|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 721
|
![]()
Hi Bernabeu,
You need to do more research on the size you can print off of a digital file. I did a group photograph at a nursing home with over 100 people and it was blown up to be a 30 inch by 50 inch print. It is sharp enough to read the writing on peoples hats and shirts. The color is perfect. The customer was very happy. I got paid a lot. It would have been just fine with a Hasselblad or any good film camera as long as the lab did not mess up the film while processing.( Print or slides would be OK) as long as the original quality is there. I did a 11 X 14 print for the lab to match color and crop. I also provided a CD with the post processing and sizing done. I don't know what they do but the final print was perfect and cost $50.00 to have done. It does not really matter if it is Film or Digital. All I'm saying is Digital is much less expensive and safer then film. The photograph was done with My D-100 because the D-200 was not out yet. Unless you do it your self. Most film is digitaly processed and printed now-days anyway. Ronnie |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
Ronnie948 wrote:
Quote:
EXACTLY my point !!!!!!!!!! If you print the 35mm negative chemically with an ANALOGUE enlarger you will get the EQUIVALENT of up to 40 megapixels resolution ! Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
Caboose,
the pro sports shooters use digital merely because of the work flow and 'good enough' for mass media application Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
|
![]()
bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | ||
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
|
![]() Quote:
I assume that by "mb" you mean "megabytes". Even if you can see signs of "noise" in a 10 megabyte film scan, that by absolutely no means says that's where the extra resolution becomes worthless. Just in case you can't figure it out, an 8bit, 3.5 megapixel image will produce a 10 megabyte file. Are you so completely stupid that you think 35mm film is only worth 3.5 megapixels?!!! I showed you a 10 TRUE megapixel film scan compared to a 40 megapixel film scan of the same frame of film. I clearly demonstrated that a 10 TRUE megapixel scan of a 135 negative isn't enough to resolve all details; the 40 megapixel scan clearly did better. But you, in your great world of denial, pretended you couldn't see the difference, and you certainly couldn't realize the implications of those differences! I showed you how little grain there is in a raw, 10true megapixel film scan of consumer grade, 400 speed film. Your response was that you wanted to see some mathematical evaluation of the amount of noise in the image. Ha! Do you have any actual experience at scanning 35mm negatives with a film scanner? Or did you always judge film by the "horrid prints" you got from the local lab (as you so boldly profess)? How completely blind are you that you can't see that your digital camera doesn't even produce the actual resolution that it is advertised to produce? Do you honestly think that your digital image at 100% looks truly clear and sharp with no edge artifacts or anything like that? An 8 megapixel digital camera does NOT produce images with 8 megapixel resolution; far from it in fact. I tried to explain this to you before, but it was obviously far beyond your comprehensional abilities. Again, peripatetic, in a last ditch effort, you resort to your pethetic argument that "digital is better" because "most pros use it". Do you really think they use it because it produces better results?!!! They use it because they need to be able to take thousands of pictures (like a sports photographer) or have fast turnaround times (like a news photographer). They don't use it because it produces higher quality images. Guess what, more people, by far, use point-and-shoot digital cameras than dodigital SLRs. Does that mean adigital point-and-shoot will produce better images? No! Some of you here seem to have the misguided believe that digital camera images aren't processed when they come out of the camera and that's why film can look better; because it's always processed. Again, completely unabashed ignorance at work here! All digital cameras apply huge amounts of processing to the images; without it, many of you would be completely disgusted by how ugly the images look. Digtal camera images, when compared to film, are subjected to far greater amounts of processing using far less natural methods! How do you think a Bayer-pattern sampled image can look as good as it does? Did you know that virtually all digital cameras employ noise reduction? Bayer reconstruction algorithms (which apply a very large amount of processing to the image)? Sharpening? Color correction? Contrast correction? Quote:
-Ted |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
Is it real?...Or is it Memorex?
