Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A $1200 21mp Digital Camera?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 3:09:33 AM

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

My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.



So the choice is:

21MP images for $1200

or

Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000


Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?


LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
September 1, 2005 3:09:34 AM

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

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-DE9B45.19093331082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>
> My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
>
It's not even close to a digital camera. What is your workflow and turn
around time? Take a shot, finish the film find a lab, wait 1 hour, rush home
scan optimize, produce a file. Guess what my client just left the studio
with digital files within half the time it took for you to wait for the lab
to process the film.
September 1, 2005 3:09:34 AM

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

kz8rt3 wrote:

"My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.


So the choice is:


21MP images for $1200


or


Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000


Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?


LET THE GAMES BEGIN! "

I assume that you are fully aware that 22MP digital produces a
drastically superior image to the 21MP scanned film, and that you are
simply trolling.

Brian
Related resources
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 3:09:34 AM

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

(This troll did not deserve cross-posting...)

>Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?

Yes. Completely wrong. Any number of websites discuss the problems in
comparing a filmscan with a digital camera capture. Start with:

www.normankoren.com
www.clarkvision.com
www.kenrockwell.com

There are issues like grain, grain aliasing, second generation capture
(two sets of optics), use of an led or fluorescent light source (ie
non-continuous, non-matching illumination), film flatness/focus, etc.
If you want a (highly arguable) comparison, IMO the best 4000 ppi scan
of 35mm film lands somewhere near a good 6-8Mp DSLR image, assuming
professional fine grain film. But I would still go with the DSLR image
for sheer clarity and smoothness.

>LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

= I am trolling.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 3:09:34 AM

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

>>IMO the best 4000 ppi scan of 35mm film lands somewhere
>>near a good 6-8Mp DSLR image, assuming professional
>> fine grain film. But I would still go with the DSLR image
>> for sheer clarity and smoothness.
>
>That sounds silly. I take the image with a full frame 35mm
>and scan it at 21mp. How would that compare to a 8mp image?

That sounds silly??? Well, you could tell your scanner to interpolate
and make it a frigging 400 Mp image - but the quality will not be
there, so the number is MEANINGLESS!!!

Your initial surmise was that a 4000 ppi scan is equivalent to a 21Mp
digital camera image. THAT is silly. If you want ot believe
otherwise, you clearly just don't get it. Which is why i posted links
- please go and educate yourself.

>And in the future can you not snip so early in a post?

I'll snip as i see fit. If the content of the post is worthwhile, I
will leave it in. Yours was not. You should remember what you wrote,
and for anyone else this is pretty much a waste of time, as witnessed
by all the answers you have received, not just mine.

Sorry to be harsh, but life is like that, and if you are not willing to
do your homework before you post something daft, and then add the
telling line "Let the games begin" - in capitals no less... what do you
expect????
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:33:30 AM

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

kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in news:kz8rt3-DE9B45.19093331082005@news1-
ge0.southeast.rr.com:


>
> Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000
>
What's so good about the Hasselblad range anyway? Does it automatically
turn every photograph into an image containing David Hasselhoff?


--
My Photos : http://photos.timchuma.com
The Twits Give Me the Shits : http://twitsgivemetheshits.timchuma.com
Tim's Hong Kong movie reviews: http://hkmovies.timchuma.com
September 1, 2005 5:38:59 AM

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

It is amazing what people post despite not knowing of what they write.
When comparing high megapixel film and high megapixel digital original
images all is not what it seems.
Alas, digital afficionados (including me): there is more picture
information in a quality high megapixel scan of a high quality 35mm film
original than an equivalent megapixel digital original.
However under many circumstances many if not most viewers will look at the
digital image and rate it as superior if the film image has grain although
at equivalent enlargements there is more discernible detail in the film
original.
Appearances are deceiving.
However appearances really are everything when it comes to images.
Some like it hot, some do not.
After all many people in the United States believe Sadam Hussein was behind
the 9/11 attacks and George B, our fearless leader, is a man with personal
courage and great personal integrity, regarless of actual life history: they
cannot perceive the grain so all is well.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:39:00 AM

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

birdman wrote:

> After all many people in the United States believe Sadam Hussein was
> behind the 9/11 attacks

Only the kookloon left, because it's the story they pulled steaming from
their own keisters.

> and George B, our fearless leader, is a man
> with personal courage and great personal integrity, regarless of
> actual life history: they cannot perceive the grain so all is well.

Just can't get over that paragon of character, virtue and common sense
you guys foisted on us in 1992, eh? At least W got over his youthful
excesses while he was still young. The loony left lives for excess; the
more debauched, the better.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:39:01 AM

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

Bob Harrington wrote:
> birdman wrote:
>
>> After all many people in the United States believe Sadam Hussein
>> was
>> behind the 9/11 attacks
>
> Only the kookloon left, because it's the story they pulled steaming
> from their own keisters.
>
>> and George B, our fearless leader, is a man
>> with personal courage and great personal integrity, regarless of
>> actual life history: they cannot perceive the grain so all is well.
>
> Just can't get over that paragon of character, virtue and common
> sense
> you guys foisted on us in 1992, eh? At least W got over his
> youthful
> excesses while he was still young. The loony left lives for excess;
> the more debauched, the better.

