Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1Ds MkII

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:55:29 AM

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

I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.

Opinions/comments?

Will D.

More about : 1ds mkii

Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:55:30 AM

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

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in news:10pm0vhs4j2jb1a@corp.supernews.com:

> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
>
> Opinions/comments?
>
> Will D.
>
>

I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of the
imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of the 35mm.

Obviously the pixel count helps, though.

And of course, I am open to correction.
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:55:31 AM

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:17:11 -0600, Nunnya Bizniss
<nunnya@yobizniss.com> wrote:

>I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of the
>imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of the 35mm.

The original 1Ds was also had a full frame 35mm chip. I suspect at
16mp the resolution of all practical purposes is very close to film.

Ron

Ron Lacey
Murillo Ontario
ron@ronsfotos.com

Ron's Photos
http://ronsfotos.com

Ron's Cartoons
http://ronstoons.com

The Adventures of Ron and Dave
http://ronanddave.com

Paint Shop Pro Zero to Hero
http://www.friendsofed.com/books/1590592387/
Related resources
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 6:29:38 PM

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

Ron Lacey <ron@ronstoons.com> writes:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:17:11 -0600, Nunnya Bizniss

>> I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of
>> the imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of
>> the 35mm.

> The original 1Ds was also had a full frame 35mm chip. I suspect at
> 16mp the resolution of all practical purposes is very close to film.

The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor
was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is
increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is
probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than
50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond
100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock).

This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/
film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII
offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 6:29:39 PM

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

> The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor
> was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is
> increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is
> probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than
> 50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond
> 100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock).
>
> This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/
> film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII
> offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films

What is your source for that info? I would like to learn more.
Also, lp/mm? Lines per mm?
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 8:05:45 PM

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

Nunnya Bizniss <nunnya@yobizniss.com> writes:

>> The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor
>> was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is
>> increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is
>> probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than
>> 50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond
>> 100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock).
>>
>> This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/
>> film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII
>> offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films

> What is your source for that info?

Mostly manufacturer's specifications.

> I would like to learn more.

There are written thick books about this. Visit your library.

As for online sources - a good one is Norman Koren's website,
Start here: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html
For a table of film data, see: http://creekin.net/films.htm

> Also, lp/mm? Lines per mm?

Line pairs per mm.

--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 12:36:23 AM

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

On 17-Nov-04 12:17:11, Nunnya Bizniss said
>"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in news:10pm0vhs4j2jb1a@corp.supernews.com:

>> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
>> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
>>
>> Opinions/comments?
>>
>> Will D.
>>
>>

>I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of the
>imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of the 35mm.

>Obviously the pixel count helps, though.

>And of course, I am open to correction.


It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely
populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image
size.

Does that sound reasonable?

All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 12:41:18 AM

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

In article <952.817T1157T12964828angus@angusm_antispem_.demon.co.uk>,
"Angus Manwaring" <angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely
> populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image
> size.
>

No, physical size is important:

(1) big sensor -> big photo-sites which are more sensitive and
are less affected by noise.

(2) big sensor -> low/no "multiplication factor" so your wide
angle lens is really wide-angle.

============================================================
Gardner Buchanan <gbuchana@rogers.com>
Ottawa, ON FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 3:04:01 AM

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

On 2004-11-17, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> Ron Lacey <ron@ronstoons.com> writes:
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:17:11 -0600, Nunnya Bizniss
>
>>> I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of
>>> the imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of
>>> the 35mm.
>
>> The original 1Ds was also had a full frame 35mm chip. I suspect at
>> 16mp the resolution of all practical purposes is very close to film.
>
> The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor
> was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is
> increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is
> probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than
> 50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond
> 100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock).
>
> This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/
> film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII
> offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films

Sounds about right, IIRC. I suspect the upper limits are more
theoretical than practical, tho. Difference between laboratory test
results and what one can get in the field is the reality check here.
The finest grain film with the most expensive equipment still needs
technique most pros don't use outside the studio, AFAIK.

So what's the street price on the old 1Ds now?

