Professional Web Applications Themes

1Ds MkII - Photography

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

Sponsored Links
  1. #1

    Default 1Ds MkII

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

    Opinions/comments?

    Will D.

    Sponsored Links
    Will D. Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    "Will D." <willdno.spam> wrote in news:10pm0vhs4j2jb1acorp.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.
    Nunnya Bizniss Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    > 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?

    Nunnya Bizniss Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    On 17-Nov-04 12:17:11, Nunnya Bizniss said
    >"Will D." <willdno.spam> wrote in news:10pm0vhs4j2jb1acorp.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 [url]http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html[/url]

    Angus Manwaring Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    On 2004-11-17, Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+njusifi.uio.no> wrote:
    > Ron Lacey <ronronstoons.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.

    Will D. Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    In article <952.817T1157T12964828angusangusm_antispem_.demon .co.uk>,
    "Angus Manwaring" <angusangusm_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 <gbuchanarogers.com>
    Ottawa, ON FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today.
    Gardner Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    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
    Douglas MacDonald Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    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> wrote in message
    news:302kpdF2ra2g8U1uni-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
    >

    BlackOps Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    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


    David J Taylor Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    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
    Douglas MacDonald Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie> 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.

    Will D. Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie> 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:
    [url]http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html[/url]

    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 - [url]http://folk.uio.no/gisle/[/url] ]
    ================================================== ======================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
    Gisle Hannemyr Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII


    Will D. wrote:
    > On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie> 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.

    Bubba LugNuts Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    "Bubba LugNuts" <bubba-lugnutsexcite.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 - [url]http://folk.uio.no/gisle/[/url] ]
    ================================================== ======================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
    Gisle Hannemyr Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    On 18-Nov-04 03:41:18, Gardner said
    >In article <952.817T1157T12964828angusangusm_antispem_.demon .co.uk>,
    > "Angus Manwaring" <angusangusm_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 [url]http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html[/url]

    Angus Manwaring Guest

  16. Moderated Post

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    Removed by Administrator
    Angus Manwaring Guest
    Moderated Post

  17. #17

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    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 [url]http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html[/url]

    Angus Manwaring Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    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 .
    This group doesn't accept posts from mail2news remailing services for
    the very purpose of identifying where defamation from lying s
    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: [email]abuseUNINET.NET.MX[/email]
    address: PERIFERICO SUR, 3190, ALVARO OBREG
    address: 01900 - MEXICO - DF
    country: MX
    phone: +52 55 52237234 []
    created: 20030701
    changed: 20030703
    Douglas MacDonald Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    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 'ogue'? If so, it is easy to consider how much
    detail is lost when copying a VHS 'ogue' 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
    Douglas MacDonald Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: 1Ds MkII

    On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald <technoaussie> 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 'ogue'? If so, it is easy to consider how much
    > detail is lost when copying a VHS 'ogue' 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.

    Will D. Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Better ISO 1600: 1D MkII or 20D?
    By you know who maybe in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 3rd, 05:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139