Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 85

Thread: Sick of Digital, Going back to Film?

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Why no count? The D1x is a 5.2mp camera, period. In fact, it's not even a true 5.2mp camera, it arrives at its final resolution using technical wizardry, but that cannot invent pixels. In terms of vertical resolution, it is really only a 2.7mp camera. The 10mp is not real pixels at all. Half of that is completely interpolated.
    Yo Jed, need some help.... others too...

    1) ??? Explain how the D1X is advertised as a 10MP camera but really is not? So is Canon (I presume, I'm rather ignorant about these things) cheating consumers or what?

    2) "The technical wizardy" - is it akin to software interpolation? If so how do u obtain a 20 x 30" print that has no pixelation? I mean we all know what happens when u oversample a low res pic.... but similarly if the camera is 5.2MP (let's not argue over the technicalities of whether it is actually 2.7MP or whatever), then it would seem a surprise that such a large print does not look pixelated... how does that happen?

    3) Also u mentioned that interpolation does not add anything to the image... by that do u mean that it does not increase the image quality? It certainly adds pixels right? Cos the file gets larger.... could u explain what u meant?

    4) Interpolate film? Digitally by scanning or by using enlarger lens when developing prints?

    I'm asking cos I haven't the foggiest idea how what some of what u mention is possible....

    As for nightpiper: What do u mean D1X is in a different class? A 5.2MP sensor is more or less there in comparison with a 6MP sensor. If u shoot RAW (as I understand no image manipulations are made by the camera), then would't the effect be the same since the "very advanced image manipulation technique" no longer applies?

  2. #42

    Default

    We are part of the world we seek to understand, and our imperfect understanding plays an important role in shaping the events in which we participate.

    When the world has the concept of what beauty is, the concept of ugliness arises.
    When the world has the concept of what goodness is, the concept of evil emerges.

    The concept of "have" and "have not" appear upon comparison.
    The concept of "difficult" and "easy" are there only upon comparison.

    The different between "long" and "short" is noticed only when comparison is made.
    "High" and "low" exist only when they are compared.

    Two sounds become harmonized only when they are put together.
    The order of "front" and "back" comes about when they are compared.

    People conceive all values and concepts, and all value judgments arise upon comparison.
    The relationship between the opposite objects is always changing whereas the definition of value judgment is ever static. Therefore, be calm about the difference between beauty and ugliness, "have" and "have not", difficult and easy, long and short, high and low, front and back. It is foolish to think that all these values will last forever.

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    hErE lAh
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by engineermunn
    The very nature of the "convenience" factor in digital photography -- freedom to keep snapping w/o waste in film is in itself a disadvantage.

    Once all the trigger-happy shooting is complete, the problems come from the uploading process onwards.

    photshop edit, white balance, clean off blemishes, etc.... can be quite shack if doing a wedding or an event that is photo-intensive.

    For film, you're forced to compose. Post process just have to send for developing and scanning into CD. Post editing only if necesasry.
    For digital one can force oneself to think before pressing the trigger but I have to admit that it is too easy to forget to do such a thing.

    Like u, I went through the hassle of PS, WB etc. So I went back to film once I realise that I had shot more on DSLR just because its there.

    If I want digital, I still have my prosumer cam.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minoxman
    Sharpness digital? You ok or not? My firend uses a 6MP dslr and at 8x10 I can already see facial skin tones abberating.
    Yes I'm ok thank you very much, and yeah, right.

    Also, don't get confused. Skin tones abberating (sic), if I guess what you mean correctly, has nothing to do whatsoever with sharpness. And if aberrating means what I think you mean it to mean, then clearly something is not wrong, JPEG compression would be a guess.

    Even by conservative logic, you need 300dpi to achieve a print. The human eye only perceives 200-300dpi, depending on the person. Hence an 8x10" print would only require 2400x3000 resolution. At 240dpi you still get excellent quality, so much so that Epson printers, which hardly anyone faults, only print at 240dpi of information. To achieve that you for an 8x10" print you need 1920x2400 pixels. Both well within reach of a 6mp camera (2000x3000).

    And from your nick, it seems like you are a fan of the Minox. And you're talking about image quality from digital? To quote a mutual acquaintence, yea right.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    ok, let me apologise for not making it clear in the 1st place. by looking at the thread starter, i presume he is using consumer grade (>$2.8k) equipment here. ok, u can bomb me about presuming.
    Let me get this straight. I'm not complaining about your presuming what he was talking about (although he might), I'm complaining about your presuming that other people also presume the same as you.

    next, if interpolation doesn't add anything to the image, can u explain the file size? to be fair, did u interpolate the film that u had enlarged? can u also explain why after interpolating, the print outs are no longer pixelated?

    Okay. Back to Digital Photography 101 then. Just go and do some basic research on interpolation.

    As a matter of fact, if you have your uninterpolated images printed out at a decent lab which uses a decent system to get it printed, then the printer does its own in built interpolation before output. Ditto whether you use an Epson (240dpi information, 720dpi and upwards printing resolution to mimic continuous tone). Lightjets print well with a native 150dpi resolution or multiples thereof.

    anyone who reads the D1x brochure will know that its horizontal pixels are more than its vertical, & the pixels are elongated, so lets not get too technical about what u know.

    Believe me, I haven't even started getting technical.

    i said not counted becos the D1x is of a different class on its own, when u use D1x, u are looking at a machine with very advance image manipulation technique.

    The D1x is not in a class of its own (different class of its own is a tautology). It costs what it does because of its build quality, and feature set. Sensor wise, in terms of resolution, it hardly outperforms a D2h, and certainly shouldn't outperform a true 6mp chip.

    btw, if u really want to be technically precise, don't process the image & leave in its original distorted proportion. why i say this is becos, u seems to be very precise about that 2.7MP.

    I'm not trying to be technically precise, I never brought up 2.7mp until your reply to my first post. And you can't leave it in its original distorted proportion because the pixels are not symmetrical, you'd still get a 2x3 format image but with 4012 "pixels" across with 1312 "pixels" high.

    lets be a bit more objective. a nikon F55 with 28-105 cost less than $1.5k. a D1x with the same 28-105 , i presume again, is around $7k. don't bomb me of i get the pricing wrong. the 300D with a 28-105 is around $2.5k, i presume. so which is more cost effective? image quality wise, how much is the F55 lagging D1x? & what are their equipment price different?

    Go back, read my post. Let me quote you a line since you clearly didn't read it the first time. "For me the only reason I can see to shoot film (light table aside) is the price. If you can grapple with the price of digital, then well..."

    with the price of D1x, anyone can get a basic M.format & print 20x30 like u mentioned,

    Actually, for $1.5k (your estimate for an F55 with 28-105) you can get a basic M.format. For $7k you could get erm, top of the line medium format.

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Inside the world of tech
    Posts
    100

    Default

    about all those comments on printing digital images

    read this thread:
    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=69512

    and the link that was given by aj23.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME

    1) ??? Explain how the D1X is advertised as a 10MP camera but really is not? So is Canon (I presume, I'm rather ignorant about these things) cheating consumers or what?
    Didn't know it was advertised as a 10mp camera. I don't think Nikon ever have, and Nikon didn't even originally support the 10mp "resolution", until Bibble and Qimage allowed 3rd party conversion anyway, so they finally supported it in one of the later versions of Nikon Capture. Nikon have always marketed it as a 6mp (ish) camera.

    2) "The technical wizardy" - is it akin to software interpolation? If so how do u obtain a 20 x 30" print that has no pixelation? I mean we all know what happens when u oversample a low res pic.... but similarly if the camera is 5.2MP (let's not argue over the technicalities of whether it is actually 2.7MP or whatever), then it would seem a surprise that such a large print does not look pixelated... how does that happen?

    You're right, interpolation. However interpolation as I mentioned doesn't add anything to the image at all. As in, you only have 5.2mp of detail in a D1x image (if that, but that's for a more advanced discussion than what we have here). Interpolating that to 10mp or 30mp or whatever doesn't add any information that wasn't there. All interpolation does is guess from what is in the image, to try to make up the numbers. It stops pixelation, but pixelation isn't the problem you're fighting against when making big prints. If pixelation is the problem you're facing, then clearly you need to do some basic research on digital photography. The problems with over-excessive enlargements are lack of details and distinct lines to carry the enlargement. The former, interpolation can do nothing about, the latter, with some interpolation programs, you can retain to a certain extent although again, the software is guessing.

    3) Also u mentioned that interpolation does not add anything to the image... by that do u mean that it does not increase the image quality? It certainly adds pixels right? Cos the file gets larger.... could u explain what u meant?