Will D.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:15:33 AM

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

Will D. wrote:
> On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Will D. wrote:
> >> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
> >> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
> >>
> >> Opinions/comments?
> >>
> >> Will D.
> >>
> > All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do
with
> > a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be

> > (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but
certainly
> > not for quality DSLR sensors.
> >
> > The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation".
This
> > is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
> > operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in
enlarging
> > digital images.
> >
> > I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints
24" x
> > 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
> > responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and
what
> > I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the
electric
> > growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints
made by
> > others doing the same thing.
> >
> > 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or
enlarging
> > through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as
cleanly or
> > as big as a digital image.
> >
> > Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has
around 30%
> > noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except
to
> > degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image
with
> > a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or
picture
> > being the only truly valid comparison.
> >
> > What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a
35mm
> > image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to
make
> > a print and it was that print which became the photograph.
> >
> > When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
> > negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need
to be
> > printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
> > produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four)
mega
> > pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution
35mm
> > film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional
pixels do
> > is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera
reach and
> > exceed previous boundaries of film.
> >
> > Douglas
>
> Is this an advertisement? Sounds like you selling something here.

He is always trying to pull a fast one. According to what I've read, he
used to own a web business with a warranty policy that violated
Australian law. A bunch of people picked up on it so he pulled the site
down and claimed that he would never post to Usenet again. That turned
out to be another lie. During the course of discussion, it was reported
that Douglas had an elaborate criminal record, and so did his
wife/partner Marg. Reports said that Douglas did hard time for fraud,
and that his wife spent time in jail for soliciting as a hooker. He has
a few sock puppets like "Ryadia" and "Sebastian Po" that he
occasionally uses to post under.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:28:32 AM

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

Angus Manwaring wrote:
[]
> It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how
> densely populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the
> resolution/image size.
>
> Does that sound reasonable?

No, a smaller chip (in addition to the sensitivity issues) requires close
tolerance in the optics and is more susceptible to diffraction limited
effects, reducing the available aperture range. A bigger chip makes
achieving the actual resolution of the chip achievable.
(Having said that, the anti-alias filter should limit the chip resolution
to half the sampling frequency in any case).

David
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 5:01:18 PM

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

Will D. wrote:
> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
>
> Opinions/comments?
>
> Will D.
>
All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
(almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
not for quality DSLR sensors.

The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging
digital images.

I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what
I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric
growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by
others doing the same thing.

35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging
through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or
as big as a digital image.

Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30%
noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to
degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with
a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture
being the only truly valid comparison.

What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm
image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make
a print and it was that print which became the photograph.

When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be
printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega
pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm
film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do
is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and
exceed previous boundaries of film.

Douglas
November 18, 2004 5:01:19 PM

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

Douglas, I find this interesting because I work in a printing environment
and have a large format color plotter available to me and was wondering how
many megapixels are really necessary to get a clean 24"x36" print. I have
printed a decent (a bit grainy but no jaggies) 18"x24" print from my Sony
Mavica that has less than 1 megapixel. Thanks for the info.


Jeff G.


"Douglas MacDonald" <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:302kpdF2ra2g8U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Will D. wrote:
> > I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
> > equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
> >
> > Opinions/comments?
> >
> > Will D.
> >
> All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
> a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
> (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
> not for quality DSLR sensors.
>
> The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
> is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
> operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging
> digital images.
>
> I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
> 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
> responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what
> I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric
> growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by
> others doing the same thing.
>
> 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging
> through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or
> as big as a digital image.
>
> Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30%
> noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to
> degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with
> a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture
> being the only truly valid comparison.
>
> What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm
> image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make
> a print and it was that print which became the photograph.
>
> When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
> negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be
> printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
> produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega
> pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm
> film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do
> is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and
> exceed previous boundaries of film.
>
> Douglas
>
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 5:01:19 PM

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

On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Will D. wrote:
>> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
>> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
>>
>> Opinions/comments?
>>
>> Will D.
>>
> All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
> a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
> (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
> not for quality DSLR sensors.
>
> The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
> is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
> operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging
> digital images.
>
> I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
> 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
> responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what
> I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric
> growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by
> others doing the same thing.
>
> 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging
> through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or
> as big as a digital image.
>
> Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30%
> noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to
> degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with
> a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture
> being the only truly valid comparison.
>
> What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm
> image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make
> a print and it was that print which became the photograph.
>
> When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
> negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be
> printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
> produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega
> pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm
> film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do
> is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and
> exceed previous boundaries of film.
>
> Douglas

Is this an advertisement? Sounds like you selling something here.
Don't think most folk confuse genuine detail with fake interpolation.
No doubt your customers are impressed, and if they're happy you're
successful. For most people, if you make their images more dramatic,
they're happy, but that's probably not the case here.