Very becoming, mutual hysterics. Karma.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:52:14 AM

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

In article <_5SdnVaMLaky2IveRVn-2A@rogers.com>,
"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:

> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kz8rt3-DE9B45.19093331082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> > Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
> >
> It's not even close to a digital camera. What is your workflow and turn
> around time? Take a shot, finish the film find a lab, wait 1 hour, rush home
> scan optimize, produce a file. Guess what my client just left the studio
> with digital files within half the time it took for you to wait for the lab
> to process the film.

I was talking about Megapixels and nothing else.

I am no rush. It is an art for me, not a race.
September 1, 2005 5:52:15 AM

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

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-B2224E.21521431082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <_5SdnVaMLaky2IveRVn-2A@rogers.com>,
> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>
>> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kz8rt3-DE9B45.19093331082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>> >
>> > My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
>> > Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
>> >
>> It's not even close to a digital camera. What is your workflow and turn
>> around time? Take a shot, finish the film find a lab, wait 1 hour, rush
>> home
>> scan optimize, produce a file. Guess what my client just left the studio
>> with digital files within half the time it took for you to wait for the
>> lab
>> to process the film.
>
> I was talking about Megapixels and nothing else.
>
> I am no rush. It is an art for me, not a race.

There is more than just megapixels. I have shot up to 8x10 film, so I can go
slow too.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:54:28 AM

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

In article <1125533941.005877.37990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"BC" <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote:

> kz8rt3 wrote:
>
> "My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
>
>
> So the choice is:
>
>
> 21MP images for $1200
>
>
> or
>
>
> Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000
>
>
> Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?
>
>
> LET THE GAMES BEGIN! "
>
> I assume that you are fully aware that 22MP digital produces a
> drastically superior image to the 21MP scanned film, and that you are
> simply trolling.

First, I am speaking about megapixels and nothing else.

Seconds, you can produce a drastically superior image that has horrible
artistic content.

Third, I think this was more imaginative then a troll and could lead to
a meaningful conversation.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:55:45 AM

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

In article <Xns96C46C74F43F3webmastertimchumacom@130.133.1.4>,
Tim Chmielewski <webmaster@timchuma.com> wrote:

> kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in news:kz8rt3-DE9B45.19093331082005@news1-
> ge0.southeast.rr.com:
>
>
> >
> > Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000
> >
> What's so good about the Hasselblad range anyway? Does it automatically
> turn every photograph into an image containing David Hasselhoff?

HE HE! Glad to hear someone not being so serious.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:56:49 AM

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

> >Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?
>
> Yes. Completely wrong. Any number of websites discuss the problems in
> comparing a filmscan with a digital camera capture. Start with:
>
> www.normankoren.com
> www.clarkvision.com
> www.kenrockwell.com
>
> There are issues like grain, grain aliasing, second generation capture
> (two sets of optics), use of an led or fluorescent light source (ie
> non-continuous, non-matching illumination), film flatness/focus, etc.
> If you want a (highly arguable) comparison, IMO the best 4000 ppi scan
> of 35mm film lands somewhere near a good 6-8Mp DSLR image, assuming
> professional fine grain film. But I would still go with the DSLR image
> for sheer clarity and smoothness.

That sounds silly. I take the image with a full frame 35mm and scan it
at 21mp. How would that compare to a 8mp image?

Are megapixels about clarity of an image? No. It is a purely physical
attribution that only has to do with the scan or sensor.

If I scan an image at 21mp i get a 21mp image. Just look at the pixels
on the finishes image. If a 21mp camera took that picture you would get
the same pixel numbers and 21mp.

MP is not about grain, lights, flatness. It is about the number of
pixels in a file.

So again, find me a 21mp camera for $1200.

>
> >LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
>
> = I am trolling.

No, I am really not.

And in the future can you not snip so early in a post?
September 1, 2005 5:56:50 AM

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

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-21F859.21565031082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>> >Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?
>>
>> Yes. Completely wrong. Any number of websites discuss the problems in
>> comparing a filmscan with a digital camera capture. Start with:
>>
>> www.normankoren.com
>> www.clarkvision.com
>> www.kenrockwell.com
>>
>> There are issues like grain, grain aliasing, second generation capture
>> (two sets of optics), use of an led or fluorescent light source (ie
>> non-continuous, non-matching illumination), film flatness/focus, etc.
>> If you want a (highly arguable) comparison, IMO the best 4000 ppi scan
>> of 35mm film lands somewhere near a good 6-8Mp DSLR image, assuming
>> professional fine grain film. But I would still go with the DSLR image
>> for sheer clarity and smoothness.
>
> That sounds silly. I take the image with a full frame 35mm and scan it
> at 21mp. How would that compare to a 8mp image?
>
> Are megapixels about clarity of an image? No. It is a purely physical
> attribution that only has to do with the scan or sensor.
>
> If I scan an image at 21mp i get a 21mp image. Just look at the pixels
> on the finishes image. If a 21mp camera took that picture you would get
> the same pixel numbers and 21mp.
>
> MP is not about grain, lights, flatness. It is about the number of
> pixels in a file.
>
> So again, find me a 21mp camera for $1200.
>
I see your puny 21 megapixel scan, and raise you to a Gigapixel

http://www.gigapxl.org

Now that's a camera, it's slow but you said only the pixel count matters...

