Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 35mm film lost the battle against digital ?

Subject: Re: [OM] 35mm film lost the battle against digital ?
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 12:38:30 -0500
At 01:50 10/7/02, you wrote:
Wow, so much for just a quote ! :-) I didn't even read the whole article, just followed the link from photo.net , skipped over to theconclusion and posted a couple of lines from there that I thought would stir up a real controversy ! Apparently its working ;-)
 I will study the article later and maybe post some comments.

-Tim

Tim,
A lot of this is what the pixelheads would like everyone to believe. You have to peel the onion to find out what their assumptions are. On this I believe CH Ling and I agree: they're often unstated and require reverse engineering to determine how they get their numbers. All too often it's based on a very top end digital with world-class lens(es) compared to the capability of a low end consumer color negative film and low end consumer zoom lens.

For practical application, resolution must be considered for the system which is a combination of at least lens and film. Film *does* make an enormous difference. Kodak Gold 100 (now called "Bright Sun") is a horridly coarse-grained film. It's grainier than Supra 400 or Portra 400NC, and nearly as coarse as Supra 800 or Portra 800. It falls about mid-way between ISO 400 and ISO 800 professional color negative films.

If the "final image" is extended to prints from negatives, then enlarger optics and print materials must also be included. In this case, one can stop at comparison of film and digital file, as this is the baseline from which a print could be made.

-- John


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz