What I want to know is where is the microscope picture of the 10D
shot. Oh, right, that is digital. never mind.
Speaking of film resolution. Did anyone see the article in American Photo
on Clifford Ross? He built his own 9"x18" (that's inches) camera. He wants
to make really big prints, but also prints where the viewing distance is
rendered moot (that is, non-existent). I would think the equivalent in
digital would have to be a stitched photo. Which is easier, to stitch
the 10D shots, or the film.
\A/nye
At 12:19 AM 8/15/2004, you wrote:
>I have looked at this when you posted it before, but it is hard for me
>to reach any conclusion ...
>Winsor
>Long Beach, CA
>USA
>On Aug 14, 2004, at 7:38 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>> I have done lots of comparison, if just talking about resolution, film
>> is still clearly better. But for "noise" and "color", digital is a winner.
>> Below is a resolution test I have posted before:
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/Film-10D.htm
>>
>> C.H.Ling
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|