;) 
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 12:07:49 PM

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

<<First, I am speaking about megapixels and nothing else.

Seconds, you can produce a drastically superior image that has horrible
artistic content.
>>

Okay, if you are talking only about megapixels then, sure, your outfit
produces more megapixels than digital. However, if I take 35-40 shots using
the 640kpixel camera on my GBP 50 phone and then stitch them with Elements
I, too, get around 22MP. This delightful setup costs me around GBP 120. Is
this a fair comparison? True, the image quality is unimaginably bad (can't
speak for the artistic quality myself, unlike some) but then again we are
only talking about megapixels <g>.

--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:48:50 PM

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

Add $15 per 36 frames you shoot + 1 hour to process and 30 mins to digitize
them.

=bob=

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-DE9B45.19093331082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>
> My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
>
>
>
> So the choice is:
>
> 21MP images for $1200
>
> or
>
> Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000
>
>
> Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?
>
>
> LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:48:51 PM

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

In article
<431641e1$0$516$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:

> Add $15 per 36 frames you shoot + 1 hour to process and 30 mins to digitize
> them.
>
> =bob=

Still cheaper then the Hasselblad. But I develop my own film anyway.

>
> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kz8rt3-DE9B45.19093331082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> > Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
> >
> >
> >
> > So the choice is:
> >
> > 21MP images for $1200
> >
> > or
> >
> > Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000
> >
> >
> > Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?
> >
> >
> > LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 2:11:06 PM

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

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
> My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.

The problem is that 4000 ppi scans are incredibly poor quality at the pixel
level. Here's a page of sample scans. All are complete garbage when compared
to the same number of pixels from a dSLR.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

If you upsample an 8MP dSLR image to 21MP, it'll look as good or better than
any 21MP file you get from your Coolscan. It's only when you upsample by a
factor of four (8MP to 32MP) that digital begins to look worse than scans).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 2:11:07 PM

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

In article <df5l8h$umu$2@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> > Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
>
> The problem is that 4000 ppi scans are incredibly poor quality at the pixel
> level.

WHAAA? You're kidding, right? A troll? What does "Poor quality at the
pixel level mean"? Those same 4000ppi scans that were used for most
magazines?

> Here's a page of sample scans. All are complete garbage when compared
> to the same number of pixels from a dSLR.
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Uhm...which scans?

>
> If you upsample an 8MP dSLR image to 21MP, it'll look as good or better than
> any 21MP file you get from your Coolscan.

We are not talking about "looks", we are talking about what is. I am
only interested about an original 21mp image.

Regardless, \up sampling any file is only an interpretation of the
original. So you are saying something fake is better then the real thing?

> It's only when you upsample by a
> factor of four (8MP to 32MP) that digital begins to look worse than scans).

Again, it is not about looks.

>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
September 1, 2005 2:11:08 PM

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

kz8rt3 wrote:

>
> Again, it is not about looks.
>


Then what is it about?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 3:10:01 PM

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

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:
> It is amazing what people post despite not knowing of what they write.
> When comparing high megapixel film and high megapixel digital original
> images all is not what it seems.
> Alas, digital afficionados (including me): there is more picture
> information in a quality high megapixel scan of a high quality 35mm film
> original than an equivalent megapixel digital original.
> However under many circumstances many if not most viewers will look at the
> digital image and rate it as superior if the film image has grain although
> at equivalent enlargements there is more discernible detail in the film
> original.

I've been scanning film for 4 years now with a 4000 dpi Nikon scanner, and I
assure you, you've got it exactly backwards. Every high-res scan (mine or
anyone else's) I've ever seen can be downsapled to 1/4 the pixels and
upsampled back again with essentially no loss in photographically
significant detail. Film users lie about their megapixels by almost a factor
of four. (I downsample my 4000 ppi scans to 2200 ppi or so to produce
reasonably clean and sharp images.)

To the best I can tell, 35mm slightly edges out 6MP digital, but does not
edge out 8MP digital in terms of capturing photographically significant
detail.

(Grain is another question. I don't like grain. That every surface in every
image has exactly the same texture regardless of the texture in the subject
seems completely bogus and at odds with the object of the game in
photography. Low-magnification, high-quality grain-free B&W prints are some
of the most beautiful artifacts the human race has produced. Grainy prints
aren't. Lots of folks complain that digital images are "plastic", but not
reporting texture when no texture was recorded strikes me as a far more
reasonable thing that putting an arbitrary and aritificial texture
everywhere.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 3:15:38 PM

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

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

> Again, it is not about looks.

Of course it's about looks. The object of the game is to create photographs.
35mm film is horrendously bad at that, and always has been. Any postwar 645
or larger camera will produce a far better 11x14 than any 11x14 ever
produced from 35mm.

