Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 15, 2006, 5:22 PM   #41
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default


Quote:
I see you still haven't changed a single bit! You still try to avoid the proof that I handed out to you.
You proved nothing. You insulted me a lot, but your "demonstration" was entirely unconvincing.

Quote:
It's a freakin' picture, you judge it by how you see it!
Exactly. We're obviously looking at different things though. Because I see the 20D giving equal or better results than 35mm.

Quote:
It's so simple, even you should be able to understand it!
Once again with proof by ad-hominem attack.

Quote:
Just another one of your typically idiotic points!
And again.

Quote:
Another one of your sad-sap references!
And again.

Quote:
How completely blind are you that you can't see
And again.

Quote:
Idiots like you that are trying desperately to convince yourself
And again.

Quote:
Anybody with any technical knowledge
And again. This time taking on Roger Clark whose bio follows:

Dr. Roger Clark earned his Ph.D. in Planetary Science from MIT in 1980. Roger's expertise is identifying and mapping minerals on the Earth, other planets and their satellites using imaging spectroscopy. He develops laboratory, telescopic and spacecraft spectrometers and imaging spectrometers. He has published over 160 scientific papers, including papers on every planet in the Solar System. His research includes discoveries of the compositions of planetary and satellite surfaces, and mapping the locations of minerals on the Earth and planets. He also publishes on environmental issues on the Earth, such as ecosystems in Yellowstone, and led the USGS environmental assessment of the World Trade Center Disaster.
Roger is a science flight team member on the Cassini mission to Saturn, Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (VIMS) http://wwwvims.lpl.arizona.edu, and a Co-Investigator for the Thermal Emission Spectrometer (TES) http://tes.asu.edu. Team on the Mars Global Surveyor, which has been orbiting Mars since 1997. Roger is also a Co-Investigator on the Moon Mineral Mapper (M[sup]3[/sup]) http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov/html/m3.html, on the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission scheduled for launch in 2007.
As an "amateur" astronomer, Roger has been an avid deep-sky observer, sketching hundreds of galaxies, nebulae, and star clusters. He has researched the human eye and how the eye and brain functions in low light conditions. That research led to a book, Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky, published in 1990 (Sky Publishing and Cambridge University Press), which advanced amateur astronomer's knowledge of how best to observe the the night sky with a telescope.
Roger's work involves scientific imaging of the Earth and planets. He applies technical knowledge from his science to photography as an art form. Roger captures the beauty of the Earth and the night sky with photography and through drawings of celestial wonders. His photography ranges from 35mm through large format (4x5 and 8x10 cameras), and the new field of digital. He mainly photographs landscapes, wildlife, and the night sky. Roger's images have appeared in scientific publications, popular articles, books, magazines, and newsletters. His images have won national and international photo competitions and are on display in fine art galleries.


Quite clearly the man has no technical knowledge at all, anything he says about s/n ratios should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Thanks for clearing that up Ted.


Quote:
Wouldn't it be great if interpolation algorithms work as good as you blindly hope they do?
And again ad infinitum....

Long on personal attacks and desperately short on any actual data or reasoned argument to counter what I say and the links I point to.

The simple fact is that you can't, you don't know how. So vicious personal attacks are all you are capable of.


Quote:
And ultimately, I think it is rather hilarious how you always run 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?
Which is what I have been trying to do over these posts, but of course you just ignore all that.



All right Ted I give up - you are right, thanks for sorting it all out for us.

Got it everyone? 35mm film is better than any digital camera that ever has or will be made.

Ted has spoken, and let that be an end of the matter for once and for all.




peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 6:40 PM   #42
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Oh, come on! You prove my point again! You consistently avoid the subject. What's wrong with calling you what I see you to be? Even if it is unjust, it doesn't change the fact that I have pointed out manytruths while you just sit around and ignorantly deny that they exsist.

Quote:
Quote:
It's so simple, even you should be able to understand it!
Once again with proof by ad-hominem attack.
Well, you obviously didn't understand it before!!! This, time, I thought I could explain things in a manner which iseasier to understand.

You claim digital SLRs produce less noise in their images. I never denied that. You exclaim that all grain is completely worthless and should never be seen. Therefore, since digital cameras produce less noise,they are bar-none superior in every single aspect according to you. Off what do you base this? Why do you think grain is the only aspect of image quality? Why do you think film is so grainy?

I'd much rather have a slightly grainy image than a completely plasticy, overly smoothed looking image with very little real-life texture.