Don't think folk here are impressed by being told what many hold true is
only myth. You make a lot of claims that may or may not be valid, but
it sounds like you're cherry picking your data to back up those claims.
If you think that the current lot of high resolution DSLRs are hype,
that's your privilege, but don't think others will buy that just because
you say so. Too many pros are already using the 1Ds where they used to
use medium format.

Not all photographic images become prints, though probably most do, at
least at some point. Some people are into straight photography only,
and are careful to reproduce only what they get, and some people always
manipulate their images. I suspect most people sometimes do one and
sometimes do the other, but I doubt they confuse the two. I know I
don't.

That said, no doubt you have a successful business, but I really doubt
folk here are willing to accept the standards of your customers as their
own.

Will D.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 5:01:19 PM

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

Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie@yahoo.com> writes:
> All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do
> with a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may
> be (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but
> certainly not for quality DSLR sensors.
>
> The process of enlarging digital images is called
> "Interpolation". This is the digital version of the old optical
> enlargers. My business operates a digital print lab in Australia which
> specialises in enlarging digital images.
>
> I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
> 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
> responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and
> what I do for a living cannot be done.

I don't think anybody has ever said that interpolation can't be done.
It is the claim that interpolation work so well that it can /replace/
original resolution that has been challenged.

Last time interpolation was discussed on Usenet. I put up the
following page:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html

I think it demonstrates quite clearly that while good interpolation
algorithms can do some very impressive things to remove pixelation,
you still need to /have/ details in the original bitmap if you want
those details to appear in the image. To have the details, you need
the pixels to capture them - for starters.

> I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR
> cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be
> usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster
> the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed
> previous boundaries of film.

The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm.
By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution
around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 6:56:33 PM

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

"Bubba LugNuts" <bubba-lugnuts@excite.com> writes:

[garbage]

You're "reporting" unsubstanciated garbage that originally was
posted to Usenet by somone using several forged identities.
Reposting it using yet another silly pseudonym doesn't make it
credible, or interesting.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:09:28 PM

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

BlackOps wrote:
> Douglas, I find this interesting because I work in a printing environment
> and have a large format color plotter available to me and was wondering how
> many megapixels are really necessary to get a clean 24"x36" print. I have
> printed a decent (a bit grainy but no jaggies) 18"x24" print from my Sony
> Mavica that has less than 1 megapixel. Thanks for the info.
>
>
> Jeff G.
>
My very best prints (they look as good at 24x36 as they do at 8x12) are
about 170MB, .psd, Photoshop files. I have some 80 Mb PSD files which
look pretty good too. All of them originated from a 10D and 20D with
good glass. I guess if you saved them as jpg files, you might get them
down to 60% of that size without noticeable loss of detail.

I use a 6 colour HP designjet but the Epson's and nova's are not too bad
either. The software you use to get the image up to size will dictate
how good it is. Some people advocate Fred Miranda's 'stair
interpolation' action but in practice it has many limitations. The
software I use alters some parts of the image to vector and others it
leaves as bitmap. It cost an arm and a leg but it gets the results!

Douglas
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:29:37 PM

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

On 18-Nov-04 03:41:18, Gardner said
>In article <952.817T1157T12964828angus@angusm_antispem_.demon.co.uk>,
> "Angus Manwaring" <angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely
>> populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image
>> size.
>>

>No, physical size is important:

>(1) big sensor -> big photo-sites which are more sensitive and
> are less affected by noise.

>(2) big sensor -> low/no "multiplication factor" so your wide
> angle lens is really wide-angle.

