Digital V Film Finale!!!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jules" <post@newsgroup.com> wrote:

> 35mm film can make a higher quality bigger picture at the moment (based on
> 8MP), but digital is much more useable.
>
> End?!

No. That was true of _6MP_, but doesn't appear to be true of 8MP. The
comparisons I've seen show very similar levels of photographically
significant detail. For photographically significant detail, several sites
found 6MP to be around 80% of 35mm.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

Also, 35mm film is a major disaster (compared to 6MP dSLRs) at ISO 400 and
higher.

Also, the experience here is that getting the best from film is a bear but
getting the best from digital is a lot easier.

Also, if you really need better quality than 6MP provides, 35mm isn't enough
better to make a noticeable difference; you need medium or large format.
(But MF scanners are painfully expensive, making MF not an option for most
people.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:cpipv7$sa9$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Jules" <post@newsgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > 35mm film can make a higher quality bigger picture at the moment (based
on
> > 8MP), but digital is much more useable.
> >
> > End?!
>
> No. That was true of _6MP_, but doesn't appear to be true of 8MP. The
> comparisons I've seen show very similar levels of photographically
> significant detail. For photographically significant detail, several sites
> found 6MP to be around 80% of 35mm.
>
> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
>
> Also, 35mm film is a major disaster (compared to 6MP dSLRs) at ISO 400 and
> higher.
>
> Also, the experience here is that getting the best from film is a bear but
> getting the best from digital is a lot easier.
>
> Also, if you really need better quality than 6MP provides, 35mm isn't
enough
> better to make a noticeable difference; you need medium or large format.
> (But MF scanners are painfully expensive, making MF not an option for most
> people.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
I would disagree only slightly on one point. I have not tried it yet, but I
think my Epson 3200 scanner should do a good job on medium format film. I am
thinking that I might get a medium format camera if I ever need a sharper
image than my digital provides. As I am still shooting with my Oly E-10 at 4
mp I thought that I would have to move up before I could do anything bigger
than 8x10 but my new Epson 2200 printer does a great job with them at
12x16....perfect for 16x20 frames and full frame for my camera. I am blown
away by the results as is everyone who sees them. Of course more mp would be
better...but its not urgent. I really wanted a bigger Epson printer (Ok...I
still want the 9600) but now that I have this printer I can now think about
a better camera before I need a better printer. Since I cannot know when I
will eventually win the lottery and buy the Mamiya ZD that I really want, I
am thinking that the Fuji S3 might be my next camera.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> End....not a chance! I, for one, disagree....and most reports disagree. To
> beat 8mp you will need medium format...and the 14-22 mp cameras are taking
> on medium format. The government is said to have cameras that rival sheet
> film...

BetterLight cameras are reportedly even better. But they are scanning
backs, very slow and very expensive. (scanning time around a minute.)

--
- Eolake
--
email@maccreator.com
http://MacCreator.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <r16vd.9310$sr2.5216@trndny02>,
> Gene Palmiter <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >End....not a chance! I, for one, disagree....and most reports
disagree. To
> >beat 8mp you will need medium format...and the 14-22 mp cameras are
taking
> >on medium format.
>
> Clarification, they're taking on 645 medium format. They're a long
way from
> a Mamiya 7, or a decent TLR loaded with Provia 100F.

A TLR (6x6 format) *is* 6x4.5 for all intents and purposes, unless you
can live with the square format and never crop.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:

> "Jules" <post@newsgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> 35mm film can make a higher quality bigger picture at the moment (based on
>> 8MP), but digital is much more useable.
>>
>> End?!
>
> No. That was true of _6MP_, but doesn't appear to be true of 8MP. The
> comparisons I've seen show very similar levels of photographically
> significant detail. For photographically significant detail, several sites
> found 6MP to be around 80% of 35mm.

"Better" isn't clearly defined. I'm not used to seeing 16x20s from
35mm that match what I can get from 6mp.

> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
>
> Also, 35mm film is a major disaster (compared to 6MP dSLRs) at ISO 400 and
> higher.

Very true.

> Also, the experience here is that getting the best from film is a bear but
> getting the best from digital is a lot easier.

I'd agree with that, too.

> Also, if you really need better quality than 6MP provides, 35mm isn't enough
> better to make a noticeable difference; you need medium or large format.
> (But MF scanners are painfully expensive, making MF not an option for most
> people.)

So go to large format -- big enough that a relatively cheap flatbed
(I'm thinking Epson 4878 or whatever that number is -- a bit under
$500, *relatively* cheap) can do the job :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1102949096.251408.253820@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
BC <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Chris Brown wrote:
>> In article <r16vd.9310$sr2.5216@trndny02>,
>> Gene Palmiter <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >End....not a chance! I, for one, disagree....and most reports
>disagree. To
>> >beat 8mp you will need medium format...and the 14-22 mp cameras are
>taking
>> >on medium format.
>>
>> Clarification, they're taking on 645 medium format. They're a long
>way from
>> a Mamiya 7, or a decent TLR loaded with Provia 100F.
>
>A TLR (6x6 format) *is* 6x4.5 for all intents and purposes, unless you
>can live with the square format and never crop.

You make it sound like such a chore. I *love* square format. Just seems to
give me much nicer compositions than rectangles most of the time:

http://www.narcissus.uklinux.net/Beer.jpg
http://www.narcissus.uklinux.net/Waterfall.jpg

Both taken on a Yashica Mat 124G on Velvia 50, scanned with an Epson 4870.
The first one is 1/30s handheld, which is a reason to love TLRs as well. ;-)

And the tiresome decisions about whether to take the shot in portrait or
landscape mode just vanish into thin air.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <oDivd.3450$P14.2749@trndny05>,
"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Eolake Stobblehouse" <eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net> wrote in message
>news:131220040529256469%eolake@maccreator.spamremove.net...

>> BetterLight cameras are reportedly even better. But they are scanning
>> backs, very slow and very expensive. (scanning time around a minute.)
>
>Hard to use for street photography!

Not if you like skewed moving subjects!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><