If you can print it 'razor sharp' on 16x20" high gloss paper -> it's a photo! yada...yada...yada............................... Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 | ||||||
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
|
![]() Quote:
Hi Tod, Ah yes your silly old assertion that because of interpolation the number of true pixels can be only 4 mp at moston a 8mp sensor. What you are asserting there is that the interpolation algorithm gets it 100% wrong. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes an interpolation algorithm will get it 100% right, but usually less that than. How much less depends on the algorithm and the pattern. In your original example you gave which was that you just take a picture of a red card, I'm pretty sure the algorithm would get it 100% right. There's a lot of monumental ignorance going around. ![]() For those people who don't think bayer interpolation is any more sophisticated than taking a wild guess and couldn't possibly get you closer than 4 "true" mp out of 8 claimed mp on an 8mp sensor perhaps they can start with this article - google has a zillion more links for those interested. http://graphics.cs.msu.su/en/publica...prog2004lk.pdf Quote:
It is a separate assertion that image quality is as good or better and that many fine art photographers (who may or may not be professionals) are turning to digital because they have come to that conclusion too. Quote:
Quote:
No I meant the current iteration of the 1Ds i.e. the MkII - I wasn't aware you were still lurking on these forums. Thought you'd long gone otherwise I would have been more careful in my typing. Quote:
![]() Quote:
In the meantime for anyone who is interested they can have a look at Roger Clarke's calculations. (Who incidentally has fewer statues celebrating his ignorance than I do.) http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ise/index.html |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
peripatetic,
but, they SCANNED the film image making it a DIGITAL image !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! his method merely compared a digital capture to the results of a digital scan of a film capture PLEASE, let's compare a 'darkroom' film print to a digital file print :? Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 | |||
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
It's so simple, even you should be able to understand it! The green channel has the most detail because it has the most photodiodes dedicated to it. It is the highest resolution channel, period! Even at that, it only used half of the pixel count of the camera. Because red and blue are the lowest resolution channels, they need to have their resolution "increased" by copying edgesfrom the green channel. This not only gives an apparent increase to the red and blue resolution, but it also helps hide the color artifacts that would be apparent on edges because bayer pattern innaccuracies. Therefore, many edges in digital camera images appear desaturated. That's because the same luminance was copied to all channels. Prove it to yourself...find an edge (like a powerline against a sky). Now look at the same edge in the green channel and then the red channel. Now, notice how the red channel edge has the same luminance as the edge in the green channel. Let's see you try to explain that into non-existence!!! Wouldn't it be great if interpolation algorithms work as good as you blindly hope they do? We wouldn't need megapixel sensors, we'd just need a few thousand pixels from which we can then interpolate a huge, clear, 40 megapixel image! Come on man! Where's your explanation for all of the edge artifacts you're getting? Those overpopulated edge halos? The softness? Let's see some real info and demonstrations out of you for once - rather than all of your pathetic avoidances of the issue at hand. You can't just conveniently gloss over the obvious. Ton's of people notice edge artifacts and softness all of the time. So, where's your explanation for them?!!! Quote:
Another one of your sad-sap references! Do you seriously believe that Velvia 50 appears more grainy than the 1D Mark II does at ISO 800?!!!! Number one, film scanners CANNOT handle the density of slide film - they'll typically make the image appear more contrasty and thus more grainy. And, how is it fair to compare a noise-reduced digital camera image to a raw film scan? That's hardly a comparison. Idiots like you that are trying desperately to convince yourself that you have the best camera in the world would need to resort to a tactic like this. Mathematical perfection and visual perception are two very different things.Anybody with any technical knowledge should know that signal-to-noise ratios are used for comparing the amount of noisegenerated in theelectronic world. What idiot got the idea of using it measure film grain against electronic noise! Man, talk about comparing apples to muffins. I've seen so many stupid examples like this on the net! Somebody even managed to make negative film look far more contrasty than a P&S digital camera!!! And ultimately, I think it is rather hilarious how you alwaysrun to the big boys (1Ds Mark II and the like) to try to prove that film isn't better. Why don't you try comparing your camera? What is it - a 20D I believe, or is it a 30D now? I'd relish the opportunity to get into a photographic shootout with you. You will get less grain but nowhere near as much less as you hope for. Your resolution will look obviously inferior, especially your contrast range. -Ted |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
can i join the shoot-out ?!
i'll use my 1969 $59 Vivitar rengefinder with the f2.8 (factory) Zeiss lens and kodacolor gold 200 HOORAY- A CONTEST we will make 20x30 prints and examine them with a 3x glass lol, all, and..........................good night :homey: Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:24 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|