Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

comparison photos - Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, Canon 1DMkII, N..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:10:57 PM

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

I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:10:58 PM

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

> I could not resist to do it as well - on my website

You need to work on your website and get the thumbnails smaller ... a
couple are over 65 KBytes, another over 165 KBytes when they should be
2-4 KB each ... takes too long to load for those w/o cable.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:10:58 PM

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

gnnyman wrote:
> I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
> sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
> with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com

Neat comparison, I predict that you will get a bunch of people telling
you how you did it wrong.

BTW it helps to step back about 8 feet from your monitor to get an idea
of how this might look printed.

Do you happen to have the 20D raw file still? I would love to see what
I could do with it.

Scott
Related resources
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:10:58 PM

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

>I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and >compared with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com

Interesting, but what film scanner and scan resolution? It would be
interesting to see if the 'grain' is real, or aliased. Fuji 100, while
a fairly 'typical' film, would not be my first choice to test the
resolution of a camera..
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:05:27 AM

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

frederick wrote:
> The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.
> If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
> top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
> "comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
> The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
> with bicubic interpolation in PS. Unless they were resampled at exactly
> the same ratio, then this test is only an example of how cubic
> interpolation works at different resampling rates.
> If the OP wants to display a comparison, then the only way he can do it
> is to either display the 1:1 pixels as they came out of the camera, or
> if he wants to show such a close up view, then the resampling MUST be at
> a integer multiple of the original and IMO with no interpolation.
> It is pointless. The best may be to leave the ratio at 1:1, and resample
> (downscale) the film scan to match the size of the various ex-camera
> crops.
> And if there actually is a difference between 6 and 8mp, then the OP has
> not shown it - he has shown something else entirely.

I have never seen this effect from upsizing a photo. I did a quick test
resizing to 191.23% just to be an odd amount, the image was soft but
very clean with no haloes. Could you provide an immage and resize
amount that would produce the halo you are talking about.

In general I think up sampling to the highest res is the only way to
compare, otherwise you risk lossing detail in the higher res images.

The haloes look to too much USM and with too large a radius to me.

Scott
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 6:23:30 AM

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

<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1120523333.446054.197780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
>>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and >compared
>>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
>
> Interesting, but what film scanner and scan resolution? It would be
> interesting to see if the 'grain' is real, or aliased. Fuji 100, while
> a fairly 'typical' film, would not be my first choice to test the
> resolution of a camera..

Most people don't shoot film slow than 100, so this may be a pretty fair
choice.

Yes...I loved to shoot Velvia and some older 25 film that no longer
available, but most film shooter aren't using the really slow, less grainy
stuff.
July 5, 2005 10:28:57 AM

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

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:10:57 -0400, "gnnyman" <gnnyman@comcast.net>
wrote:

>I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
>


I thought that one couldn't really see differences viewing the pics on
a web site due to limitations of our monitors and perhaps the web site
itself? I suppose if the differences are huge maybe one could see it
but I'm not 100% sure of that either.

Comments?
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 10:28:58 AM

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

<Rob> wrote in message news:1irkc1lr5aavgttbbr3c2kvqk1mjodhpro@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:10:57 -0400, "gnnyman" <gnnyman@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
>>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
>>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
>>
>
>
> I thought that one couldn't really see differences viewing the pics on
> a web site due to limitations of our monitors and perhaps the web site
> itself? I suppose if the differences are huge maybe one could see it
> but I'm not 100% sure of that either.
>
> Comments?

That's only true when people post down-sampled images, as are typically
posted on photo-sharing sites.
When 100% crops, or identically sized enlargements are posted (such as
these), it can be quite revealing--especially when the scanner used is top
notch, and able to capture individual grains in film images.

This comparison certainly has it's imperfections, but you can certainly make
some determinations about specific films used, etc.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:54:52 AM

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

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> <chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
> news:1120523333.446054.197780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
> >>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and >compared
> >>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
> >
> > Interesting, but what film scanner and scan resolution? It would be
> > interesting to see if the 'grain' is real, or aliased. Fuji 100, while
> > a fairly 'typical' film, would not be my first choice to test the
> > resolution of a camera..
>
> Most people don't shoot film slow than 100, so this may be a pretty fair
> choice.
>
> Yes...I loved to shoot Velvia and some older 25 film that no longer
> available, but most film shooter aren't using the really slow, less grainy
> stuff.

I would love to see the statistics on film use, when I was shooting
film I was finding it harder and harder to find even 100 ISO film, most
off what was on the shelves was ISO 400 and higher.

The tests in many ways is very valid, it shows what one person gets
when shooting film compared to digital, and it pretty much matches what
I see when I shoot film.

There are a number of people who have stated that people are giving up
quality for convenience when they switch from film to digital, this is
clearly not the case.

Scott
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 1:44:33 PM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> gnnyman wrote:
>> I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
>> sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
>> with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
>
> Neat comparison, I predict that you will get a bunch of people telling
> you how you did it wrong.

Yep! The softness of the 1D2 image is fodder for the Journal of
Irreproducable results (and it's not just the (laudable) lack of sharpening:
the detail seems really to not be there), and the sharpening halos in the
20D and D70s images are obscene (they're due to oversharpening before
upsampling, a mistake I've made in my own d vs. f comparisons).

But other than that, it's about what's expected: 8MP clearly* edges out film
but 6MP has a harder time of it. It's interesting that the 20D does a better
job on the top surface of the left end wall of the building than the film
does (i.e. the far edge vs. sky transition gets lost in the film shot),
since film is advertised as doing better at holding highlights.