I agree the size of the sensor is indicative of the camera's capabilities,
but in context with the O.P.'s question, if you are effectively measuring
the digital camera's resolution against a 35mm film camera, of primary
interest is the true non-interpolated images size you are getting - not
the measurements of the sensor, notwithstanding the implications you raise
in your first point. Your second point is valid, but a seperate issue to
that raised by the O.P.





All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:36:14 PM

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

On 18-Nov-04 04:01:18, Douglas MacDonald said
>Will D. wrote:
>> I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
>> equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.
>>
>> Opinions/comments?
>>
>> Will D.
>>
>All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
>a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
>(almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
>not for quality DSLR sensors.

>The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
>is the digital version of the old optical enlargers.

The difference is that you are enlarging true detail when you blow up a
film image. Interpolation is an algorithm's best guess as to what the
adjacent pixels are likely to be, and while I have no doubt your results
are very good, I think its important not to blur this distinction.


All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:39:54 PM

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

On 18-Nov-04 10:57:06, Gisle Hannemyr said

>I think it demonstrates quite clearly that while good interpolation
>algorithms can do some very impressive things to remove pixelation,
>you still need to /have/ details in the original bitmap if you want
>those details to appear in the image. To have the details, you need
>the pixels to capture them - for starters.

Well said, sir. :) 

All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:57:37 AM

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

Bubba LugNuts wrote:

> He is always trying to pull a fast one. According to what I've read, he
> used to own a web business with a warranty policy that violated
> Australian law. A bunch of people picked up on it so he pulled the site
> down and claimed that he would never post to Usenet again. That turned
> out to be another lie. During the course of discussion, it was reported
> that Douglas had an elaborate criminal record, and so did his
> wife/partner Marg. Reports said that Douglas did hard time for fraud,
> and that his wife spent time in jail for soliciting as a hooker. He has
> a few sock puppets like "Ryadia" and "Sebastian Po" that he
> occasionally uses to post under.
>
Gotcha...
You slandered me for the last time bastard.
This group doesn't accept posts from mail2news remailing services for
the very purpose of identifying where defamation from lying bastards
like you originates from.

Here's my offer again.
$500 US CASH reward paid to anyone who can positively identify you with
a valid address I can server papers to. I'll pay the money through a
lawyer in the country you reside in. You and I will yet see each other
in court. And don't you worry too much... The Mexicans don't take kindly
to people using them for defamation either.

Douglas
--------------------

netnum: 200.79.91/24
status: reallocated
owner: Reasignacion UniNet
ownerid: MX-REUN-LACNIC
responsible: David Chavez Alba
address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
address: 01900 - Mexico DF - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 55 54907000 [7049]
owner-c: SRU
tech-c: SRU
created: 20031021
changed: 20031021
inetnum-up: 200.79.0/17
inetnum-up: 200.79/16

nic-hdl: SRU
person: SEGURIDAD DE RED UNINET
e-mail: abuse@UNINET.NET.MX
address: PERIFERICO SUR, 3190, ALVARO OBREG
address: 01900 - MEXICO - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 55 52237234 []
created: 20030701
changed: 20030703
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 11:20:08 AM

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

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>
>>I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR
>>cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be
>>usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster
>>the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed
>>previous boundaries of film.
>
>
> The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm.
> By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution
> around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm.
----------
What you say Gisle is quite true. If it were not for the fact that a
film has no intrinsic use until it it is converted to either a print or
another film (transparency). In this conversion, it changes from one
form of existence to another.

That change is what no one seems to take into consideration when
attempting a comparison. Digital images do not degrade from copying
unless the copying medium loses data. When you change a digital image to
a photograph, you have the opportunity not available with a film
conversion to improve the image.

Should we call a film 'analogue'? If so, it is easy to consider how much
detail is lost when copying a VHS 'analogue' video compared to a digital
video recording. The same applies to a film image, copy it and no matter
how good your gear is, some of the image will be lost.

You are absolutely correct that a good image is needed to obtain good
results. This is after all a DSLR group so it is reasonable to make a
few assumptions when posting here. One is that any DSLR will have at
least some halfway decent glass and be able to capture a detailed image
in the first place.

As for those who say I'm advertising my business buy posting information
of use to the group... Really? Show me which business, where, how and
what I am accused of advertising and I'll stop.