Quote:
You proved nothing. You insulted me a lot, but your "demonstration" was entirely unconvincing.
What a joke! It was a completely valid real-life image from a real-life scene, without grain reduction. You were supposed to simply tell me if it was as bad as you expected it would be. You couldn't even tell me that you saw grain, let alone that it was far less than you were claiming it would be! Instead, you wanted to see mathematics used to compare the two. You seem to thinkthat what very little amount of grain you saw -in a 10MP scan of consumer-grade 400 speed film -made it pointless to scan at that resolution.
Quote:
This time taking on Roger Clark whose bio follows:
The fact is: you simply don't compare film grain to electronically generated noise using a signal-to-noise ratio method! Film grain and electronic noise are quite different. Testing on a flat gray surface isn't at all an accurate test method anyway!!! Digital noise reduction algorithms, which the 1D Mark II does use, will always try to remove the mottled texture of grain or noise from flat surfaces; thus improving the standard deviance.

Perhaps this guy isn't as smart as you believe him to be.


Quote:
Got it everyone? 35mm film is better than any digital camera that ever has or will be made.

Ted has spoken, and let that be an end of the matter for once and for all.
Is that all the better you are capable of - putting words in my mouth to make me appear wrong? When did I ever say digital cameras will never be better film? The closest I have gotten to that is saying that your digital camera will never be better than film!


Now, for once, do everybody here a favor and answer these simple questions...

1. Do you believe that a 135 Velvia 50 slide will appear to be more grainy than an image from the 1D Mark II shot at ISO 800, as Mr. Clark claims?

2. How do you explain the plethora ofedge artifacts that exist in digitally captured images?

3. If Bayer reconstruction algorithms are so accurate, why does the resolution of an image produced by a 3 megapixel Foveon X3 sensor far exceedthat of an image produced using a3 megapixel Bayer sensor?

I challenge you to answer these questions.



-Ted

dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 7:17 PM   #43
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Long on personal attacks and desperately short on any actual data or reasoned argument to counter what I say and the links I point to.
Get this through your head once and for all...

I scanned 400 speed consumer-grade film at 10 TRUE megapixels. I essentially used a 10 megapixel Foveon X3 sensor to capture the film frame. Guess what -it couldn't resolve all of the real-world detail off of the film. A 40 megapixel scan clearly did better. This was demonstrated to you. You can't possibly explain this away. Now realize the implications of this demonstration... If a film frame has more than 10 true megapixels of resolution, how well do you think your 8 megapixel, Bayer pattern sensor will fare against it?

I showed you a demonstration of grain from a 10 megapixel scan of 400 speed consumer film. I never once claimed it was grainless. I never claimed it was less grainy than a digital SLR's images. I did say, however, that it would be far less grainy than you claimed it would be. When you saw it, you said something to effect of "I want to see it mathematically analyzed". You conveniently didn't mention that it was far less grainy than you were claiming it would be. Yeah, there was grain there, but nowhere near enough to be a distraction. It was if anything a pleasing effect; something to lend the image a texture of real world feel.

Quote:
The simple fact is that you can't, you don't know how.
I've given youreal-world proof -visible evidence; not mathematical analysis. What more could you want? Photography is about visual experiences, not mathematical figures.

Grain and resolution are two differenct things. The grain you speak of isn't actually the silver-halide crystals themselves, but rather dye clumps. Therefore, grain as you see it doesn't have as direct of an effect on the resolution as you seem to think.

Let's just pretend for a while that the grain is absolutely obnoxious and thus we will consider the actual raw resolution. I have still proven that 10 megapixels isn't enough for 135 and therefore 135 beats your 8 megapixel bayer sensor resolution-wise. Do you still deny my test proves that?



-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 12:05 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

!

Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 5:24 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 3:15 AM   #45
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
I've given youreal-world proof -visible evidence; not mathematical analysis. What more could you want? Photography is about visual experiences, not mathematical figures.
On the one hand...

I have real world experience with a 20D and 35mm film. My results are much better with the 20D.

My photography lecturer on a course I did recently doesn't use 35mm film anymore he uses his Nikon D70. For his landscape work he still uses his Pentax 6x7 medium format camera.

The students on the course I was attending were using a mix of DSLR and 35mm film SLR. On the best prints (none printed bigger than A4) it was not possible to tell the difference between the two. However there were a lot more duff prints from the film group, the average quality of the prints was noticably higher from the digital group.

So that's MY real world experience.

The real world experience of Norman Koren (who writes Imatest the software that half the photographic world uses to test lens resolution) agrees, and has the math to back it up. And he IS a technical expert.

Roger Clark (bio above) has real world experience which agrees, and the math to back it up. And he IS a technical expert.

I have no personal experience of larger formats, but I have no reason to believe that the many links sharing personal experience of how the higher end digital equipment compares to larger film formats are faked or part of some great conspiracy.





On the other hand there is you:

Who doesn't own a DSLR.

Who isn't a technical expert.

Who cannot grasp that the rate of increase of additional detail captured from a scan decreases as resolution increases. And that to compare the detail captured between the different methods it is necessary to determine how muchnoise is contained in each image.

