A $1200 21MP Digital Camera

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (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.


>LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

= I am trolling.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (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.
>

I can take a shot with a disposable camera, have an 8X10 print made and then
scan that on my flatbed and have an even LARGER file!

--

Stacey

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

In article <1125530694.038291.308500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote:

> >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?

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

kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> writes:

> > > LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
> >
> > Ah. Troll. Never mind, then.
>
> Please, how am I a troll? I was just joking with that. But can anyone
> be specific on why I am wrong? Just one point will suffice.

Well, risking taking your at your word here (that's a pretty
ill-considered joke given the prevalence of trolling on Usenet and
mailing lists)....

> How is it different from taking 1's and 0's from a partial frame sensor?
>
> MP is MP.

Yes, but MP is not *image quality*.

My experience is that direct digital scene capture megapixels are
generally worth something very vaguely like *twice* what scanned
megapixels are worth, in terms of image quality. I've scanned film
myself on three different scanners, plus worked from scans made by
others on at least three more, and compared those to output from
something like 5 different digital cameras, and it's very obvious to
me that this is true.

I can speculate on various reasons why scanned film images aren't the
best. The pixel frequency may interact weirdly with the grain
clumping in the film. The results are abstracted another couple of
levels from reality. The image on the film isn't completely sharp and
perfect to begin with even before grain is considered.

Try this experiment: Take a 35mm film frame, a good sharp one, and
scan it at a resolution to match some digital camera you have handy.
Now take a similar photo with the digital camera. Examine the two
photos at 100%, and tell us what *you* think.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

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

kz8rt3 wrote:

>
> Please, how am I a troll? I was just joking with that. But can anyone
> be specific on why I am wrong?

Because not all pixels are equal in quality. Not that you're being a troll,
just that scanned film doesn't have nearly as clean a pixel quality as
digital capture does, depending on the camera and lens used of course..

> MP is MP.

See above.

--

Stacey

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

In article <87k6i1juzz.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>I can speculate on various reasons why scanned film images aren't the
>best.

Simply comparing the MTF graphs should be enough. Most digital cameras
have a rather high MTF at nyquist. This creates an impression of sharpness
(but also creates aliasing errors). For 4000 dpi (and higher) scans, the
MTF of most films is quite low at nyquist.


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

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

In article <2DvRe.5884$sw6.1420@fed1read05>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3nndmdF28r62U3@individual.net...
> > kz8rt3 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Please, how am I a troll? I was just joking with that. But can anyone
> >> be specific on why I am wrong?
> >
> > Because not all pixels are equal in quality. Not that you're being a
> > troll,
> > just that scanned film doesn't have nearly as clean a pixel quality as
> > digital capture does, depending on the camera and lens used of course..
> >
> >> MP is MP.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Stacey
>
> He doesn't care about that, his entire theme is based on numbers only. If
> you can't quantify it, it doesn't exist, for the purposes of this
> discussion...

Thank you.

No one has said "yes they are both 21mp, but" yet.

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

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:43167DF4.90508542@killspam.127.0.0.1:

>
>
> kz8rt3 wrote:
>>
>> In article <3nn0ovF2btljU3@individual.net>, Stacey
>> <fotocord@yahoo.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.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I can take a shot with a disposable camera, have an 8X10 print made
>> > and then scan that on my flatbed and have an even LARGER file!
>>
>> We have the same brain! Amazing.
>>
>> Yes, larger file and more MP!
>
> Ever heard the phrase 'empty magnification'? Using a pixel resolution
> finer then the detail in your negative achieves nothing. There's no
> point in using 10 pixels when 2 will cover the detail.
>
> So, your 20-odd MP file from your negative does not indicate that the
> negative contains that level of detail. Hence, the statement that the
> average negative is about equivalent to 6 or 8 MP is correct
> regardless of the resolution you scan it at.
>
> Colin D.
>

Quite correct. Also a digital image will capture details in highlights
and shadows that will be missing in a film negative or transparency. You
can pull detail out of an underexposed transparency but not if the
highlights are blown away. What good is a high pixel count if there is
nothing to record. GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Plus film has layers
of dye couplers in the emulsion, plus the acetate base which will degrade
the scan. Anytime you go one more generation you have to loose something.
But what's the point of taking something beyond what the human eye can
resolve? Also it depends on how something is viewed. Look at a
billboard from 100 meters back, then go stand a meter back from it and
compare the difference.

