Hi C.H., Ken, Fernando, Dawid, Chuck and all,
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Film may have very high absolution resolution (for B/W lines) but the pixel
>quality of digial image is just better, see here a scan of RVP50 at 4000dpi
>with 4000ED and a 21MP 5D II capture, both taken with 24/2.
>
><http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/ST-10004.jpg (6.8MB)>
>
><http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0918.JPG (5.5MB)>
Interesting comparison. However, here film has a handycap: it's an analog
medium which has to be converted to the digital domain, in order to compare
it against the 5D-II picture. But what if we make the opposite: projecting
the digital file vs. the slide in a decent (no need to be ultra-expensive)
projector? Probably the digital file wouldn't look that good...
There's always some lose in the conversion -- either way.
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>1. It is simply amazing how well a roll of RVP50 at 4000dpi holds up in
>comparison to the current "affordable" digital state of the art. Yes,
>digital has an edge, but not dramatically so.
And RVP is not state of the art, at least concerning grain. Astia 100-F is
finer and not that bad in resolution/sharpness (without the lateral halation
issues of Provia).
Sure, digital is improving by the day, but at least Fuji seems commited to
develop (pun intended) new emulsions -- Kodak and the almost-defunct Ilford
are more, er, sedate.
>I can tell CH's technique is
>impeccable.
So do I, this is a really superb example!
>2. There is substantially better color and tonal sublety, in my opinion, in
>the film shot than the digital shot.
And this is what we are seeing from the scan on our monitors... the original
slide could be even better!
>You can see the differences too, in
>how film handles the transitions in the highlights over in the upper-right
>part of the picture.
Sure, that's why I got used to keep -2/3 compensation set all the time on
the digicam, many times at the cost of less clean shadows, but highlights
clip so badly in digital...
>Is digital "better"? In raw resolution, absolutely.
What is "raw" resolution? You can't compare lpmm to pixels/mm, even doubling
the first figure: with film, you can record a "line" (of 1/lpmm minimum
width, of course) here, there, a tiny bit to the left, slanted, etc; but
with digital it _must_ lay right on a pixel _or_ on the adjacent one(s) --
otherwise, you get just a grey blob.
>However, most of us choose to spend the money for the digital solution.
Each medium has its advantages. For convenience, there's no match for
digital! And if the final product is going to be in the digital domain, you
can bet you'll get more quality starting from a digital source.
From: Fernando Gonzalez Gentile <fgonzalezgentile@xxxxxxxxx>
>.... but with a dslr, anyone shall need a computer. And still, you
>don't have a picture in your hands, you might have a file if the
>computer is working properly, if you were able to pay for the
>electricity it needs, and so on.
>OTOH, if I have a processed Velvia frame, well ... it's here just in
>front of my eyes.
Couldn't agree more... and don't forget the 'centralized' failures: you may
lose a roll (36 exp) from time to time, instead of a hard disk failure with
thousands of pics -- as we all know, backups are for sissies, aren't they?
:-) :-) :-)
In the long run, the slide or other analog medium _will_ degrade, for sure;
but it's better to make a copy of a somewhat impaired picture than staring
at a "can't read this file" alert box :-(
>Why must a technology depend on the existence of another ... it may
>depend, but not must.
Technology, in itself, is nothing more than a sequence of ideas -- each
depending on the previous one. But when some advanced technology depends on
another, parallel, advanced technology, bad things happen.
An "old" car with a depleted battery just needs a little push to start and
keep going -- try this with a 21th century vehicle :-(
A "wrong message" thru the CAN-bus may do the following for a couple of
seconds:
-Temporary "denial of service" of the gauges.
-Resetting the partial odometer, ruining whatever computation you had on it
:-(
-Showing exterior temperature as 0 degrees, slowly rising to the actual
value.
-The volume of the radio going down back to factory settings.
-Power steering losing its assistance for that couple of seconds -- but
potentially dangerous if it happens into a roundabout!