Who doesn't understand that in most photographs the number of true megapixels captured by an 8mpbayer sensor isn't a maximum of 2mp or 4mp but is usually much closer to ZERO. They are ALL interpolated. And despite your claims that "you cannot get something from nothing"and that "far more often than not, it's very innacurate." we nevertheless are able to get recogisable pictures out of ZERO true pixels.


Who thinks grain is " a pleasing effect; something to lend the image a texture of real world feel." Whereas I don't see grain in the real world, I only see it on pictures taken onfilm.

Who cannot conduct a discussion without personal attack. And thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is stupid, even when the evidence that this is not the case is clearly there for him to see.

Who is never wrong and apparently of superior intellect even compared to someone like Roger Clark, but nevertheless finds it necessary to be abusive in every exchange.



I really don't think most people will find it that hard to choose between the two positions.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 3:41 AM   #46
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
stupid.... ignorant.... idiotic....
.
Feel free to debate the issues. But, there is no need to resort to personal attacks and name calling to make a point, and we don't want it in the forums.

Let's keep it civil.

Thanks.

Jim C.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 1:34 PM   #47
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Jim, I agree. I have been feeling poorly lately about all of the name calling I was doing. It won't happen again.

Peripatetic, I apologize for my name calling.

Now, there is no point in debating your last post since you again didn't even bother to answer the questions that I very distinctly asked you (multiple times). Someone else here owes an apology...

Here they are again...

1. Do you believe that a 135 Velvia 50 slide will appear to be more grainy than an image from the 1D Mark II shot at ISO 800, as Mr. Clark claims?

2. If Bayer reconstruction algorithms are so accurate, how do you explain the plethora of edge artifacts that exist in digitally captured images?

3. If Bayer reconstruction algorithms are so accurate, why does the resolution of an image produced by a 3 megapixel Foveon X3 sensor far exceed that of an image produced using a 3 megapixel Bayer sensor?

By the way, Mr. Clark's little test is significantly out of date. Velvia 100 is now twice the speed of Velvia 50, but has less grain. Also, Astia 100F has even less grain than Velvia 100.


-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 1:40 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
pagerboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 483
Default

I was wondering when someone would mention the Foveon chip? I would like to see a comparison between the three: film, digital and the Foveon.
pagerboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2006, 3:05 PM   #49
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Roger Clark cannot be taken seriously. Why? Judging by the fact that he had a 1D Mark II and the fact there is a publication date of October, 2004 in his so-called scientific test, we know that he was able to get his hands on some Velvia 100F. Now why wouldn't he do that? Velvia 50 was replaced by Velvia 100F, which has twice the speed with less grain. Also, why does he insist the he must test with a high-saturation film? Does he not know that they are more grainy? I believe Astia 100F - an even finer grained film - was available at the time of Mr. Clark's test.

Also, Mr. Clark is by no means testing the actual performance of the sensor itself! What he is using for his tests is quite heavily filtered to look as good as it does. For example, digital noise reduction, fixed-pattern noise removal, etc. Again, I point out the fact that most noise reduction algorithms tend to smooth out flat areas (as Mr. Clark used) because that is where noise is most noticeable.

Now, I have attached an image showing how grainy Astia 100F is. The picture was shot using a Rebel 2000 with the EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens (a $150 setup). It was scanned at 10 TRUE megapixels to approximate the "resolution" of the 1D Mark II. The sample was not resized in any way, it was a direct crop from the 10 megapixel scan. It has NOT been sharpened or grain reduced in any way.

Does it really look anywhere near as grainy as the 1D Mark II does at ISO 800?!!! If you don't know how the 1D Mark II performs at ISO 800, then look at Steve's sample pictures from the camera. Notice how extraordinarily fine and accurate the detail is on the shirt (take a look at 200%).

Jim, you're a voice of reason. What do you think?


-Ted
Attached Images
 
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2006, 5:40 PM   #50
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Where'd everybody go? Did the truth scare you away? Why can't somebody simply admit Roger Clark was wrong in one way or another? He is wrong for not using the latest film stock for comparison! He is wrong for using such a poor test methodology for comparing film to "digital". His test is proven wrong by my simple, easy to reproduce example. Velvia 50 was NOT "grainier"than the 1D Mark II at ISO 800; especially not the lastest film stocks which Mr. Clark could have used but didn't!

Where did you go, peripatetic? Can't you admit you misplaced your faith in Mr. Clark? Will you ever admit that film isn't as grainy as you prentend it to be? These are questions I'd like you to answer. You're silence will prove nothing (other than perhaps that you have shriveled back in fear after being proven wrong again).

Does ANYBODY think my sample looks anywhere near as grainy as the 1D Mark II does at ISO 800???

Steve's1D Mark II sample shots for reference:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...2_samples.html



-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:35 PM.