A recent digital film comparison

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
I may go back to film!

http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

What other *recent* comparison are you aware of? Post links please!

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
> interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
> I may go back to film!
>
> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>
> What other *recent* comparison are you aware of? Post links please!

I have seen this one before and am a bit puzzled about what you are
seeing that would make you want to go to film. Even the 10D produced
images that look as clear or clearer then the 35mm film shoots. Sure
you could shoot 4 x 5, but you will need a pretty good scanner to
handle film that size. Which two images were you looking at where you
thought film make the better looking photo?

The 20D produces clearer images then the 10D and so I would expect it
to do even better in this comparison.

One thing that I have learned is it is very hard to tell how well a
print will look from these extreme close up views, you really need to
make prints to tell how well a give image will look.

Scott

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1118953047.311979.149770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
casioculture@gmail.com says...
>
> Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
> interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
> I may go back to film!
>
> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

I guess that film scans can compete with film, if you use a sharp lens.
My brother used an inexpensive 28-200 zoom, which apparently didn't
deliver too sharp results. For what concerns resolution we are at the
level of a 4MP camera.

The blue skies however contain a disproportionate amount of noise
(despite the quite decent 4000 dpi Nikon scanner with digital ICE).
Overall the quality of these scans is lower than the quality of even a
5MP compact digital camera.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 16 Jun 2005 13:17:27 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
>interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
>I may go back to film!
>
>http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>
>What other *recent* comparison are you aware of? Post links please!

Very poor comparison.

"The Canon 1Ds 11mp DSLR outperforms 4000 dpi 35mm film scans by a
significant margin and may be competitive with medium format scans of
6X6 and 6X4.5cm films," So why would I want to do film?

And if he's going to compare digital SLR smaller format to MF film
how about looking at MF digital cameras and comparing them to MF film?

******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

Very well-written technical article. I sure hope you get
an "A" in your class!

--
ATM, aka Jerry

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118953047.311979.149770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
> interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
> I may go back to film!

Film is nice but I'll never go back.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Charles Schuler wrote:

> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118953047.311979.149770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
> > interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
> > I may go back to film!
>
> Film is nice but I'll never go back.

Why are you posting to film groups then?

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

What scanner? Nikon 8000/9000? Imacon? Drum scanner? Or cheapish scanner?

On 16/6/05 21:34, in article rvn3b1d9evo4vqsn9sa35uhuggsuoau62d@4ax.com,
"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> "The Canon 1Ds 11mp DSLR outperforms 4000 dpi 35mm film scans by a
> significant margin and may be competitive with medium format scans of
> 6X6 and 6X4.5cm films," So why would I want to do film?
>
>

Reply to nobody

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com> wrote

> Digital is just like film, only easier because you can take hundreds
> and hundreds of pictures and it doesn't cost you a dime.

You mean that $14,000 price tag was just a joke? Hallelujah!

Film, 30c / pic. $14,000/0.30 = Why that's only 47,667 pictures
to break even, about 2 1/2 hours shooting at 5 fps: you can do
that with digital. Take 47,667 pictures in a row with
an FM2 and your thumb and forefinger's gonna drop off, not
to mention changing the film 1,300 times.

For a more modest $1,000 expense [digital technology is
the worst 'investment' you can make] -> I only need to
take 3,333 pictures, say 100 rolls. If I shot 2 rolls
a week in only one year I'd break even.

Course with film I get a hardcopy of every shot I took.
Printing the same 47,667 4x6's on a good dye sub printer
should take ... well I'll be dead by then.

You _really_ have to work digital technology _hard_ to
get it to pay for itself. Figure 10-20 years for payback.
I can do that with an FM2, had it since ~85, $240 (?),
hmm, that's 12 dollars a year - about the cost of a
new throw-away disposable camera or two every year.

IBM big iron may make sense. PC's don't. They are just _fun_.
Biggest advantage of PC's is that the secretaries don't talk back,
they ain't coming back.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in news:Lmose.5957$VK4.3107
@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> You mean that $14,000 price tag was just a joke?

"Output from the 6mp 10D in most photographic situations is as good or
better than my 4000 dpi film scans from 35mm Provia F ISO 100 film."

Where did the other $13,000 come from?

Or did you mean YOU are joking?

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:

>
> The blue skies however contain a disproportionate amount of noise
> (despite the quite decent 4000 dpi Nikon scanner with digital ICE).
> Overall the quality of these scans is lower than the quality of even a
> 5MP compact digital camera.

I too have been disappointed in scans even from medium format using a LS8000
scanner. With a lot of work they can deliver a bit more detail than an 8MP
camera can and if I was making LARGE prints it might be more obvious but in
8X10 and even 11X14, they just doesn't seem much better to me unless there
is a BUNCH of -very- fine detail that is important to capture. I might be
inclined to shoot medium format if I was shooting some detailed landscapes,
especially with a wide angle perspective but it isn't overwhelming. I do
doubt I'll ever shoot 35mm film again.

--

Stacey

Reply to Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

> <fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Digital is just like film, only easier because you can take hundreds
>> and hundreds of pictures and it doesn't cost you a dime.
>
> You mean that $14,000 price tag was just a joke? Hallelujah!
>
> Film, 30c / pic.

Where do you buy your film and have it processed? ARe we talking medium
format here?