35mm is a pitiful joke, and that's why digital has such an easy time
equalling it at 8MP or surpassing it at anything larger.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:01:05 PM

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

In article <pFyRe.1953$w4.1352@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
"PcB" <pcbradley@no_spam_lineone.net> wrote:

> <<First, I am speaking about megapixels and nothing else.
>
> Seconds, you can produce a drastically superior image that has horrible
> artistic content.
> >>
>
> Okay, if you are talking only about megapixels then, sure, your outfit
> produces more megapixels than digital. However, if I take 35-40 shots using
> the 640kpixel camera on my GBP 50 phone and then stitch them with Elements
> I, too, get around 22MP

>. This delightful setup costs me around GBP 120. Is
> this a fair comparison? True, the image quality is unimaginably bad (can't
> speak for the artistic quality myself, unlike some) but then again we are
> only talking about megapixels <g>.


Now, now, you are incorrect. the 21mp image is NOT upsampled. Mine would
not show pixels at 16x16. Yours would show them blown up only twice.

I hope you see how that analogy is wrong. You are saying if I took an
image with both mediums they would look the same, indistinguishable, at
8x10.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:10:22 PM

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

In article <1125540625.709863.317120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
chrlz@go.com wrote:

> >>IMO the best 4000 ppi scan of 35mm film lands somewhere
> >>near a good 6-8Mp DSLR image, assuming professional
> >> fine grain film. But I would still go with the DSLR image
> >> for sheer clarity and smoothness.
> >
> >That sounds silly. I take the image with a full frame 35mm
> >and scan it at 21mp. How would that compare to a 8mp image?
>
> That sounds silly??? Well, you could tell your scanner to interpolate
> and make it a frigging 400 Mp image - but the quality will not be
> there, so the number is MEANINGLESS!!!

The scanner only scans at 21mp. If I upsample it is not the same image.

>
> Your initial surmise was that a 4000 ppi scan is equivalent to a 21Mp
> digital camera image. THAT is silly.

Are you saying math is wrong? 21mp is 21mp. I am talking at the time of
capture, not after upsampling.

> If you want ot believe
> otherwise, you clearly just don't get it. Which is why i posted links
> - please go and educate yourself.

I went, please be specific with your links to the topic. These thread
fade rather quickly.

>
> >And in the future can you not snip so early in a post?
>
> I'll snip as i see fit.
'
Damn, ok, just tryin' to show you some nettiqute.

> If the content of the post is worthwhile, I
> will leave it in. Yours was not. You should remember what you wrote,
> and for anyone else this is pretty much a waste of time, as witnessed
> by all the answers you have received, not just mine.

Some others knew what I was talking about. You are being brain dead with
regards to how mps are associated with image quality. CAn you show me
any artist who was concerned about MPs before 1990?

I am writing this to save budding artists money because they think that
they need 16mp to make art.

>
> Sorry to be harsh, but life is like that, and if you are not willing to
> do your homework before you post something daft, and then add the
> telling line "Let the games begin" - in capitals no less... what do you
> expect????

Daft? HE HE!

My idea was serious. I expected most to play games.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:12:56 PM

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

In article <OIedncbPIdcw8YveRVn-pg@rogers.com>,
"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:

> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kz8rt3-21F859.21565031082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >> >Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?
> >>
> >> Yes. Completely wrong. Any number of websites discuss the problems in
> >> comparing a filmscan with a digital camera capture. Start with:
> >>
> >> www.normankoren.com
> >> www.clarkvision.com
> >> www.kenrockwell.com
> >>
> >> There are issues like grain, grain aliasing, second generation capture
> >> (two sets of optics), use of an led or fluorescent light source (ie
> >> non-continuous, non-matching illumination), film flatness/focus, etc.
> >> If you want a (highly arguable) comparison, IMO the best 4000 ppi scan
> >> of 35mm film lands somewhere near a good 6-8Mp DSLR image, assuming
> >> professional fine grain film. But I would still go with the DSLR image
> >> for sheer clarity and smoothness.
> >
> > That sounds silly. I take the image with a full frame 35mm and scan it
> > at 21mp. How would that compare to a 8mp image?
> >
> > Are megapixels about clarity of an image? No. It is a purely physical
> > attribution that only has to do with the scan or sensor.
> >
> > If I scan an image at 21mp i get a 21mp image. Just look at the pixels
> > on the finishes image. If a 21mp camera took that picture you would get
> > the same pixel numbers and 21mp.
> >
> > MP is not about grain, lights, flatness. It is about the number of
> > pixels in a file.
> >
> > So again, find me a 21mp camera for $1200.
> >
> I see your puny 21 megapixel scan, and raise you to a Gigapixel
>
> http://www.gigapxl.org
>
> Now that's a camera, it's slow but you said only the pixel count matters...
>
> ;) 

HE HE! Holy that's crazy. You shouldn't have shown this here, all the
people with the d5 will fell sorry that they bought their camera too
soon!
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:15:45 PM

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

In article <df5o9s$vj4$2@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > Again, it is not about looks.
>
> Of course it's about looks. The object of the game is to create photographs.
> 35mm film is horrendously bad at that, and always has been. Any postwar 645
> or larger camera will produce a far better 11x14 than any 11x14 ever
> produced from 35mm.