Douglas
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 11:20:09 AM

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

On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>>
>>>I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR
>>>cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be
>>>usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster
>>>the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed
>>>previous boundaries of film.
>>
>>
>> The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm.
>> By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution
>> around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm.
> ----------

Not in response to me, but I started the thread...

> What you say Gisle is quite true. If it were not for the fact that a
> film has no intrinsic use until it it is converted to either a print or
> another film (transparency). In this conversion, it changes from one
> form of existence to another.

"Intrinsic use"? What does that have to do with anything?

> That change is what no one seems to take into consideration when
> attempting a comparison. Digital images do not degrade from copying
> unless the copying medium loses data. When you change a digital image to
> a photograph, you have the opportunity not available with a film
> conversion to improve the image.

So what's your point?

> Should we call a film 'analogue'? If so, it is easy to consider how much
> detail is lost when copying a VHS 'analogue' video compared to a digital
> video recording. The same applies to a film image, copy it and no matter
> how good your gear is, some of the image will be lost.

Okay, your point seems to be that digital is never lossy and film always
is, right?

Bushwa. Ever seen anyone click on the wrong icon and save a degraded
file over the top of the original? Easy to do when you're working with
jpegs. Ever seen a master darkroom tech produce a positive large format
dupe that faithfully records the grain of the original? I have.

In the real world, there's always the possibility of loss in both media.

> You are absolutely correct that a good image is needed to obtain good
> results. This is after all a DSLR group so it is reasonable to make a
> few assumptions when posting here. One is that any DSLR will have at
> least some halfway decent glass and be able to capture a detailed image
> in the first place.

Now you're making assumptions that are "intrinsically" invalid. How
many people have bought a DReb kit with that horrible piece of coke
bottle glass, and thought they were doing just great? And inevitably
some of them will wind up here, trying to get answers to questions they
don't know enough to ask.

> As for those who say I'm advertising my business buy posting information
> of use to the group... Really? Show me which business, where, how and
> what I am accused of advertising and I'll stop.

How about the one you cited in your original response, the one you said
was undergoing "electric" growth. Being coy and not naming the business
gets people to ask, and that's a come-on.

Nah, you're a troll, as far as I'm concerned.

Will D.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 5:57:21 PM

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

Angus Manwaring <angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[Interpolation versus enlarging analogue film]
> The difference is that you are enlarging true detail when you blow up a
> film image.

Only up to the point where the negative still holds additional
information and where the gear used does not go past it's limits.
Blowing up a 35mm film to 4m x 6m should widely surpass said
limits.

> Interpolation is an algorithm's best guess as to what the
> adjacent pixels are likely to be,

True if you use a single image --- but (nitpick) if you have
multiple, near-identical images, you can do, ah, interesting stuff
http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/gallery-auto/
Note that that eats lots of CPU time for larger images.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 9:44:39 PM

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

Kibo informs me that Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> stated that:

>"Bubba LugNuts" <bubba-lugnuts@excite.com> writes:
>
> [garbage]
>
>You're "reporting" unsubstanciated garbage that originally was
>posted to Usenet by somone using several forged identities.
>Reposting it using yet another silly pseudonym doesn't make it
>credible, or interesting.

'Bubba' is just another sock-puppet belonging to the same psycho who
posted the original slander against Douglas & others in the various
photography groups. He's a buddy of Steve Young's, & I believe I know
who he is.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 9:47:05 PM

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

Kibo informs me that Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie@yahoo.com> stated
that:

>Here's my offer again.
>$500 US CASH reward paid to anyone who can positively identify you with
>a valid address I can server papers to. I'll pay the money through a
>lawyer in the country you reside in. You and I will yet see each other
>in court. And don't you worry too much... The Mexicans don't take kindly
>to people using them for defamation either.

Douglas - The Mexican system Bubba/CharterFix/Orville posted through has
an open web proxy port that he used to relay his post via Google. I'm
gathering evidence on the actual person behind those identities, & will
be in touch with you (& others he's slandered) when I have solid enough
enough data to launch court actions.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 8:29:53 PM

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

When someone has a pre-concieved opinion, is it possible to change it?
I think not Will, but for those poor individuals who use "that horrible
piece of coke bottle glass" I have some valuable news.