--

Stacey

Reply to Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Eric Gill wrote:

> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in news:Lmose.5957$VK4.3107
> @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> > You mean that $14,000 price tag was just a joke?
>
> "Output from the 6mp 10D in most photographic situations is as good or
> better than my 4000 dpi film scans from 35mm Provia F ISO 100 film."
>
> Where did the other $13,000 come from?
>
> Or did you mean YOU are joking?

Usenet's a weird place. These posts make it look like every film image
needs to be scanned. Not true - not even close. Wet prints still blow
away scanned film and consumer printed digital files. Does anyone project
slides anymore? I do and enjoy the experience more than viewing images on
a CRT.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

why dont you say.... compare at $10k camera with something equivalent?

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rvn3b1d9evo4vqsn9sa35uhuggsuoau62d@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jun 2005 13:17:27 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
>>interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
>>I may go back to film!
>>
>>http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>>
>>What other *recent* comparison are you aware of? Post links please!
>
> Very poor comparison.
>
> "The Canon 1Ds 11mp DSLR outperforms 4000 dpi 35mm film scans by a
> significant margin and may be competitive with medium format scans of
> 6X6 and 6X4.5cm films," So why would I want to do film?
>
> And if he's going to compare digital SLR smaller format to MF film
> how about looking at MF digital cameras and comparing them to MF film?
>
>
> ******************************************************
>
> "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
> my testimony. The events I have recorded should
> not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
>
> -James Nachtwey-
> http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"death skunk five" <evokenny@hotmail.com> wrote:

> why dont you say.... compare at $10k camera with something equivalent?

Because there's the naive hope that an affordable 12MP or more camera may
appear at some time in the future.

(1) The new D2x seems to be performing quite similarly to the original 1Ds,
and the the D2x sensor shouldn't be any more expensive than any other 1.5x
sensor. That implies a lot better than 35mm for US$1500.

(2) Also, if 36x48mm MF backs appear in the under US$10,000 range, then a
36x24mm sensor camera should be profitable in the under US$2500 range. 645
quality with dSLR convenience. Sounds good to me.

The problem is deciding what to buy _this year_. I've had 3 good years of
use out of my Nikon 8000 (Nikon CLA'd it for US$150 and it should be good
for another 2 years). But if either of the above cameras comes out in the
next year, how unhappy are you going to be if you bought a Nikon 9000 this
year? The Nikon 8000/9000 + 6x7 will (I think) beat 12MP digital and edge
out 16.7MP digital at 13x19 and over. But 4x5 scanned on an Epson 4990 will
trounce all of the above. So next generation digital + 4x5 may be a better
combination than, say, Nikon 8000 + 645 + 6x7 for very similar amounts of
money. (And 6x7 on the 4990 isn't bad at all in the meantime.)

>>>http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

>> "The Canon 1Ds 11mp DSLR outperforms 4000 dpi 35mm film scans by a
>> significant margin and may be competitive with medium format scans of
>> 6X6 and 6X4.5cm films," So why would I want to do film?
>>
>> And if he's going to compare digital SLR smaller format to MF film
>> how about looking at MF digital cameras and comparing them to MF film?

MF digital cameras will never be in the affordable/liftable class. (Or at
least not for a long long time.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
> MF digital cameras will never be in the affordable/liftable class. (Or at
> least not for a long long time.)

I can understand about "affordable" but I don't understand why digital
cameras really need to be bigger or heavier than the comparable film
cameras. In particular I dunno what's in a Nikon D70 that's not also
in a random 6mp P/S digicam, except the APS-sized sensor, and film APS
cameras drop in your shirt pocket.

By the way, a Dalsa evaluation kit with the 22mp, 36x48mm sensor costs
about $10K. So it should be possible to make a complete camera for a
comparable amount.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote
> Nicholas Lindan wrote:
> > Someone wrote:
> > > Taking digital pictures is free, whee!
> > You mean that $14,000 price tag [for going digital] was just a joke?
> "Output from the 6mp 10D in most photographic situations is as good or
> better than my 4000 dpi film scans from 35mm Provia F ISO 100 film."
> [not quite sure what this has to do with $14,000, but I will take it
.. on faith. Ed.]

You are right: someone said it on the internet; it has to be true.
Everyone's image standards are the same, even my blind Granny's.

Try this site: http://clarkvision.com/index.html

> Where did the other $13,000 come from?

You don't know? Well I want my Leaf back. And $5,000 for
the computer. And $4,000 for a good 42" gicle printer.
And $500 for a tablet. And. And. And. How about a drum
scanner ... And we HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED buying a camera
and lenses yet ... you still need those, you know.

$13,000 is small change in our brave computerized digital
world, don't sweat it. Sixty minutes of schedule over-run on
a good size programming project will eat that $13,000 up
and ask for more.

> Or did you mean YOU are joking?
I never joke. See any smileys? No. Well then there can't be
any jokes, right? Follow up to *.kibology.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote

> > How much film can you buy for the cost of all your digital gear?
> Roughly a week to a week and a half, on my schedule.

I think I have found the source of the difugalty:
"How much digital gear can you buy for a week's worth of film?"

Me, it's a down payment on an ink cartridge.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com kirjoitti:

> ... you can take hundreds
> and hundreds of pictures and it doesn't cost you a dime.

Only if a few assumptions can be made:
- The batteries of your camera last forever
- The memory of your camera never runs out
- You never copy your images to CD-Rs that need to be stored in a safe place
- You never have a need to re-copy the CD-Rs to whatever happens the be
the current medium in years 2010, 2020, etc.