So you are saying a sharp image is always better then on that is not
sharp?

>
> 35mm is a pitiful joke, and that's why digital has such an easy time
> equalling it at 8MP or surpassing it at anything larger.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:17:29 PM

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

In article <3nnf7kF2a5hlU4@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> kz8rt3 wrote:
>
> >
> > Again, it is not about looks.
> >
>
>
> Then what is it about?

Communicating what cannot be communicated with words.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 5:40:15 PM

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

> Third, I think this was more imaginative then a troll and could lead to
> a meaningful conversation.

Hasn't yet!
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:27:52 PM

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

kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
> My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
>
>
>
> So the choice is:
>
> 21MP images for $1200
>
> or
>
> Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000
>

Well, I believe the Hasselblad is a medium format camera with a digital
back, and your Nikon is a 35mm frame, so it is much smaller. No
contest, take the Hasselblad.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 7:01:22 PM

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

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
news:o IedncbPIdcw8YveRVn-pg@rogers.com...
>
> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kz8rt3-21F859.21565031082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >> >Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?
> >>
> >> Yes. Completely wrong. Any number of websites discuss the problems in
> >> comparing a filmscan with a digital camera capture. Start with:
> >>
> >> www.normankoren.com
> >> www.clarkvision.com
> >> www.kenrockwell.com

[...]

> I see your puny 21 megapixel scan, and raise you to a Gigapixel
>
> http://www.gigapxl.org
>
> Now that's a camera, it's slow but you said only the pixel count
matters...
>
> ;) 


That's a neat site. Somewhere inside is a quote that answers the OP, WRT
the troll-like ignorance of the additional processes in digitizing film
exposures. Comparing apples with oranges.

" As illustrated, these four steps involve transmission through the
atmosphere, image formation by way of a lens, recording of an image on film,
and digitization of that image by a scanner. Each step is accompanied by a
loss of information; the nature of that loss typically being manifested by
reductions in both resolution and contrast."

Dave
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 7:01:23 PM

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

In article
<4316a746$0$489$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"hyperoglyphe" <hyperoglyphe@schlockmail.com> wrote:

> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
> news:o IedncbPIdcw8YveRVn-pg@rogers.com...
> >
> > "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:kz8rt3-21F859.21565031082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > >> >Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?
> > >>
> > >> Yes. Completely wrong. Any number of websites discuss the problems in
> > >> comparing a filmscan with a digital camera capture. Start with:
> > >>
> > >> www.normankoren.com
> > >> www.clarkvision.com
> > >> www.kenrockwell.com
>
> [...]
>
> > I see your puny 21 megapixel scan, and raise you to a Gigapixel
> >
> > http://www.gigapxl.org
> >
> > Now that's a camera, it's slow but you said only the pixel count
> matters...
> >
> > ;) 
>
>
> That's a neat site. Somewhere inside is a quote that answers the OP, WRT
> the troll-like ignorance of the additional processes in digitizing film
> exposures. Comparing apples with oranges.

you call me a troll but you said what I was getting at! Apples to
oranges!

You love me!

>
> " As illustrated, these four steps involve transmission through the
> atmosphere, image formation by way of a lens, recording of an image on film,
> and digitization of that image by a scanner. Each step is accompanied by a
> loss of information; the nature of that loss typically being manifested by
> reductions in both resolution and contrast."
>
> Dave


PS: Einstien was a troll. RE: Man cannot go faster then the speed of
light.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 7:16:59 PM

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

I think that what people are trying to say in here, sometimes a little
ineptly, is that your 21mp scan is only going to capture as much info
as the film originally had, so if the film grain is only equivalent to
5-6mp in the first place, scanning at 21mp is irrelavant, you're just
reproducing little spots without really getting any more detail.

As someone else already said, there is some expensive fine grain 35mm
film that will probably beat a 6-8mp DSLR hands down. But get into the
12mp range and higher, i doubt it.

Also, as others have said, the workflow is key. I had family visit this
last weekend. My sister-in-law's fiance was looking at some of my
stuff, and said that he wished he had some black and whites of his
bride to be. I took some pictures while he was in the shower, showed
them to him when he got out, and had them printed at Walmart on Fuji
Crystal Archive paper before a family get together that afternoon.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 7:30:56 PM

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

In article <kz8rt3-21F859.21565031082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
>That sounds silly. I take the image with a full frame 35mm and scan it
>at 21mp. How would that compare to a 8mp image?

If the 8mp image is from a DSLR, then the 8mp image would probably look
better, unless you used slow E6 film and were an experienced scanner, in
which case you might get it looking about as good as the DSLR image. YMMV.

>Are megapixels about clarity of an image? No. It is a purely physical
>attribution that only has to do with the scan or sensor.

Different sensing technologies, different subjects (original scene vs
slide). That 21 megapixel scan will look blurry compared to the 21 megapixel
direct capture. If you want to compete with a 21 megapixel DSLR, you want to
be using *at least* 645, and preferably 67, especially if you're planning on
using print film.