    See above. Yes it adds pixels, but not any "real" pixels. To illustrate, take a say, 600 pixel wide image in Photoshop. Downsize it to 50 pixels wide (exaggeration to make the difference more obvious). Save that as a separate file (important, if you don't then Photoshop stores the original in memory for the next step). Now open the 50 pixel image and the 600 pixel image side by side, and enlarge the 50 pixel image (interpolate it) to 600 pixels wide as well. It should be clear as day that you have lost massive amounts of information from the smaller image even though you've interpolated it to 600 pixels. In fact, you've lost 550 horizontal pixels...

    4) Interpolate film? Digitally by scanning or by using enlarger lens when developing prints?

    Sorry if I was vague. You can interpolate digital scans of film, at the post-scanning stage. So you can start with an 8mb scan and interpolate it upwards to say, 20mb or 50mb too. But the same thing remains, you don't actually add any information.

    As for nightpiper: What do u mean D1X is in a different class? A 5.2MP sensor is more or less there in comparison with a 6MP sensor.

    Good question.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Yes I'm ok thank you very much, and yeah, right.

    Also, don't get confused. Skin tones abberating (sic), if I guess what you mean correctly, has nothing to do whatsoever with sharpness. And if aberrating means what I think you mean it to mean, then clearly something is not wrong, JPEG compression would be a guess.

    Even by conservative logic, you need 300dpi to achieve a print. The human eye only perceives 200-300dpi, depending on the person. Hence an 8x10" print would only require 2400x3000 resolution. At 240dpi you still get excellent quality, so much so that Epson printers, which hardly anyone faults, only print at 240dpi of information. To achieve that you for an 8x10" print you need 1920x2400 pixels. Both well within reach of a 6mp camera (2000x3000).

    And from your nick, it seems like you are a fan of the Minox. And you're talking about image quality from digital? To quote a mutual acquaintence, yea right.
    I was comparing sharpness of a digital print to a darkroom print of the same size. In your previous post you said digital gives a sharper image? Yea right again.
    Aberation do mean loss of sharpness, and it's evident even from a pro lab's 8x10 print. Tones do split(aberate) causing marginal blurrness effectively.
    When was the last time you did a darkroom print before you compare sharpness? Or even a slide lab print over a raw print?

    Minoxes will blow you away.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minoxman
    I was comparing sharpness of a digital print to a darkroom print of the same size. In your previous post you said digital gives a sharper image? Yea right again.
    You believe what you will. I stand by what I said, I have the prints in front of me, and I know what my local camera club photographers said too.

    Aberation do mean loss of sharpness, and it's evident even from a pro lab's 8x10 print.

    No it doesn't. Not in the dictionary, not among photographers who understand what the word means. In fact, you've spelt it wrong again, so if you are going to look it up in the dictionary, I'd get the spelling right first.

    Tones do split(aberate) causing marginal blurrness effectively.

    As I guessed. Let me translate, you mean banding. Banding is not a result of sharpness problems, nor did I blame the lab although it *could* be. I blamed jpeg compression if you're having problems with skin tones.

    Spelling again btw.

    Minoxes will blow you away.

    I don't deny that one bit, they're great cameras. I'm not expecting mind blowing reproduction quality from them though.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    You believe what you will. I stand by what I said, I have the prints in front of me, and I know what my local camera club photographers said too.

    Aberation do mean loss of sharpness, and it's evident even from a pro lab's 8x10 print.

    No it doesn't. Not in the dictionary, not among photographers who understand what the word means. In fact, you've spelt it wrong again, so if you are going to look it up in the dictionary, I'd get the spelling right first.

    Tones do split(aberate) causing marginal blurrness effectively.

    As I guessed. Let me translate, you mean banding. Banding is not a result of sharpness problems, nor did I blame the lab although it *could* be. I blamed jpeg compression if you're having problems with skin tones.

    Spelling again btw.

    Minoxes will blow you away.

    I don't deny that one bit, they're great cameras. I'm not expecting mind blowing reproduction quality from them though.
    ab·er·ra·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-rshn)
    n.
    A deviation from the proper or expected course. See Synonyms at deviation.
    A departure from the normal or typical: events that were aberrations from the norm.
    Psychology. A disorder or abnormal alteration in one's mental state.

    A defect of focus, such as blurring in an image.
    An imperfect image caused by a physical defect in an optical element, as in a lens.
    The apparent displacement of the position of a celestial body in the direction of motion of an observer on Earth, caused by the motion of Earth and the finite velocity of light.
    Genetics. A deviation in the normal structure or number of chromosomes in an organism.