Digital photography does have its consumables. A dime per photo won't
take you far.

-- Lassi

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <42B23652.DCE25AC9@banet.net>, <steven.sawyer@banet.net> wrote:
>Eric Gill wrote:
>These posts make it look like every film image
>needs to be scanned. Not true - not even close. Wet prints still blow
>away scanned film and consumer printed digital files.

I recently compared a 300dpi scan of a 50x75cm print of a Portra 160VC 35mm
frame to a 4000dpi scan of the same frame. There was no real difference
(when it comes to details) between the scans.

--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

biphoto@hotmail.com wrote:

>Sadly just because I have a digital camera does not mean I am free from
>film, I sill have a large number of my own negatives and slide that I
>have to scan, and negatives of my father's and slide from my
>grandmother. By and large the 35mm negatives and slide produce pretty
>bad looking photos, but it is the memories that I am really after, my
>father shot a fair bit of MF and many of those do much better,
>ironically they remind me of the output from the 20D. Before everyone
>starts to jump up and down on me I should point out that in the early
>days, when these photos were taken, my father did not have real good
>cameras, either 35mm or MF.

So you are comparing poor quality 35mm photos with digital.

No wonder digital appears to "win".

;-)

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote:
>
>This is an interesting observation as I've noticed that most digital
>shooters take fewer shots than my Father did with his old 8 exposure
>Brownie (which required flahsbulbs to boot). The other day I was at a
>kid's birthday party and the Father, a proud owner of an Olympus digital
>camera, had to be coaxed to take a couple of pictures of some
>particularly cute scenes. I told him that he had unlimited picture
>taking capablility with a digital camera and he replied that his wife
>made him retain all of the pictures he took. If I had had my 35mm
>rangefinder, I would certainly have burnt through a roll of 36 exposures
>at this party. I doubt this guy took more than eight pictures.

An interesting choice of individual to "illustrate" your point, which
is of course completely wrong. Most people shooting digital take
significantly more photos than with film. It doesn't take much
intellect to work out why.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Recently, casioculture@gmail.com <casioculture@gmail.com> posted:

> Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
> interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
> I may go back to film!
>
> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>
As always, such comparisons disregard considerations of what is important
about an image to the photographer. This is quite obvious in the examples
provided in this comparison. To those who only want to avoid seeing any
grain, digital will win most of the time. To those who want detail and
subtle gradations, digital will lose most of the time. The best scenario
is that the photographer chooses the medium based on the most important
aspects of the image, in just the same way that one chose a film to use
before digital.

Neil

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:46:32 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"death skunk five" <evokenny@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> why dont you say.... compare at $10k camera with something equivalent?
>
>Because there's the naive hope that an affordable 12MP or more camera may
>appear at some time in the future.

Affordable means different things to different people. There are
affordable 16mp camera you can buy today if you want to afford it.

*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1118953047.311979.149770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
casioculture@gmail.com says...
>
> Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
> interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
> I may go back to film!
>
> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>
> What other *recent* comparison are you aware of? Post links please!
>

Not a comparison, but an example of what modern film can do:
http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html

Modern medium speed color negative film is very sharp, has minimal grain
and has a very wide dynamic range. When combined with good camera
technique and a modern scanner, the results are better than ever before.

I continue to use film because many of my pix are taken with equipment
for which there is no digital equivalent. This includes the 12mm Heliar
ultra-wide angle lens for 35mm (120 degree coverage) and swing lens
panoramic cameras.

I think too much emphasis is placed on how the picture was taken and
not enough on the success of the final image in achieving the
photographer's goals.
A futile remark, I guess, in an equipment-oriented news group!

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, casioculture@gmail.com <casioculture@gmail.com> posted:
>
>
>>Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
>>interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
>>I may go back to film!
>>
>>http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>>
>
> As always, such comparisons disregard considerations of what is important
> about an image to the photographer. This is quite obvious in the examples
> provided in this comparison. To those who only want to avoid seeing any
> grain, digital will win most of the time. To those who want detail and
> subtle gradations, digital will lose most of the time. The best scenario
> is that the photographer chooses the medium based on the most important
> aspects of the image, in just the same way that one chose a film to use
> before digital.

These statements are incorrect. The dslrvsfilm.htm is pretty close to
what many other studies find, and while they may not have gotten all the
detail off of the film, its pretty close, and close enough to not
change the major conclusions.

I switched from 35mm film to digital a few years ago (I still do velvia in 4x5).
If you haven't already been there here are my digital versus film pages:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagede [...] mary1.html

Digital pixels are "different" than film pixels.
This mostly has to do with the MTF, grain structure, and
signal-to-noise ratio of film versus digital. Film has a slow drop
in MTF at higher spatial frequencies versus digital, the grain structure
contributes to apparent noise, and digital with its much higher
quantum efficiency has many times less noise.

Here are comparisons of film and digital:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagede [...] gital.html

Derived equations and trends in resolution versus film type and speed
compared to digital:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagede [...] tal.1.html

The trade point in film versus digital resolution is that ISO 100 speed
film is equivalent to 6 to 8 megapixels. But digital has much higher signal
to noise ratios, about 6 times with fine grained film, see:

The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images and Comparison to Film
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail [...] l.to.noise

The better signal-to-noise and 12-bit output of good digital cameras
gives better image dynamic range and tonality than film.