Good luck.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 9:59:47 PM

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

> So the choice is:
>
> 21MP images for $1200
>
> or
>
> Hasselblad H1D, 22MP images for $22,000
>
>
> Am I wrong to say this is an easy choice?

It is!

I'll take the Hasselblad please, always wanted one....

When will it arrive?
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 10:54:32 PM

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

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kz8rt3-AC10D4.21512331082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article
> <431641e1$0$516$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:
>
>> Add $15 per 36 frames you shoot + 1 hour to process and 30 mins to
>> digitize
>> them.
>>
>> =bob=
>
> Still cheaper then the Hasselblad. But I develop my own film anyway.

My time worth more than the Hassie .. sorry can't help you much there :) 
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 10:54:33 PM

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

In article
<4316c1c6$0$523$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:

> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kz8rt3-AC10D4.21512331082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > In article
> > <431641e1$0$516$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> > "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:
> >
> >> Add $15 per 36 frames you shoot + 1 hour to process and 30 mins to
> >> digitize
> >> them.
> >>
> >> =bob=
> >
> > Still cheaper then the Hasselblad. But I develop my own film anyway.
>
> My time worth more than the Hassie .. sorry can't help you much there :) 

If you place worth on time you'll always be a wedding photographer and
never an artist.

:^P
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 10:59:21 PM

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

<<Now, now, you are incorrect. the 21mp image is NOT upsampled. Mine would
not show pixels at 16x16. Yours would show them blown up only twice.
>>

I never mentioned upsampling. I simply stated that 35-40 shots, each taken
at 640kpixels and stitched together, would produce a similar number of
pixels. Is this not correct?

<<I hope you see how that analogy is wrong. You are saying if I took an
image with both mediums they would look the same, indistinguishable, at
8x10.
>>

A pixel is a pixel and you are only talking about pixels, remember (you said
<<First, I am speaking about megapixels and nothing else.>>). I still
contend that my setup can produce an image of around 22MP, the same as
yours. Is this not true? You are not interested in quality - each of my
pixels could, in fact be 1mm square but they would still be pixels.

Unless we have misunderstood each other somewhere.

--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 2:30:47 AM

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

"kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Again, it is not about looks.
>>
>> Of course it's about looks. The object of the game is to create
>> photographs.
>> 35mm film is horrendously bad at that, and always has been. Any postwar
>> 645
>> or larger camera will produce a far better 11x14 than any 11x14 ever
>> produced from 35mm.
>
> So you are saying a sharp image is always better than one that is not
> sharp?

If it's a technical discussion about image quality, then yes. That's what
the subject of the thread is. We're not talking about what one does with a
camera, we're talking about what cameras can do. You should be able to
remember the topic of this thread, since you started it.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 6:20:15 AM

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

In article <1125613019.592447.196150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that what people are trying to say in here, sometimes a little
> ineptly, is that your 21mp scan is only going to capture as much info
> as the film originally had, so if the film grain is only equivalent to
> 5-6mp in the first place, scanning at 21mp is irrelavant, you're just
> reproducing little spots without really getting any more detail.

Thank you completely. Perfect explanation.

To all else, I'm sorry. I was not being a jerk. Well, I am not sorry
really. I just would like to have people thinking and expressing these
ideas more completely. I teased to illicit a correct and ept sounding
response. And I finally got one.

everyone was vauge talking about "quality" etc. I hope, thanks to
wavelength, you have learned your lesson.

Peace out.

>
> As someone else already said, there is some expensive fine grain 35mm
> film that will probably beat a 6-8mp DSLR hands down. But get into the
> 12mp range and higher, i doubt it.
>
> Also, as others have said, the workflow is key. I had family visit this
> last weekend. My sister-in-law's fiance was looking at some of my
> stuff, and said that he wished he had some black and whites of his
> bride to be. I took some pictures while he was in the shower, showed
> them to him when he got out, and had them printed at Walmart on Fuji
> Crystal Archive paper before a family get together that afternoon.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 11:46:15 AM

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

"wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125613019.592447.196150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I think that what people are trying to say in here, sometimes a little
> ineptly, is that your 21mp scan is only going to capture as much info
> as the film originally had, so if the film grain is only equivalent to
> 5-6mp in the first place, scanning at 21mp is irrelavant, you're just
> reproducing little spots without really getting any more detail.

Exactly.

> As someone else already said, there is some expensive fine grain 35mm
> film that will probably beat a 6-8mp DSLR hands down. But get into the
> 12mp range and higher, i doubt it.