    But of course. Who's talking about banding anyway? That I can tell and differentiate.
    I guess if you're gonna pick on my spelling then there's nothing else to talk about.
    Have fun I guess?
    Last edited by Minoxman; 13th April 2004 at 04:10 AM.

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Great, you finally got the spelling after spelling it at least two different wrong ways. As to the explanation, great too. Now explain to me how any of those definitions apply to skin tones poorly rendered by digital cameras?

    Okay, who's talking about banding? I don't know, but you're talking about tones splitting... not you? What's the difference between tones splitting and banding? Actually, just what is tones splitting?

    And let's not get sidetracked. I wasn't criticising your spelling, I was criticising your use of the word aberration. Although after seeing a couple of different versions of the word from you...
    Last edited by Jed; 13th April 2004 at 05:02 AM.

  12. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    i find the complex part of film is also the beauty of it. look at slides under a light box & the image seems to spring out, like 3D. magnify it with a loupe & u get to see alot of details. of cos plpe can argue that its eye straining & cost alot more to make into prints, but the image qualities film holds is just too amazing. the best part is, u can buy different brands & model with the same 'white balance' colour temperature but the results all look so different. its really magical to a certain extend. well at least to me... any film user feel the same?
    right...... i started shooting slide few months ago and i feels so amazing when i look at my 1st roll of slides..........nice colours, sharpness...etc.......i'm in love with it now!

    as for digital, guess is good for beginners, can view the shoot right away. can figure out if he/she applies the correct setting.

    i had tried out shooting wedding with digital and i ended up lot more works to do then shooting films.......so not worth the investment.....and moreover the print-out does not looks that great compares to films.

  13. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesser
    right...... i started shooting slide few months ago and i feels so amazing when i look at my 1st roll of slides..........nice colours, sharpness...etc.......i'm in love with it now!

    as for digital, guess is good for beginners, can view the shoot right away. can figure out if he/she applies the correct setting.

    i had tried out shooting wedding with digital and i ended up lot more works to do then shooting films.......so not worth the investment.....and moreover the print-out does not looks that great compares to films.
    I agree with you. I could be losing my vision but how some people can pick a digital print from a e.g 6mp cam over a traditional B&W print or even one from tranny blown up is really beyond me. Good thing it's a personal thing though.

  14. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nicholas1986
    dun tell me that u do not need to compose when u use digital?
    You may want to return to the first post and follow the thread from there. If you can't understand what's being said, I can't help you.
    Last edited by coke21; 13th April 2004 at 09:14 AM.

  15. #55
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    ClubSNAP community
    Posts
    2,775

    Default

    To each his own.

    I'm happy with digital, the control it gives and the quality I get, be it prosumer or DSLR. Post-processing isn't a problem if well-taken. Film is just additional cost and steps in my workflow, both I'm not willing to compromise.

  16. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minoxman
    I agree with you. I could be losing my vision but how some people can pick a digital print from a e.g 6mp cam over a traditional B&W print or even one from tranny blown up is really beyond me.
    What exactly are you saying? Can you tell the difference or can't you? Now you're saying you can't. Previously, you said you can, as per your earlier posts:

    [1] I was comparing sharpness of a digital print to a darkroom print of the same size. In your previous post you said digital gives a sharper image? Yea right again.
    Aberation do mean loss of sharpness, and it's evident even from a pro lab's 8x10 print. Tones do split(aberate) causing marginal blurrness effectively.


    [2] Sharpness digital? You ok or not? My firend uses a 6MP dslr and at 8x10 I can already see facial skin tones abberating.

    So which is it, can you see banding, or do we need to be superhuman before we can tell a difference at 8x10?

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Why aye, one of the great misconceptions of the modern world. 6mp matches film. Well it doesn't match film in certain areas, but perceptually, it exceeds film. I have taken a 6mp image (strictly speaking, a 5.2mp image), enlarged to 20x24 (24x36 cropped) and 20x30, and also Provia and Velvia trannies to 20x30. Not just me, but all the photographers at the camera club (think old grey traditionalists) picked out the prints from the digital originals as being better by quite some way.

    I haven't repeated the same experiment, but I can also honestly say that I've done a 13x19 out of my 14mp digital file that easily matches APX25 in 645 to 16x20 in terms of resolution.

    I will agree that slides on a light table are great, which is why I got a 5x4. I don't agree with using a loupe to look at details... yes great, but I'd rather have a 19" screen to look at more details any day. Film is great, I cut my teeth on film, but its practicalities are being overshadowed by digital, and for me the only reason I can see to shoot film (light table aside) is the price. If you can grapple with the price of digital, then well...