It is the higher signal-to-noise that allows one to "uprez" digital
more than film. When you increase the "resolution" you trade artifacts
and signal-to-noise for the increase. Photoshop has only simple
tools (the unsharp mask) that only gives apparent increases in sharpness,
but is very quick. Better algorithms require a lot of computations.
For example, see:
Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1

I show factors of 2 increases in resolution without excessive increases
in noise, so an 8-megapixel camera can give a 32 megapixel compared to
film and still have lower noise. This propels all digital cameras
in the 8-megapixel range well above even fine grained film.

So, what camera to choose? If you want quality images, the size of the
pixel and sensor are major drivers. See:

Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail [...] ize.matter

When I started scanning my film (home and drum scans) 9 years ago, I saw an
immediate increase in print quality over traditional printing, both in
control over the contrast and color as well as increase in print
sharpness.

With 8-megapixel digital, I can make nice 16x20s without too much effort,
and larger with increasing computer efforts. But just like darkroom work
is an art, so is computer image processing, each with a big learning curve.

"Velvia response" from digital: easy, but requires processing. The "characteristic
curves" of digital are close to print film. See Figure 8b at:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

But with the high signal-to-noise of digital, you can change the
characteristic (or transfer) curve to give a velvia response. The advantage
of this is one can keep detail in the shadows unlike slide film.
Digital Camera images allow much better control and flexibility than film,
and digital covers a higher dynamic range (the is a big misconception
about digital camera dynamic range, but the above page shows the
major differences).

But for landscapes, velvia in 4x5 is unmatched by any DSLR. ;-)

Hope this helps.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<steven.sawyer@banet.net> wrote in message
news:42B1FCAC.F21380CD@banet.net...
> Charles Schuler wrote:
>
>> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118953047.311979.149770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
>> > interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
>> > I may go back to film!
>>
>> Film is nice but I'll never go back.
>
> Why are you posting to film groups then?

I responded to a post that was cross-posted. Get on the original poster's
back if you want to chide someone.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

None of this reflects the fact that film simply LOOKS better than
digital. On digital, human skin looks like vinyl.

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
> > Recently, casioculture@gmail.com <casioculture@gmail.com> posted:
> >
> >
> >>Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
> >>interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
> >>I may go back to film!
> >>
> >>http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> >>
> >
> > As always, such comparisons disregard considerations of what is important
> > about an image to the photographer. This is quite obvious in the examples
> > provided in this comparison. To those who only want to avoid seeing any
> > grain, digital will win most of the time. To those who want detail and
> > subtle gradations, digital will lose most of the time. The best scenario
> > is that the photographer chooses the medium based on the most important
> > aspects of the image, in just the same way that one chose a film to use
> > before digital.
>
> These statements are incorrect. The dslrvsfilm.htm is pretty close to
> what many other studies find, and while they may not have gotten all the
> detail off of the film, its pretty close, and close enough to not
> change the major conclusions.
>
> I switched from 35mm film to digital a few years ago (I still do velvia in 4x5).
> If you haven't already been there here are my digital versus film pages:
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagede [...] mary1.html
>
> Digital pixels are "different" than film pixels.
> This mostly has to do with the MTF, grain structure, and
> signal-to-noise ratio of film versus digital. Film has a slow drop
> in MTF at higher spatial frequencies versus digital, the grain structure
> contributes to apparent noise, and digital with its much higher
> quantum efficiency has many times less noise.
>
> Here are comparisons of film and digital:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagede [...] gital.html
>
> Derived equations and trends in resolution versus film type and speed
> compared to digital:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagede [...] tal.1.html
>
> The trade point in film versus digital resolution is that ISO 100 speed
> film is equivalent to 6 to 8 megapixels. But digital has much higher signal
> to noise ratios, about 6 times with fine grained film, see:
>
> The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images and Comparison to Film
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail [...] l.to.noise
>
> The better signal-to-noise and 12-bit output of good digital cameras
> gives better image dynamic range and tonality than film.
>
> It is the higher signal-to-noise that allows one to "uprez" digital
> more than film. When you increase the "resolution" you trade artifacts
> and signal-to-noise for the increase. Photoshop has only simple
> tools (the unsharp mask) that only gives apparent increases in sharpness,
> but is very quick. Better algorithms require a lot of computations.
> For example, see:
> Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1
>
> I show factors of 2 increases in resolution without excessive increases
> in noise, so an 8-megapixel camera can give a 32 megapixel compared to
> film and still have lower noise. This propels all digital cameras
> in the 8-megapixel range well above even fine grained film.
>
> So, what camera to choose? If you want quality images, the size of the
> pixel and sensor are major drivers. See:
>
> Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
> Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail [...] ize.matter
>
> When I started scanning my film (home and drum scans) 9 years ago, I saw an
> immediate increase in print quality over traditional printing, both in
> control over the contrast and color as well as increase in print
> sharpness.
>
> With 8-megapixel digital, I can make nice 16x20s without too much effort,
> and larger with increasing computer efforts. But just like darkroom work
> is an art, so is computer image processing, each with a big learning curve.
>
> "Velvia response" from digital: easy, but requires processing. The "characteristic
> curves" of digital are close to print film. See Figure 8b at:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
>
> But with the high signal-to-noise of digital, you can change the
> characteristic (or transfer) curve to give a velvia response. The advantage
> of this is one can keep detail in the shadows unlike slide film.
> Digital Camera images allow much better control and flexibility than film,
> and digital covers a higher dynamic range (the is a big misconception
> about digital camera dynamic range, but the above page shows the
> major differences).
>
> But for landscapes, velvia in 4x5 is unmatched by any DSLR. ;-)
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Roger
> Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in newsjuse.6817$pa3.5778
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Nicholas Lindan wrote:
>> > Someone wrote:
>> > > Taking digital pictures is free, whee!
>> > You mean that $14,000 price tag [for going digital] was just a joke?
>> "Output from the 6mp 10D in most photographic situations is as good or
>> better than my 4000 dpi film scans from 35mm Provia F ISO 100 film."
>> [not quite sure what this has to do with $14,000, but I will take it
> . on faith. Ed.]
>
> You are right: someone said it on the internet; it has to be true.
> Everyone's image standards are the same, even my blind Granny's.