Pretty much all of the fine-grain films have been discontinued and are no
longer available.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 1:58:31 PM

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

In article <kz8rt3-B2224E.21521431082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
kz8rt3@mail.com says...
> In article <_5SdnVaMLaky2IveRVn-2A@rogers.com>,
> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>
> > "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:kz8rt3-DE9B45.19093331082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > >
> > > My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> > > Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
> > >
> > It's not even close to a digital camera. What is your workflow and turn
> > around time? Take a shot, finish the film find a lab, wait 1 hour, rush home
> > scan optimize, produce a file. Guess what my client just left the studio
> > with digital files within half the time it took for you to wait for the lab
> > to process the film.
>
> I was talking about Megapixels and nothing else.
>
> I am no rush. It is an art for me, not a race.
>
you are talking about *noisy* megapixels and that takes away most of the
satisfaction.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 1:58:32 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d8240b261e97b0f9898b8@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Bruce Graham <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

> In article <kz8rt3-B2224E.21521431082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
> kz8rt3@mail.com says...
> > In article <_5SdnVaMLaky2IveRVn-2A@rogers.com>,
> > "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
> >
> > > "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:kz8rt3-DE9B45.19093331082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > My $200 Nikon FM2 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, 4000 dpi, 35mm,
> > > > Film Scanner. A 21mp digital camera for $1200.
> > > >
> > > It's not even close to a digital camera. What is your workflow and turn
> > > around time? Take a shot, finish the film find a lab, wait 1 hour, rush
> > > home
> > > scan optimize, produce a file. Guess what my client just left the studio
> > > with digital files within half the time it took for you to wait for the
> > > lab
> > > to process the film.
> >
> > I was talking about Megapixels and nothing else.
> >
> > I am no rush. It is an art for me, not a race.
> >
> you are talking about *noisy* megapixels and that takes away most of the
> satisfaction.

HE HE! What on earth is a "noisy pixel"?! Please describe that to me.

And next maybe you can tell me big pixels are in a digital camera!
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 5:25:56 PM

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

kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <1125613019.592447.196150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Thank you completely. Perfect explanation.
>
> To all else, I'm sorry. I was not being a jerk. Well, I am not sorry
> really. I just would like to have people thinking and expressing these
> ideas more completely. I teased to illicit a correct and ept sounding
> response. And I finally got one.
>
> everyone was vauge talking about "quality" etc. I hope, thanks to
> wavelength, you have learned your lesson.
>

So, you really knew the answer all along and also knew what people
meant, even if they did not communicate it in the fashion you were
trying to elicit. You even used snide comments to gode people towards
your utopian explanation.

In short, you were acting as a troll.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 6:24:52 PM

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

In article <kz8rt3-357C5B.22140201092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
kz8rt3@mail.com says...
> HE HE! What on earth is a "noisy pixel"?! Please describe that to me.
>
= a pixel with an luminance value proportional to the original scene
value plus a large random noise value (largely caused by film grain and
exaggerated by grain aliasing in any scanner I know of). As others have
said, if you average enough of these by downsampling, you can get an
adequately good signal noise ratio, but at the expense of resolution,
pretty much like your 8MP "big pixels" (happy now?)

But the colour won't be as accurate and you will have discovered that
scanning is a time consuming PITA, only to be tolerated when you can't
afford a digital sensor large enough to do the job.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 7:25:44 PM

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

> As someone else already said, there is some expensive fine grain 35mm
> film that will probably beat a 6-8mp DSLR hands down. But get into the
> 12mp range and higher, i doubt it.

There's film grain, then there's resolution, etc. Kodak film
scientist in an older issue of Photonics magazine quoted that film had
about a 25MP digital film equivalent in detail level (assuming regular &
pro films in common use; not special films like TechPan, which go even
higher).

Also, companies like Betterlight.com and Phaseone.com have already
said that their MF digital cameras are necessarily because the
professionals who use them need/require higher MP in order to match what
they're getting off film. Clearly, the need for something more than
6-8MP is required at the professional level, and certainly, that's why
there's the 16MP Canon EOS 1DS MkII out today -- 6-8MP certainly isn't
up to 35mm film resolving power (8MP is only ~50lp/mm of resolution), so
don't think that the limit has been reached, yet.

---

Now, toss in film grain and you do have the detremental effects of
large grain reducing the perceived 'quality' of an image, so yes, you
can certainly make a 8MP digital print that looks 'better' than a 35mm
film image on the basis of overall appearance and lack of grain itself.
But if you're after fine detail (hair lines, maps, textures of
fabrics, etc.), then 8MP still won't be enough for a large blowup -
you'll have to go higher than that, which is why the pros do use the MF
digital cameras from Betterlight and PhaseOne.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 7:27:57 PM

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

> Also, as others have said, the workflow is key. I had family visit this
> last weekend. My sister-in-law's fiance was looking at some of my
> stuff, and said that he wished he had some black and whites of his
> bride to be.

Excellent

> I took some pictures while he was in the shower, showed
> them to him when he got out

I wouldn't let you take pictures of me while I was in the shower and I'd
probrably punch you if you tried to show me them afterwards :) 