For you Will, well, you've already made up your mind so you might as well
not read any further.

The 18~55 kit lens which comes with a Digital Rebel and a 20D is not glass
but acrylic plastic. It has the distintion of being one of the lightest zoom
lenses Canon make. It is also a pretty good lens in it's own right and I
offer a few examples of it's resolution capabilities, it's chromatic
suppression and it's ability to shoot directly into the late afternoon sun
without flair. Oh, did I mention image taken with that lens on a 20D enlarge
to 2 feet by 3 feet without loss of detail? Well they do!
http://www.ryadia.com/

AJ.

All the irrelevant stuff which was below has been snipped out

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10pqv57gmhbqje5@corp.supernews.com...

> Now you're making assumptions that are "intrinsically" invalid. How
> many people have bought a DReb kit with that horrible piece of coke
> bottle glass, and thought they were doing just great? And inevitably
> some of them will wind up here, trying to get answers to questions they
> don't know enough to ask.
>
> Will D.
>
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 8:29:54 PM

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

"Alien Jones" <AJ_himself@yahoo.com> writes:

> When someone has a pre-concieved opinion, is it possible to change
> it? I think not Will, but for those poor individuals who use "that
> horrible piece of coke bottle glass" I have some valuable news.
>
> For you Will, well, you've already made up your mind so you might as
> well not read any further.
>
> The 18~55 kit lens which comes with a Digital Rebel and a 20D is not
> glass but acrylic plastic. It has the distintion of being one of the
> lightest zoom lenses Canon make. It is also a pretty good lens in
> it's own right and I offer a few examples of it's resolution
> capabilities,

.... at 350 x 228 pixels, JPEG-compressed to hell.

I am not dissing your lens - but your "examples" are a bad joke.

If you don't want to post full size images for bandwith reasons,
why don't you - at least - post some crops from a full size frame?

> http://www.ryadia.com/

--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 12:05:09 AM

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

On 2004-11-21, Alien Jones <AJ_himself@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When someone has a pre-concieved opinion, is it possible to change it?
> I think not Will, but for those poor individuals who use "that horrible
> piece of coke bottle glass" I have some valuable news.
>
> For you Will, well, you've already made up your mind so you might as well
> not read any further.
>
> The 18~55 kit lens which comes with a Digital Rebel and a 20D is not glass
> but acrylic plastic. It has the distintion of being one of the lightest zoom
> lenses Canon make. It is also a pretty good lens in it's own right and I
> offer a few examples of it's resolution capabilities, it's chromatic
> suppression and it's ability to shoot directly into the late afternoon sun
> without flair. Oh, did I mention image taken with that lens on a 20D enlarge
> to 2 feet by 3 feet without loss of detail? Well they do!
> http://www.ryadia.com/
>
> AJ.
>
> All the irrelevant stuff which was below has been snipped out

Well, I just had my lunch handed to me here, and I deserved every bite!

Apologies to those folk who have this apparently quite nice lens. It is
*not* the same kit lens that comes with the film bodies, which by all
accounts is coke bottle glass. Guess I should look to see if the brain
is in gear before engaging fingers, eh?

The 18-55 is the lens that cannot be mounted on a film camera, costs
around $100, and is generally considered a no-brainer as a purchase. As
I'm thinking about a 20D, I'll probably get one of those as well.

As far as the lens optics are concerned, Canon says they are made of
lead-free glass. Size and weight reduction are largely due to
downsizing the image circle requirements. Flare reduction caused by
enhanced lens coatings, especially on the rear elements, AIUI.

Also, there appears to be a new USM version of the lens now available.
I'll go for that. I've got only one EF lens that is not USM and that's
the 50mm f1.4. By comparison, it's not only noisy but slow. Given the
20D advertises a shutter lag of 65ms, the USM lens is probably the way
to go.