Happens I agree, and the market is bearing me out.

> Try this site: http://clarkvision.com/index.html
>
>> Where did the other $13,000 come from?
>
> You don't know?

Since this is your little scenario, not mentioned in the article, of
course I don't.

> Well I want my Leaf back. And $5,000 for
> the computer. And $4,000 for a good 42" gicle printer.
> And $500 for a tablet. And. And. And. How about a drum
> scanner ... And we HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED buying a camera
> and lenses yet ... you still need those, you know.

Well, sure.

But - you start by insisting on buying a much more expensive piece of
hardware than the article was referring to, then tack on things you might
buy whether you're using film or not - and then "forget" that the film
process would require a scanner as well.

And before you try to tell us that the film user can just use a photo lab
for all of this, you may be surprised to learn that this is quite true
for digital users too.

<snip>

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote in
news:fnb5b1937hpm1jnrf8902e3r895vhsbfs6@4ax.com:

> steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote:
>>
>>This is an interesting observation as I've noticed that most digital
>>shooters take fewer shots than my Father did with his old 8 exposure
>>Brownie (which required flahsbulbs to boot). The other day I was at a
>>kid's birthday party and the Father, a proud owner of an Olympus digital
>>camera, had to be coaxed to take a couple of pictures of some
>>particularly cute scenes. I told him that he had unlimited picture
>>taking capablility with a digital camera and he replied that his wife
>>made him retain all of the pictures he took. If I had had my 35mm
>>rangefinder, I would certainly have burnt through a roll of 36 exposures
>>at this party. I doubt this guy took more than eight pictures.
>
>
> An interesting choice of individual to "illustrate" your point, which
> is of course completely wrong. Most people shooting digital take
> significantly more photos than with film. It doesn't take much
> intellect to work out why.

Yep.

Cost.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Recently, Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <username@qwest.net>
posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, casioculture@gmail.com <casioculture@gmail.com> posted:
>>
>>
>>> Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
>>> interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice
>>> scanner I may go back to film!
>>>
>>> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>>>
>>
>> As always, such comparisons disregard considerations of what is
>> important about an image to the photographer. This is quite obvious
>> in the examples provided in this comparison. To those who only want
>> to avoid seeing any grain, digital will win most of the time. To
>> those who want detail and subtle gradations, digital will lose most
>> of the time. The best scenario is that the photographer chooses the
>> medium based on the most important aspects of the image, in just the
>> same way that one chose a film to use before digital.
>
> These statements are incorrect. The dslrvsfilm.htm is pretty close to
> what many other studies find, and while they may not have gotten all
> the detail off of the film, its pretty close, and close enough to not
> change the major conclusions.
>
That is a matter of opinion, based on what (you) think is important about
the details in the image. So, I disagree. That doesn' t make either of our
remarks "incorrect".

> Digital pixels are "different" than film pixels.
>
Pixels are pixels. The content may differ, but pixels are pixels.

> This mostly has to do with the MTF, grain structure, and
> signal-to-noise ratio of film versus digital. Film has a slow drop
> in MTF at higher spatial frequencies versus digital, the grain
> structure contributes to apparent noise, and digital with its much
> higher quantum efficiency has many times less noise.
>
We've been through this many times, and get nowhere because of a basic
disagreement over the definition of "noise". In the traditional
signal-to-noise (s/n) usage, anything alteration of the details of the
scene can be attributed to noise. So, when I see such things as window
pane frames being eliminated from digital images , they are "noisier" than
grainy film images that reveal those frames. This is the kind of
difference that I see between digital and film media, and IMO, they are
just different qualities to consider when trying to capture a scene. YMMV.
However, digerati have "hijacked" the term "noise" to represent an aspect
of the image that has little to do with the realities of the scene.
Unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.

> The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images and Comparison to Film
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail [...] l.to.noise
>
> The better signal-to-noise and 12-bit output of good digital cameras
> gives better image dynamic range and tonality than film.
>
I disagree with this, as well, but mainly because I have yet to see images
that demonstrate this. Certainly, those images presented in the OP don't
support this claim.

Neil

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> Recently, casioculture@gmail.com <casioculture@gmail.com> posted:
>
>> Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
>> interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
>> I may go back to film!
>>
>> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>>
> As always, such comparisons disregard considerations of what is important
> about an image to the photographer. This is quite obvious in the examples
> provided in this comparison. To those who only want to avoid seeing any
> grain, digital will win most of the time. To those who want detail and
> subtle gradations, digital will lose most of the time.