Only joking...I understood really.
September 3, 2005 1:30:49 AM

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

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:D fajdj$pki$1@news.service.uci.edu...
>> As someone else already said, there is some expensive fine grain 35mm
>> film that will probably beat a 6-8mp DSLR hands down. But get into the
>> 12mp range and higher, i doubt it.
>
> There's film grain, then there's resolution, etc. Kodak film scientist
> in an older issue of Photonics magazine quoted that film had about a 25MP
> digital film equivalent in detail level (assuming regular & pro films in
> common use; not special films like TechPan, which go even higher).
>
This is a false belief, grain is not pixels. The average film may have 25
million silver halide grains in the emulsion. But, and this is the big BUT!
film is not 25 million grains side by side, but an emulsion of randomly
spread halide grains on multiple layers and spaces of none image forming
gelatine. A digital camera sensor is a flat grid of photosites with non
image forming spaces between them. The average ISO=100 amateur film is more
likely around 6-8 megapixels. A dSLR of 6 to 8 megapixels pretty much match
film quality. I regularly see APS-C digital files printed to 16x20" and they
look as good as a 35mm printed at 16x20". However the smaller image size
would translate to a 35mm print at 24x30". Another common myth is that "Pro
Films" are magic, most have the same resolution as the amateur films, the
differences are some pro negative films are lower in contrast (medium
contrast) for wedding and studio work. Film for happy snaps has a slightly
boosted contrast so the snaps look more like picture postcards. Pro Film is
shipped cold and stored cold so a pro can get predictable results, this
assumes the pro will shoot a job on the same emulsion batch.

> Also, companies like Betterlight.com and Phaseone.com have already said
> that their MF digital cameras are necessarily because the professionals
> who use them need/require higher MP in order to match what they're getting
> off film. Clearly, the need for something more than 6-8MP is required at
> the professional level, and certainly, that's why there's the 16MP Canon
> EOS 1DS MkII out today -- 6-8MP certainly isn't up to 35mm film resolving
> power (8MP is only ~50lp/mm of resolution), so don't think that the limit
> has been reached, yet.
>
The PhaseOne backs allow the use of equipment already owned. As in film a
bigger negative or a bigger sensor means better dynamic range

> ---
>
> Now, toss in film grain and you do have the detremental effects of large
> grain reducing the perceived 'quality' of an image, so yes, you can
> certainly make a 8MP digital print that looks 'better' than a 35mm film
> image on the basis of overall appearance and lack of grain itself. But if
> you're after fine detail (hair lines, maps, textures of fabrics, etc.),
> then 8MP still won't be enough for a large blowup - you'll have to go
> higher than that, which is why the pros do use the MF digital cameras from
> Betterlight and PhaseOne.
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 2:40:07 AM

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

In article <MPG.1d827f231edfed259898bd@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Bruce Graham <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

> In article <kz8rt3-357C5B.22140201092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
> kz8rt3@mail.com says...
> > HE HE! What on earth is a "noisy pixel"?! Please describe that to me.
> >
> = a pixel with an luminance value proportional to the original scene
> value plus a large random noise value (largely caused by film grain and
> exaggerated by grain aliasing in any scanner I know of). As others have
> said, if you average enough of these by downsampling, you can get an
> adequately good signal noise ratio, but at the expense of resolution,
> pretty much like your 8MP "big pixels" (happy now?)


HEHHE! Can you give me a cite for this incredible globbidy gook?

Please show me when "a pixel" is "noisy"! YES! post an image and show me
a noisy pixel!

(Here is a crutch: Look up what a pixel means in DP)

>
> But the colour won't be as accurate and you will have discovered that
> scanning is a time consuming PITA, only to be tolerated when you can't
> afford a digital sensor large enough to do the job.

Whoh those poor folks who have to trudge over the banalities of the 35mm
film scanner. Their images, never perfectly comparable, they suffer in
vain. As thy writer wrote, "if it ain't the same, it ain't no good."
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 2:48:29 AM

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

In article <431852e4$0$63617$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1125613019.592447.196150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Thank you completely. Perfect explanation.
> >
> > To all else, I'm sorry. I was not being a jerk. Well, I am not sorry
> > really. I just would like to have people thinking and expressing these
> > ideas more completely. I teased to illicit a correct and ept sounding
> > response. And I finally got one.
> >
> > everyone was vauge talking about "quality" etc. I hope, thanks to
> > wavelength, you have learned your lesson.
> >
>
> So, you really knew the answer all along and also knew what people
> meant, even if they did not communicate it in the fashion you were
> trying to elicit. You even used snide comments to gode people towards
> your utopian explanation.
>
> In short, you were acting as a troll.


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

Usefulness of trolling

A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any
useful function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all
definitions thereof are to be accepted, the answer must be definitively,
"yes and no".

Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often
decried as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually
benefit the forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a
radical right-winger described as a troll may allow a conservative
lurker to feel more comfortable expressing her viewpoints, which seem
very moderate in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a
flame war against this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may
feel less comfortable expressing her views, to the detriment of the
forum. As much as trolls claim to fight groupthink, they may actually
encourage it by solidifying opinion against them.

Trolls may also provide a valuable service by making people question the
validity of what is read both on the Internet and from other sources.
Trolls show that expressing any opinion is as easy as expressing an
informed and considered opinion and may get as much visibility. It is
arguable that shock jocks, some newspaper columnists are trolling public
opinionon Slashdot, John C. Dvorak is often cited as an example.

Even though useful content and productive users are sometimes decried as
trolls, the general consensus is that pure "trolling" benefits only the
troll and trollhunters, and has no place in any forum. Most forums
reject the claim that pure and intentional trolling serves any useful
purpose.
!