Yup, in that sense, it's an 'unfair' comparison, unfair to the digital.
But I wanted to make it anyway. That's partly because I don't believe,
from experience, that pixel to pixel comparisons work in comparing film
to digital. Good digital gives the effect of the same quality with fewer
pixels on screen and in print for many viewers. I've heard and
participated in specualtion about why that would be so, but whatever the
cause(s), it seems to be true.
And my conclusion from my quick and dirty examples is that a 6mp DSLR is
different from, but pretty competitive in detail visible, to an old film
SLR with fine grain film. I think, for example, that the gladiola bud
detail shows subtle graduations of tone/texture (in this admittedly
limited world of 8 bits) that considerably exceed those of the B&W
sample, with its apparently larger and very sharp edged grain.
Moose
Chris Barker wrote:
>Interesting Moose, but surely Walt's original has many, many more
>pixels from which to take a fraction of 1/225th? That is surely one of
>the main points: that you have much more picture material to use with
>film, scanned with a suitable scanner.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|