How is it missing the point. The quality of the large print from digital is
better.
Sharper, whatever you want to call it, to the eye, it is better and the
margin is not small
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard F. Man" <richard-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>; <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:45 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: Digital vs. Film discussions REQUEST TO DSLR USERS
>I am not sure why people keep arguing about this. Digital "looks" better,
> even at 3-4MP. The lack of grains make it look sharper. So keep saying the
> DSLR enlargement looks better or looks sharper is missing the point.
>
> At 06:22 PM 8/14/2004, Tom Scales wrote:
>>...Seems like a reasonable comparison. The Zuiko is a better lens
>>(smoother),
>>so film gets that advantage.
>>
>>The results?
>>
>>The D100 image, printed this size, is clearly superior. Not a little bit.
>>A
>>LOT better. Grainless. Perfect. Sharp. Stunning. The OM image is good.
>> >From the right viewing distance outstanding. Up close, though, the
>> >grain is
>>very clearly visible. The scan also required considerably more effort to
>>'spot' for the inevitable dust spots.
>>...
>
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
> use richard at imagecraft.com)
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|