*: A lot of people claim that the 8MP vs. 6MP difference is really small,
but (a) it's the difference between 250 ppi and almost 300 ppi at 8x12, and
(b) it's the difference between not edging out 35mm film and clearly edging
out 35mm film, so, IMHO, going to 8MP really is the right idea for the APS-C
dSLRs.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
July 5, 2005 6:53:55 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>gnnyman wrote:
>>
>>>I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
>>>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
>>>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
>>
>>Neat comparison, I predict that you will get a bunch of people telling
>>you how you did it wrong.
>
>
> Yep! The softness of the 1D2 image is fodder for the Journal of
> Irreproducable results (and it's not just the (laudable) lack of sharpening:
> the detail seems really to not be there), and the sharpening halos in the
> 20D and D70s images are obscene (they're due to oversharpening before
> upsampling, a mistake I've made in my own d vs. f comparisons).
>
> But other than that, it's about what's expected: 8MP clearly* edges out film
> but 6MP has a harder time of it. It's interesting that the 20D does a better
> job on the top surface of the left end wall of the building than the film
> does (i.e. the far edge vs. sky transition gets lost in the film shot),
> since film is advertised as doing better at holding highlights.
>
> *: A lot of people claim that the 8MP vs. 6MP difference is really small,
> but (a) it's the difference between 250 ppi and almost 300 ppi at 8x12, and
> (b) it's the difference between not edging out 35mm film and clearly edging
> out 35mm film, so, IMHO, going to 8MP really is the right idea for the APS-C
> dSLRs.
>
The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.
If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
"comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
with bicubic interpolation in PS. Unless they were resampled at exactly
the same ratio, then this test is only an example of how cubic
interpolation works at different resampling rates.
If the OP wants to display a comparison, then the only way he can do it
is to either display the 1:1 pixels as they came out of the camera, or
if he wants to show such a close up view, then the resampling MUST be at
a integer multiple of the original and IMO with no interpolation.
It is pointless. The best may be to leave the ratio at 1:1, and resample
(downscale) the film scan to match the size of the various ex-camera
crops.
And if there actually is a difference between 6 and 8mp, then the OP has
not shown it - he has shown something else entirely.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 6:53:56 PM

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

"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1120531967.479736@ftpsrv1...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>gnnyman wrote:
>>>
>>>>I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
>>>>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
>>>>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
>>>
>>>Neat comparison, I predict that you will get a bunch of people telling
>>>you how you did it wrong.
>>
>>
>> Yep! The softness of the 1D2 image is fodder for the Journal of
>> Irreproducable results (and it's not just the (laudable) lack of
>> sharpening: the detail seems really to not be there), and the sharpening
>> halos in the 20D and D70s images are obscene (they're due to
>> oversharpening before upsampling, a mistake I've made in my own d vs. f
>> comparisons).
>>
>> But other than that, it's about what's expected: 8MP clearly* edges out
>> film but 6MP has a harder time of it. It's interesting that the 20D does
>> a better job on the top surface of the left end wall of the building than
>> the film does (i.e. the far edge vs. sky transition gets lost in the film
>> shot), since film is advertised as doing better at holding highlights.
>>
>> *: A lot of people claim that the 8MP vs. 6MP difference is really small,
>> but (a) it's the difference between 250 ppi and almost 300 ppi at 8x12,
>> and (b) it's the difference between not edging out 35mm film and clearly
>> edging out 35mm film, so, IMHO, going to 8MP really is the right idea for
>> the APS-C dSLRs.
>>
> The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.
> If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
> top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
> "comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
> The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
> with bicubic interpolation in PS.

The only time I've seen that effect is when up-sizing images that have
previously been sharpened.
July 5, 2005 10:35:15 PM

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

Scott W wrote:
> frederick wrote:
> > The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.
>
>>If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
>>top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
>>"comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
>>The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
>>with bicubic interpolation in PS. Unless they were resampled at exactly
>>the same ratio, then this test is only an example of how cubic
>>interpolation works at different resampling rates.
>>If the OP wants to display a comparison, then the only way he can do it
>>is to either display the 1:1 pixels as they came out of the camera, or
>>if he wants to show such a close up view, then the resampling MUST be at
>>a integer multiple of the original and IMO with no interpolation.
>>It is pointless. The best may be to leave the ratio at 1:1, and resample
>>(downscale) the film scan to match the size of the various ex-camera
>>crops.
>>And if there actually is a difference between 6 and 8mp, then the OP has
>>not shown it - he has shown something else entirely.
>
>
> I have never seen this effect from upsizing a photo. I did a quick test
> resizing to 191.23% just to be an odd amount, the image was soft but
> very clean with no haloes. Could you provide an immage and resize
> amount that would produce the halo you are talking about.
>
> In general I think up sampling to the highest res is the only way to
> compare, otherwise you risk lossing detail in the higher res images.
>
> The haloes look to too much USM and with too large a radius to me.
>
> Scott
>
You are right - my mistake. The haloes are probably from sharpening
before resampling - just made much larger and more evident than when
viewed at 100%. Dumb idea to either do this, or use any in-camera
processing when making comparisons.
I'm glad you noticed the softening when resampling at an amount not an
integer multiple of the original.
The test is meaningless. The OP should have realised this when the 1D
Mk II image looked closest to the 4mp Kodak P&S camera result.
For the comparison, whether the film scan is downsampled to match the
size, or the digital camera sample is upsampled to match the film scan
doesn't really matter, as the methodology is seriously flawed.

Pixel peeping is daft. If the OP wants to compare the cameras, then the
best and only way in my opinion is to print the images at a given size
and compare those. When you do this, then about 50% of the criticisms
of cameras in this forum become meaningless - as they are based on pixel
peeping daftness. I have no interest in 4000x3000 jpgs to view on a
computer. For every use apart from to print, an image of 1024x768 is
plenty for me for quite a few years to come - until a monitor that is
affordable and at least 3 times (linear) or 10 times (pixel count) is
available.
!