...and then, the mechanics ask 50 EUR just for "reprogramming the whole car"
-- and fix nothing >:-(
>Each time I show up there, I find less and less people ordering prints.
The local lab has a poster advising: "Foto revelada, foto salvada" (Printed
picture, saved picture). See above.
>Aprox. 1/4 of them bring
>laptops, and they show their pictures using Vista picture viewer or
>Picassa - no they don't bring prints.
Or in HiTech cellphones... and what about those 'digital frames'?
>In fact I feel that they're not
>showing photographs, I feel they're showing their new laptops.
"When the wise man points at the moon, the dumb men look at his finger" :-)
From: Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Your scanning technique is impeccable, and the film shot holds up very
>well.
It really is. The main dawback of film, as seen on this great example, is
grain; but that isn't always evil.
When I got my first digicam in 2003, the EOS-300D, I was impressed by how
"clean" the images looked even at ISO 1600! But I was looking for grain in
the feature-less mid-tone zones, like the sky (typical subject of
comparison-in-order-to-say-that-digital-is-so-much-better-than-film),
whereas the digital _noise_ has as single target: shadows! Now, I find some
ugly noise even at ISO 100, while I still can look to a two-stops-pushed
Sensia 400 without terrifying myself.
>Just from my own experience, doing B&W, and optical prints, it's quite
>a different story.
The scanning procedure is "easier", I mean less intrusive, thus more quality
can be retained.
>But your examples prove that, while film is still pretty good, the
>arguments in favour of 35mm
>are less and less. Especially colour, in my opinion.
Don't forget convenience -- 35mm film cameras can be very handy, we weren't
shooting 8x10" plates all the time!
Still, film has some other advantages, besides the puntual, ocassional
differences in image quality. What use has the best digicam in the market...
with a depleted battery?
>Your examples also so vividly illustrate that which we know about film
>vs. digital - how even slide
>film has much better highlight roll-off, and how digital has much
>better shadow penetration.
Please note that two of my favourite/usual subjects are astrophotography and
dark-skinned (black) señoritas... Damn, that's not so good for digital! ;^)
>I find that I
>*cannot* replicate the tonality of
>my optical prints via purely digital means, the images are just
>completely different.
Obviously, you can do (and actually do) great things at the darkroom -- not
necessarily easy to achive with the computer.
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>But I have no idea what my next camera might be.
Anyway, it seems the megapixel war is _almost_ over. Absolute resolution is
usually (but not always!) limited by technique -- camera shake (or lack
thereof), focusing accuracy, depth of field. I wouldn't expect image files
_much_ larger than today's... but I'm afraid the OS's will be the memory
hogs, as always :-(
>Maybe the Mk III will be announced in two more years when my
>camera is 5-1/2 years old. I have no idea what features it might have
>but if it offers ISO 1,638,400 (3 stops above the just announced 1D Mk
>IV) I'll probably get one to practice photography in available darkness.
I believe that cleaner, more useable high ISO should be the goal of future
digicams, not the mere MP count.
BTW, I find rather pedantic the trend started by digicam makers of NOT
rounding the values of those extremely high ISOs. Except for 125, the
classic system had no more than two _significant_ figures on all its values,
then multiplied by powers of ten. The small "error" of quoting the above
speed as ISO 1,600,000 would be negligible in any practical use.
Yes, I know the speeds come from a logarithmic scale, in powers of two, so
some error is accumulating -- just like the difference as seen in
Gi-bi-Bytes versus GigaBytes (4.3 GiB = approx. 4.7 GB) but then no one is
quoting the faster shutter speeds as 1/8192 and the like, are they? And long
exposures too: that 30" reading in most cameras really means 32 seconds...
The same happens with "film" speeds: Ektachrome 64 has _half_ the speed of
FP4 and Plus-X, although no one rated them at ASA 128... Yes, the powers of
two are _much_ easier to be handled by computers, but are cumbersome to us
poor human beings ;-)
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