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

In article <Xns96C45A44F1E72wyatterp@69.28.186.125>,
"Tom B. Stone" <Plot9@BootHill.AZ> wrote:

> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:43167DF4.90508542@killspam.127.0.0.1:
>
> >
> >
> > kz8rt3 wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3nn0ovF2btljU3@individual.net>, Stacey
> >> <fotocord@yahoo.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.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I can take a shot with a disposable camera, have an 8X10 print made
> >> > and then scan that on my flatbed and have an even LARGER file!
> >>
> >> We have the same brain! Amazing.
> >>
> >> Yes, larger file and more MP!
> >
> > Ever heard the phrase 'empty magnification'? Using a pixel resolution
> > finer then the detail in your negative achieves nothing. There's no
> > point in using 10 pixels when 2 will cover the detail.
> >
> > So, your 20-odd MP file from your negative does not indicate that the
> > negative contains that level of detail. Hence, the statement that the
> > average negative is about equivalent to 6 or 8 MP is correct
> > regardless of the resolution you scan it at.
> >
> > Colin D.
> >
>
> Quite correct. Also a digital image will capture details in highlights
> and shadows that will be missing in a film negative or transparency. You
> can pull detail out of an underexposed transparency but not if the
> highlights are blown away. What good is a high pixel count if there is
> nothing to record. GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Plus film has layers
> of dye couplers in the emulsion, plus the acetate base which will degrade
> the scan. Anytime you go one more generation you have to loose something.
> But what's the point of taking something beyond what the human eye can
> resolve? Also it depends on how something is viewed. Look at a
> billboard from 100 meters back, then go stand a meter back from it and
> compare the difference.

But it's still 21mp.

I am always amazed at how so many people know so much different stuff
about one thing.

Get your digital camera and shoot at 1600 iso.

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

kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
> If I have a 21mp image and I want to blow it up, that image will show
> less pixelization then a 8mp camera, yes?

Not necessarily, no. It depends on the algorithm used, and the
quality of the starting 21mp image.


> So no matter what image you take, you are going to see more pixels with
> 8mp then at 21mp when blown up to 16" x 16".

Only assuming that you're comparing an 8mp image and a 21mp image
taken by the same digital sensor. If you're starting from film, you
may see more detail in the 8mp image than a 21mp scanned image,
because most of the extra pixels in the 21mp scanned image are
garbage. If the scanner resolution exceeds the detail resolution on
the film (as determined by grain, circle of confusion diameter, etc.),
then what the scanner is doing to get the extra pixels is almost
exactly the same as upsampling.

Various real-world tests have shown that 35mm film appears to have the
same detail capacity as a digital camera with a good 8MP sensor. No
matter how good the scanner is, it can't create detail that simply
isn't there to scan.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.

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

kz8rt3 wrote:
>
> In article <43167DF4.90508542@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> > kz8rt3 wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3nn0ovF2btljU3@individual.net>, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I can take a shot with a disposable camera, have an 8X10 print made and
> > > > then
> > > > scan that on my flatbed and have an even LARGER file!
> > >
> > > We have the same brain! Amazing.
> > >
> > > Yes, larger file and more MP!
> >
> > Ever heard the phrase 'empty magnification'? Using a pixel resolution
> > finer then the detail in your negative achieves nothing. There's no
> > point in using 10 pixels when 2 will cover the detail.
> >
> > So, your 20-odd MP file from your negative does not indicate that the
> > negative contains that level of detail. Hence, the statement that the
> > average negative is about equivalent to 6 or 8 MP is correct regardless
> > of the resolution you scan it at.
> >
> > Colin D.
>
> If I have a 21mp image and I want to blow it up, that image will show
> less pixelization then a 8mp camera, yes?
>
> So no matter what image you take, you are going to see more pixels with
> 8mp then at 21mp when blown up to 16" x 16".
>
> See my point?
>
> So in this case the 21mp scanner is better.

Doing that will achieve nothing that an uprez from 6 or 8 MP cannot do.
In fact an uprez from a digital file will be cleaner than your 21MP from
a film negative.

Colin D.

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

In article <q5y86d3lyc.fsf@kolme.ifi.uio.no>,
Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> writes:
> > I just wanted to point out that MP doesn't make a camera and in most
> > cases, is irrelevant to the final image.
>
> Great! For an encore, why don't you point out that the pope is
> catholic?

Pat Pope is catholic?

http://www.patpope.com/