If you ever try a E-10 or E-20 and output with Fuji Frontier you will
totally change you mind, the tonal gradations is better than all
traditional one hour lab with film (at least here for what I have seen
for twenty years). In noise aspect, E-10 and 20 are not the best at
this moment, you will be amazing on the grainless of Canon D30 and
Fuji F1 Pro (haven't seen the D1X yet). What the digital lack at this
moment is high resolution.
C.H.Ling
Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
> A few weeks ago, there was a discussion of the relative merits of film versus
> digital, with the metric of goodness being how large an enlargement each
> format would support, and it appears that visual sharpness was the issue.
>
> There is a bit more to it than that. Color (and grayscale) fidelity very
> much depends on the dynamic range and intensity resolution of the recording
> media. This is always true, regardless of the media, silicon CCD or
> silver-based film.
>
> The science is that the human eye uses subtle gradations in intensity and
> color to infer the 3D shape of a subject from a 2D image of that subject.
> This is true on the retina viewing a 3D world, and certainly true when
> viewing a photograph. If the fidelity is insufficient, the photo will look
> flat. The higher the fidelity, the more the photograph will look more like a
> window framing the subject and less like a snapshot.
>
> With a given kind of film, the grain is of constant physical size on the film
> surface. The larger the negative, the smaller the grain (noise) is compared
> to an optical resolution element in the image, and the higher the effective
> dynamic range.
>
> In black and white, this makes the tonal gradations smoother and more
> accurate. Ansel Adams was the master of this, and wrote extensively on the
> issue.
>
> With color, each of the three color layers is in effect a black and white
> film, and so the larger the negative the smoother and more accurate are the
> gradations in each color, leading to more accurate color rendition in
> addition to smooth and accurate total intensity.
>
> This is why photos for magazine ads are done on 4x5 minimum, with lots of
> 8x10 being used. The minimum is medium-format, used for ads in newspapers
> (with less resoultion than slick magazines). News photos are usually 35mm,
> however.
>
> The CCDs used in digital cameras have a parallel problem. The smaller the
> pixels (microns by microns), the lower the dynamic range of the image, the
> less sensitive the camera, and the noiser the image. Scientific CCDs tend to
> have big pixels (to capture and hold lots of photoelectrons), and also to be
> cooled (to reduce dark noise).
>
> At my company XMAS party, somebody was using a 2.1-megapixel point&shoot with
> a built-in pipsqueak flash. The photos were terrible -- looked flat and
> cartoonish, especially faces. Part of this was due to the photo exceeding
> the gamut (color range) of the inkjet color printer, but the photos weren't
> that great on the screen either. They would have been far better off with a
> film camera, even a $10 disposable camera.
>
> Joe Gwinn
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|