The problem is that you aren't defining your terms. If you mean 6MP vs.
35mm, then sure, 35mm edges out 6MP. But at 8MP it's pretty even. And 11 or
12MP digital at ISO 100 is better than anything 35mm can dream of in terms
of detail and subtle gradations. In fact it's the subtle gradations that
digital kills film on: the grain noise in film means that film's ability to
record subtle gradations is quite limited.

> The best scenario
> is that the photographer chooses the medium based on the most important
> aspects of the image, in just the same way that one chose a film to use
> before digital.

Yes. I'm finding MF film and 6MP digital a good combination. MF does the
quality individual image shots and digital does low light, wide angle snaps,
and fun panoramas (thanks to the Canon 10-22).

But I just don't understand how anyone has any use for 35mm nowadays; it's
never been adequate for quality 11x14s, and digital is orders of magnitude
more convenient.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Digital is a consumer rip-off right now, delivering much less for the
money than film. When they've got a 16MP camera with a full frame
sensor for $200US, then I'll consider it. Until then I'll continue to
use my film cameras. "

$750 DSLR+$50 card = $800.
I have just calculated how many photos I will get for $800 from a $200
film SLR + $600(price of film+develpment), and I get 3480 photos.
[$2 for ISO-100 24exp roll + $3.50 single prints].

DSLR is worth it only if you take 5000 photos/year.
Obviously, you could review your photos, make many copies and prints,
crop, etc. and then re-use the card.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

- You never copy your images to CD-Rs that need to be stored in a safe
place

a good point;however, negatives need to be stored in a VERY safe place.
You could make digital copies unto cd-rs, dvd-rs, and whatever comes
out in 5-20 years.

- You never have a need to re-copy the CD-Rs to whatever happens the be

the current medium in years 2010, 2020, etc.

a much better point.
The fact is that no one is using computers or OS's from the 60's-90's
anymore.
how many people know how to use CP/M?
Or still use Windows 3.11? or Tape, or Jazz or Syquest or zips or
LS-120? harddrives could(and do crash).
10-30 from now you will not be able to read the photos stored on
today's media.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 16 Jun 2005 21:54:07 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>> MF digital cameras will never be in the affordable/liftable class. (Or at
>> least not for a long long time.)
>
>I can understand about "affordable" but I don't understand why digital
>cameras really need to be bigger or heavier than the comparable film
>cameras. In particular I dunno what's in a Nikon D70 that's not also
>in a random 6mp P/S digicam, except the APS-sized sensor, and film APS
>cameras drop in your shirt pocket.
>
>By the way, a Dalsa evaluation kit with the 22mp, 36x48mm sensor costs
>about $10K. So it should be possible to make a complete camera for a
>comparable amount.

You can get a Ixpress V96C, 16 Megapixel back and they give you the
Hasse 503C body all for 9K.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co [...] sku=383275

Sensor dimensions: 36.9 x 36.9 mm
******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote
> Nicholas Lindan wrote:
> > Eric Gill wrote:
> > > somebody wrote:
> > > > something
> > > See, I'm right ...
> > You are right: someone said it on the internet; it has to be true.

> Happens I agree, and the market is bearing me out.

Well, that's it then -- how could I possibly have a different
opinion than yours.

> Well, sure.
> But - you start by insisting on buying a much more expensive piece of
> hardware than the article was referring to ... blah, blah, blah

I'm sorry, do you wish to purchase an argument?

This started out tedious and is just getting worse ...
I have a feeling I have been trolled.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted:

> "Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>
>> The best scenario
>> is that the photographer chooses the medium based on the most
>> important aspects of the image, in just the same way that one chose
>> a film to use before digital.
>
> Yes. I'm finding MF film and 6MP digital a good combination. MF does
> the quality individual image shots and digital does low light, wide
> angle snaps, and fun panoramas (thanks to the Canon 10-22).
>
> But I just don't understand how anyone has any use for 35mm nowadays;
> it's never been adequate for quality 11x14s, and digital is orders of
> magnitude more convenient.
>
What I find is that both digital and 35mm have different artifacts at at
any size. Some images work better in one medium than the other. Then
again, grain bothers me a lot less than loss of detail and gradation.

Consider this sequence in the OP's "comparison":
http://sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor.htm

In the crops, look at the rocks just above the stack of boats (above the
blue one that's on top). Look at the shingles on the roof of the
lighthouse buildings. Look at the "u-drive" lettering on the sign. Unless
the attributions are screwed up, there is no contest; the Provia shots
blow away the 1Ds.

But, *most* images work better in MF or larger. ;-)

Neil

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

He is using an Epson 2450 as scanner. I have an 3200 myself.
This scanner does not make justice to film. It does simply not pull out all
the
details in my 24x36 and 6x6 slides (Velvia 100F). It also add color fringle
to
the image.
To view the finest details a x15 lupe is not enough.It needs a x30
microscope.
I have just compared some 24x36 slides with a 8MP digital SLR ( 1D Mark II).
Result was that the 24x36 had more resolution. A good way to test this is to
take some similar frames of street houses (shops) on long distance and then
look at the letter signs over the shops. Then look at the smallest you are
able to
read using a x30 microscope on the film. Then look a the raw file
(converted)
to test if you can read the same signs.