Will D.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 2:29:25 PM

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

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10q20o5n9lf5610@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2004-11-21, Alien Jones <AJ_himself@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > When someone has a pre-concieved opinion, is it possible to change it?
> > I think not Will, but for those poor individuals who use "that horrible
> > piece of coke bottle glass" I have some valuable news.
> >
> > For you Will, well, you've already made up your mind so you might as
well
> > not read any further.
> >
> > The 18~55 kit lens which comes with a Digital Rebel and a 20D is not
glass
> > but acrylic plastic. It has the distintion of being one of the lightest
zoom
> > lenses Canon make. It is also a pretty good lens in it's own right and I
> > offer a few examples of it's resolution capabilities, it's chromatic
> > suppression and it's ability to shoot directly into the late afternoon
sun
> > without flair. Oh, did I mention image taken with that lens on a 20D
enlarge
> > to 2 feet by 3 feet without loss of detail? Well they do!
> > http://www.ryadia.com/
> >
> > AJ.
> >
> > All the irrelevant stuff which was below has been snipped out
>
> Well, I just had my lunch handed to me here, and I deserved every bite!
>
> Apologies to those folk who have this apparently quite nice lens. It is
> *not* the same kit lens that comes with the film bodies, which by all
> accounts is coke bottle glass. Guess I should look to see if the brain
> is in gear before engaging fingers, eh?
>
> The 18-55 is the lens that cannot be mounted on a film camera, costs
> around $100, and is generally considered a no-brainer as a purchase. As
> I'm thinking about a 20D, I'll probably get one of those as well.
>
> As far as the lens optics are concerned, Canon says they are made of
> lead-free glass. Size and weight reduction are largely due to
> downsizing the image circle requirements. Flare reduction caused by
> enhanced lens coatings, especially on the rear elements, AIUI.
>
> Also, there appears to be a new USM version of the lens now available.
> I'll go for that. I've got only one EF lens that is not USM and that's
> the 50mm f1.4. By comparison, it's not only noisy but slow. Given the
> 20D advertises a shutter lag of 65ms, the USM lens is probably the way
> to go.
>
> Will D.
>
Tell me please Will... the 50 1.4 you speak of. Is this the lens which is
noisey? I just ordered a 50mm 1.4 USM lens. I hope you are talking about a
different model!!!

If you do some landscapes, a (as yet un confirmed) good quality lens from
Canon is the 10~22 "coke bottle" lens. The USM (f4.0) 17~40 is a big hit on
the cost of a kit version 20D. Financially speaking, I can see a lot of
value in a 18~55, 20D kit and an additional 10~22 lens. There is not much
wider without a fisheye and if it is as good as the other speciality lenses
from Canon, it will be good enough for most people. Me included.

AJ
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 2:29:26 PM

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

On 2004-11-22, Alien Jones <AJ_himself@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>
> Tell me please Will... the 50 1.4 you speak of. Is this the lens which is
> noisey? I just ordered a 50mm 1.4 USM lens. I hope you are talking about a
> different model!!!

Heh, well, They call it a micro USM lens. That means it has the small
micromotor instead of the larger older micromotor. Most USM lenses use
the ring motor which is virtually silent and vibration free, not so the
micro USM. And it has a gritty movement, compared to the other ring
motors. At the time I got it, I was disappointed in these facts, but
checking around a bit revealed that they all did that. Maybe the newer
ones are smoother, I don't know.

That said, it is one hell of a great lens, possibly the very sharpest of
the Canon EF lenses, and it is sturdy, etc, etc. The small annoyance of
the AF movement is easily offset by the capabilities of the lens itself.

> If you do some landscapes, a (as yet un confirmed) good quality lens from
> Canon is the 10~22 "coke bottle" lens. The USM (f4.0) 17~40 is a big hit on

Note that I don't call it a "coke bottle" lens. The lens I was referring
to (had in mind) was the 28-85(?) zoom that comes with the film Rebels
as the kit lens. The wide angle zooms are altogether a different lens
in a different price range.

I don't do a lot of landscapes now, and never did landscape per se with
cassette film, only roll and sheet film cameras.

> the cost of a kit version 20D. Financially speaking, I can see a lot of
> value in a 18~55, 20D kit and an additional 10~22 lens. There is not much
> wider without a fisheye and if it is as good as the other speciality lenses
> from Canon, it will be good enough for most people. Me included.

These new lenses are evidently very fine performers, though there is
still some difference between zooms and primes, just nowhere near as
much as there used to be. I've no idea what sort of wide lenses I will
be looking at when I eventually go DSLR.

HTH

Will D.
!