Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Film vs. Digital @ equivalent 9 x 6 print then cropped and enl

Subject: [OM] Re: Film vs. Digital @ equivalent 9 x 6 print then cropped and enlarged
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:00:11 -0700



On Aug 14, 2004, at 12:31 PM, Simon Worby wrote:
>
> Doesn't it depend how big your monitor is? And what resolution you're 
> running it. But that does sound about right, i.e. it's highly 
> enlarged. Which is exactly what I intended: I'm trying to enlarge a 
> portion of the image sufficiently that you can see the grain & errors, 
> etc. coming in, so a comparison can be made.

This is going to be like apples and oranges. I don't think you will 
really learn anything. Go rent a DSLR for the day. Or get a friend to 
go with you who has a DSLR. Take it and your film camera to a nice 
place with a tripod and take a series of pictures of the same subject 
with the same magnification from the same place. Then you can do side 
by sides while making the images the same size. You can even work on 
each of them to see how you can make each of them the best that they 
can be. What really counts is framing a picture the way you like it and 
then seeing what you can do with that format. That way you can look at 
the same microdetail in each image and compare. I did my own comparison 
between images from my OM4T and a 5MP Coolpix 5700. That was a handy 
ratio because a 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm slide is very close twice as 
big as a 5MP image. So I could study a 100% view digital image side by 
side with a 50% view scanned image in photoshop and the details were 
the same size. It was very easy then to make a comparison. And the even 
multiples mean that you do not get the distortions Photoshop introduces 
in the odd view multiplication factors. You can do something similar 
with a 5MP Nikon 1DX which is usually readily available by the day.

>
> The human eye will see a 6.1 MP image as near perfect if it's printed 
> out on quality equipment @ 4 x 3" (by my reckoning that's 700-ish dpi 
> as the source image is 2850 x 2138).
>
> But I keep reading that it's possible to blow up a digital image to A4 
> size, say roughly 12" x 8". I make that 240-ish dpi, which I classify 
> as crap.

This is really not a realistic view of printing. You are lucky to get 
150 -200 dpi in a commercial print. I am not aware of any printing 
process that will reproduce 700 dpi. And this is not fair to the film 
camera if I understand what you intend to do. You are talking about  
taking a section of a print that is limited to about 200 dpi at best 
and scan it into a digital file and then compare it with a section of a 
digital camera file. As enthusiastic as I am about digital I would not 
be that mean to my OM. But maybe I misunderstood.

Winsor
Long Beach, California


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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