Max

<casioculture@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1118953047.311979.149770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Seems an imperfect, or arguably flawed comparison but nonetheless
> interesting. Once I'm done with my art training and buy a nice scanner
> I may go back to film!
>
> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>
> What other *recent* comparison are you aware of? Post links please!
>

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mr.Happy wrote:
<snip>
> a much better point.
> The fact is that no one is using computers or OS's from the 60's-90's
> anymore.
I'm still using NT4 on a 266 Pentium for on-line.
> how many people know how to use CP/M?
Got into it, but not that far, on my Commodore 128.
> Or still use Windows 3.11? or Tape, or Jazz or Syquest or zips or
> LS-120? harddrives could(and do crash).
Recently gave my 386 with Windows 3.11 to a friend who wanted to
copy some 5 1/4 diskettes onto 3 1/2.
> 10-30 from now you will not be able to read the photos stored on
> today's media.
Amen! I would rather store the tangible negatives than trust my
photos to another, ever changing, storage media.

Of course, it's only MHO,
Dick R.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Robert Feinman wrote:
> I continue to use film because many of my pix are taken with equipment
> for which there is no digital equivalent. This includes the 12mm Heliar
> ultra-wide angle lens for 35mm (120 degree coverage) and swing lens
> panoramic cameras.

How large can you print your film panaramas?

-Dave

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mr.Happy wrote:
> "Digital is a consumer rip-off right now, delivering much less for the
> money than film. When they've got a 16MP camera with a full frame
> sensor for $200US, then I'll consider it. Until then I'll continue to
> use my film cameras. "
>
> $750 DSLR+$50 card = $800.
> I have just calculated how many photos I will get for $800 from a $200
> film SLR + $600(price of film+develpment), and I get 3480 photos.
> [$2 for ISO-100 24exp roll + $3.50 single prints].
>
> DSLR is worth it only if you take 5000 photos/year.
> Obviously, you could review your photos, make many copies and prints,
> crop, etc. and then re-use the card.

I normally keep my digital cameras for much longer then a year, so this
throws your number off a bit does it not? I tend to get a new digital
camera every 3 years, so for me I should look at how many photos I
would take in that three years not one. I take about 25,000 photos in
a year, or about 75,000 for the life of the camera. Using your number
this would cost me something like $17,000 to shoot in film. But even
that is not the big issue, it is the time it would take me to scan in
25,000 photos a year, figure 5 minutes/photo to do it right and correct
of scratches and such, that comes out to 2083 hours, that is a full
time job with no vacation, for me that is the real cost of shooting
film.

Scott

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Neil Gould wrote:
> What I find is that both digital and 35mm have different artifacts
at at
> any size. Some images work better in one medium than the other. Then
> again, grain bothers me a lot less than loss of detail and gradation.
>
> Consider this sequence in the OP's "comparison":
> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor.htm
>
> In the crops, look at the rocks just above the stack of boats (above the
> blue one that's on top). Look at the shingles on the roof of the
> lighthouse buildings. Look at the "u-drive" lettering on the sign. Unless
> the attributions are screwed up, there is no contest; the Provia shots
> blow away the 1Ds.
>

I can't even read the u-drive on the Provia shot, are you sure you
don't mean the 4X5 Velvia shot?

Scott

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mr.Happy wrote:
> - You never copy your images to CD-Rs that need to be stored in a safe
> place
>
> a good point;however, negatives need to be stored in a VERY safe place.
> You could make digital copies unto cd-rs, dvd-rs, and whatever comes
> out in 5-20 years.
>
> - You never have a need to re-copy the CD-Rs to whatever happens the be
>
> the current medium in years 2010, 2020, etc.
>
> a much better point.
> The fact is that no one is using computers or OS's from the 60's-90's
> anymore.
> how many people know how to use CP/M?
> Or still use Windows 3.11? or Tape, or Jazz or Syquest or zips or
> LS-120? harddrives could(and do crash).
> 10-30 from now you will not be able to read the photos stored on
> today's media.

Well, as for one of your examples, zip drives, my parents use to keep
their digital photos on zip drives, when I updated their computer three
years ago they transferred the photos to CDs and onto their hard drive,
when I was their visiting earlier this year I am a copy of all of their
digital photos to take home with me. I also used a zip drive for a
number of years, when I got a CD burning one of the first things I did
was to transfer all the files from zip disks to CDs. As hard drives
have gotten large I have made copies of these onto my hard drive as
well.

Scott

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x4qbxshw0.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>> MF digital cameras will never be in the affordable/liftable class. (Or at
>> least not for a long long time.)
>
> I can understand about "affordable" but I don't understand why digital
> cameras really need to be bigger or heavier than the comparable film
> cameras. In particular I dunno what's in a Nikon D70 that's not also
> in a random 6mp P/S digicam, except the APS-sized sensor, and film APS
> cameras drop in your shirt pocket.
>
> By the way, a Dalsa evaluation kit with the 22mp, 36x48mm sensor costs
> about $10K. So it should be possible to make a complete camera for a
> comparable amount.

So much for leicas hopes for their digital dept bailing them out.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Neil Gould wrote:

> However, digerati have "hijacked" the term "noise" to represent an aspect
> of the image that has little to do with the realities of the scene.

"We" are using the word as it has been used in the technical literature
for decades, if not centuries. It is no secret:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_noise

HA HA HA. Now that we have proven that (some) digital sensors are
superior to your sacred cow called "film", well, I guess it's the
_definition_ that's the problem and not the substrate, eh? Your
equivocations aren't even funny.

> Unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.

Only art kooks and similar ignoranti raise these bogus objections.
That someone can vocalize an argument void of substantive content
doesn't make it worthy of consideration: the real world doesn't care
what you think.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:
> fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > ... you can take hundreds
> > and hundreds of pictures and it doesn't cost you a dime.
>
> Only if a few assumptions can be made:
> - The batteries of your camera last forever
> - The memory of your camera never runs out
> - You never copy your images to CD-Rs that need to be stored in a safe place
> - You never have a need to re-copy the CD-Rs to whatever happens the be
> the current medium in years 2010, 2020, etc.
>
> Digital photography does have its consumables. A dime per photo won't
> take you far.
>

Cost for hard drives, $.50 / GB. Cost for DVD $0.09 / GB. Cost to
store raw image on DVD $0.0007. Cost to store jpeg version on hard
drive $0.00175.
Number of raw photos I can store on DVDs for a buck 1375.

Yeah, those hidden cost are really eating me up.

Number of photos I can take and store for my dime 137, if I need the
raw images, if I don't need the raw images I get 314 for my dime.

A friend wanded all the photos I took at a canoe race, I had extra room
do I gave him photos from the last two races, just over 1500 photos, my
cost $0.40.

Scott

Scott

Scott

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:
> steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote:
>
>>This is an interesting observation as I've noticed that most digital
>>shooters take fewer shots than my Father did with his old 8 exposure
>>Brownie (which required flahsbulbs to boot). The other day I was at a
>>kid's birthday party and the Father, a proud owner of an Olympus digital
>>camera, had to be coaxed to take a couple of pictures of some
>>particularly cute scenes. I told him that he had unlimited picture
>>taking capablility with a digital camera and he replied that his wife
>>made him retain all of the pictures he took. If I had had my 35mm
>>rangefinder, I would certainly have burnt through a roll of 36 exposures
>>at this party. I doubt this guy took more than eight pictures.
>
>
>
> An interesting choice of individual to "illustrate" your point, which
> is of course completely wrong. Most people shooting digital take
> significantly more photos than with film. It doesn't take much
> intellect to work out why.
>
>

Hi,
That's my experience also. Digital shooters shoot more but not better.
Last weekend my parents took us to Eurodisney with al their children. I
shot film and the rest shot digital. They all shot more than I did but I
have a much higer percentage of keepers.

Cheers,

Michiel

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Neil Gould wrote:

> We've been through this many times, and get nowhere because of a basic
> disagreement over the definition of "noise". In the traditional
> signal-to-noise (s/n) usage, anything alteration of the details of the
> scene can be attributed to noise. So, when I see such things as window
> pane frames being eliminated from digital images , they are "noisier" than
> grainy film images that reveal those frames. This is the kind of
> difference that I see between digital and film media, and IMO, they are
> just different qualities to consider when trying to capture a scene. YMMV.
> However, digerati have "hijacked" the term "noise" to represent an aspect
> of the image that has little to do with the realities of the scene.
> Unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.

You have probably the worst definition of noise I have ever seen. By
your definition a audio recording that is clean but does not have
content past say 5 KHz would be noisy. I have to say I have never
heard anyone else even coming close to using that as a definition of
noise.

Scott

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:jhCse.1919$aa2.177@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Consider this sequence in the OP's "comparison":
> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor.htm
>
> In the crops, look at the rocks just above the stack of boats (above the
> blue one that's on top). Look at the shingles on the roof of the
> lighthouse buildings. Look at the "u-drive" lettering on the sign. Unless
> the attributions are screwed up, there is no contest; the Provia shots
> blow away the 1Ds.

"U-DRIVE" shows up only in the 10D and 1Ds shots. Attribution is captioned
above the image, unfortunately and perhaps confusingly. The Provia scans are
the worst of the bunch by a wide margin.

>
> But, *most* images work better in MF or larger. ;-)

Elsewhere on that site, the author concludes: "Final opinion: The 1Ds Mark
II should be "competitive" with optimally generated 6x9 film scans." That's
so far over top that even 100 more crops illustrating the point won't ease
my disbelief.

This vicarious grain sniffing aside, dSLRs don't have the variability that
film has in subsequent developing, scanners, and scanning. What you shoot is
pretty much what you get, without additional work, expense, and losses along
the way. That's worth quite a bit, IMO. Me personally, I'm fidgeting a
little while waiting for the sub $2k 16MP body that takes Canon glass.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Recently, Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
> > What I find is that both digital and 35mm have different artifacts
> at at
>> any size. Some images work better in one medium than the other. Then
>> again, grain bothers me a lot less than loss of detail and gradation.
>>
>> Consider this sequence in the OP's "comparison":
>> http://sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor.htm
>>
>> In the crops, look at the rocks just above the stack of boats (above
>> the blue one that's on top). Look at the shingles on the roof of the
>> lighthouse buildings. Look at the "u-drive" lettering on the sign.
>> Unless the attributions are screwed up, there is no contest; the
>> Provia shots blow away the 1Ds.
>>
>
> I can't even read the u-drive on the Provia shot, are you sure you
> don't mean the 4X5 Velvia shot?
>
You're right. I read the attributions wrong.

Neil

Reply to Anonymous

Forum Digital Cameras : General Discussion A recent digital film comparison

General Discussion

Point & Shoot

SLR

ZLR

Please mind