work; multiple copies,
checking
> > the data regularly, off-site storage (so the same accident doesn't take
out
> > all copies). But at least it's possible.
>
> Ah I was waiting for a hapless soul to make mention of
> those things, they apply to computers and compter equipment also.
>
> Film however no one hits the delete key and makes it vanish. Or what
happens
> when you knoock over your laptop,...I drop negatives on the floor on
ocassion
> and have dropped my laptop,....the negatives fair far better.
> --
> LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
>
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
> or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
> is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
> to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:FPWdnbNyO7G-9RjcRVn-iw@golden.net...
> What happens when you knock your camera onto the floor and the case pops
> open and the film falls into the community sewage disposal?

Oh, about what happens in a moment when I put your sorry ass into my Kill
File.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:418482E4.7DE34413@aol.com...
>
>
>>Go ahead. try to put a Leica lens on your little digital
>>P&S. You'd just be wasting your money all all that good
>>quality opitical resolution.
>
>
> Actually, I had the idea of putting an F mount on a point and shoot, so I
> could use it with my Nikkors.....It wouldn't be digital, but it might make a
> pretty good camera.......
>
>

The only problem that I found with that aproach is that over 3/4 of the
image circle is wasted if it has a 2/3" CCD and the crop facor is about
4 (not 1.5 or 1.3 of a real DSLR).
Using an adapter (0.25x "zoom factor") in the lens-mount can fix the
wasted image cicle and bring the crop factor down to about 2, but I'm
not so sure that it is too great as far as distortion or colour smearing
is concerned.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4184951a$0$31908$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> William Graham wrote:
>> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:418482E4.7DE34413@aol.com...
>>
>>
>>>Go ahead. try to put a Leica lens on your little digital
>>>P&S. You'd just be wasting your money all all that good
>>>quality opitical resolution.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I had the idea of putting an F mount on a point and shoot, so I
>> could use it with my Nikkors.....It wouldn't be digital, but it might
>> make a pretty good camera.......
>
> The only problem that I found with that aproach is that over 3/4 of the
> image circle is wasted if it has a 2/3" CCD and the crop facor is about 4
> (not 1.5 or 1.3 of a real DSLR).
> Using an adapter (0.25x "zoom factor") in the lens-mount can fix the
> wasted image cicle and bring the crop factor down to about 2, but I'm not
> so sure that it is too great as far as distortion or colour smearing is
> concerned.

Yes....I wouldn't do it with a digital P&S, but with a film P&S, it might
make a pretty interesting camera. Of course, I could only use the older
non-AF nikkors with it, but it would be nice to have a cheap rangefinder
camera that would take my nikkor set.......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Go for it troll boy!

Finally!

"jjs" <jjs@x.x.com> wrote in message
news:10oatactde84t2f@news.supernews.com...
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:FPWdnbNyO7G-9RjcRVn-iw@golden.net...
> > What happens when you knock your camera onto the floor and the case pops
> > open and the film falls into the community sewage disposal?
>
> Oh, about what happens in a moment when I put your sorry ass into my Kill
> File.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy"<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't shoot a lot of film (scanning takes so much time), but I've seen
all
> >of the above.
>
> Not from a pro-lab I hope.

The pro lab I use has kinked my 220 in the middle. (Not as badly as the new
lab the local Fuji Frontier shop uses, but enough to make scanning a frame
or two more difficult than it should be.)

Another reason the Mamiya 7 is being tempting (645 and 6x6 SLRs need 220 for
the better film flatness).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:51:32 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>> >I don't shoot a lot of film (scanning takes so much time), but I've seen
>> >all of the above.
>>
>> Not from a pro-lab I hope.
>
>The pro lab I use has kinked my 220 in the middle. (Not as badly as the new
>lab the local Fuji Frontier shop uses, but enough to make scanning a frame
>or two more difficult than it should be.)

I'd have to look at the severity of the problem of course but
I can tell you that I'd have someones butt for folding my film in that
manor. I recommend CPQ Colorchrome in Cleveland, Tennessee.

>Another reason the Mamiya 7 is being tempting (645 and 6x6 SLRs need 220 for
>the better film flatness).

I prefer the Pentax 67 to the Mamiya. Big ol' clunky thing
that it is, it's solid and has some really great lenses available. I
use a RB67 which is truly a great camera but the P67 has those fast
optics that are still singing a siren song to me. I've always though
that using that 105/2.4 Takumar along with some Delta 3200 for
hand-held shooting would be perfect.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> Dave Martindale wrote:
> > Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> writes:
> >
> > >Let's keep things in pragmatic context here. MTF is the
> > >ability of the _entire_ imaging system to resolve detail:
> > >imager, optics, etc.

If this were correct, then neither Canon nor Zeiss (in their lens specs) nor
Fuji nor Kodak (in their film specs), would provide MTF charts. But,
surprise:
they all do.

>> > Nyquist limits the entire digital
> > >system. Nyquist does not affect film or film optics.
> >
> > >That's a scientific fact.
> >
> > It's an irrelevant fact.
>
> You're an idiot. It's the _most_ relevant fact in
> digital resolving abilities. If it weren't, there would
> be no need to have as many pixles (photodetector sites)
> as possible on a silicon sensor. Or in a scanner.

It's irrelevant because it doesn't tell you what you need to know, namely
the lp/mm at 50% and 10% MTF.

Again, your blind faith in film is based on a mistaken belief that than an
MTF of 10% or lower is useful for pictorial imaging: it's not. In actual
use, for the same size sensor area, film is pitiful in comparison to
digital. Full-frame 35mm film, even the best films around, is only slightly
better than 6MP digital which has less than 40% of the area.

> Go ahead. try to put a Leica lens on your little digital
> P&S. You'd just be wasting your money all all that good
> quality opitical resolution.

Quite the contrary: the digital P&S camera lenses have a far higher 50%MTF
resolution than Leica lenses. The Sony and Canon P&S lenses provide MTFs at
100 lp/mm that Leica can only dream of at 50 lp/mm.

Try making an A4 print from an 6.6 x 8.8 mm area of film: it would be a
horrendously pitiful joke. Yet the 2/3" P&S cameras make lovely A4s.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> writes:

>You're an idiot. It's the _most_ relevant fact in
>digital resolving abilities. If it weren't, there would
>be no need to have as many pixles (photodetector sites)
>as possible on a silicon sensor. Or in a scanner.

It's relevant when comparing digital systems. It's relevant when
understanding the limits of digital system. But you're comparing
digital systems to film which has no Nyquist limit, and implying that
*simply because film does not have this limit it must be better*.
That's complete nonsense. Nyquist is just another limit in a system
that has several resolution-limiting factors.

If you care about resolution, compare resolution. It just doesn't
matter whether the resolution limit is caused by Nyquist limits in one
case and by film grain size or emulsion thickness in the other case.
Just compare actual performance.

Dave

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:30:51 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
wrote:

>I gave up chemical film year ago. There is no good chemical film for
>everyday usage. With digital pictures are everyday.

You should have tried TMY !

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!