    As for white balance... well basically, last time you paid a lab to do the white balance for you, now you have to do it yourself. That said, I can't remember the last time I had to colour correct a JPG because I always take care of WB first, at the time of capture. And alternatively when I shoot raw I don't bother with WB (although I should really...) and the ability to control that in the post process is actually great fun. A bit like darkroom work where you get the chance to be a bit creative.
    Well said Jed

  18. #58

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by jesser
    as for digital, guess is good for beginners, can view the shoot right away. can figure out if he/she applies the correct setting.

    wah! by making that statement u r likely to get bomb by all the pros who use digital & swear by their gear.

    i dun know how many agree that interpolation doesn't add anything to the image, i still find it hard to accept that despite the increase in file size & smoothen out pixelation with enlargement prints has not alter the image in anyway. to me, by guessing & filling in the 'blanks' already falls in the cat. of image alteration. eg, 2, x, 4... in order to guess what is x, simple 'interpolation' can be done by adding 2 & 4 then divide by 2, u get 3. but then again, it really depends on how u define interpolation. all i ask is, to do a fairer comparison of just printing a 6MP image w/o special enhancement & printing a 35mm using the old enlargement method to 16x20.

    i define D1x as a different class not just becos of its physical built quality, the electronic parts inside are of a higher quality too. things like dampening vibration & extra reduction of interference (eg, from handphone) will also help in the overall image quality. not forgetting the quality of the CCD used compare to D100 (even the lowest ISO is different). surely nikon won't be selling u a D1x at $7k & D100 at $2.7k if they both give the same image quality. similarly if i use F80 & F5 to take night scene & macro using the same 200mm macro lens & same provia 100 film, F5 dampening, suspension mechanism, etc will add to the image quality in the end. of cos anyone can argue that u can't see the different with naked eyes but, the improvement is there.

    next is the s/w. D1x being unique with their CCD vertical resolution must do some sort of image manipulation to bring it to normal 4020x2638 (pls dun bomb me if the resolution is wrong). nikon is definitely not going to use simple & cheap algorithm to do that. the s/w must be of hi-quality, hi-standard.

    if u look at reviews, they often compare cameras among their class, price range if u want to put it the other way round. so there exist a different camera class & definitely not all DSLR are the same even from same manufacturer. just like a toyota & lexus, both take u from point A-B at 120km/h. are they the same thing? its the quality of the ride & build of the cars that determines its class.

    Jed, u seem to have good resources in making good prints. how about experimanting with film scanning, grain reduction, interpolation & sharpening to get a 35mm to 20x30? frankly, i dun have a scanner but rely on the photolabs. pls dun misinterpret this as a challenge to u, just a friendly discussion & experiment. i m very curious to know how a 35mm film blows up to 20x30 after digital enhancement. thx & dun forget that smile.

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    i dun know how many agree that interpolation doesn't add anything to the image, i still find it hard to accept that despite the increase in file size & smoothen out pixelation with enlargement prints has not alter the image in anyway. to me, by guessing & filling in the 'blanks' already falls in the cat.
    Okay, let's try another tack. When you make an enlargement from a 35mm negative, you are taking a 24mm x 36mm film and enlarging it to say, for ease of comparison, 24" x 36". That means that for every mm of film, you need to find an inch of enlargement. This is done by projecting the image onto a piece of photosensitive paper. The process is not a million miles away from "interpolation".

    i define D1x as a different class not just becos of its physical built quality, the electronic parts inside are of a higher quality too. things like dampening vibration & extra reduction of interference (eg, from handphone) will also help in the overall image quality.

    Dampening, ok but take that out of the equation for the time being. I stated my test subjects (three ducks, one rhino, and no they weren't shot for a test, they were taken first and foremost as photographs), and in those instances shutter speeds are high enough to not render dampening an issue. In terms of noise, the D100 has less noise than the D1x. In terms of resolution, the D100 should have better resolution than the D1x.

    surely nikon won't be selling u a D1x at $7k & D100 at $2.7k

    Nikon are also selling a D1h new for more money than a new D2h at the moment. You're talking about a factor of about 2.5 times in price. The price of an F5 and an F80 is about 4 times.

    next is the s/w. D1x being unique with their CCD vertical resolution must do some sort of image manipulation to bring it to normal 4020x2638 (pls dun bomb me if the resolution is wrong).

    I said it before, I'll say it again. [1] The D1x does not have a normal resolution of 4020x2638. It has a normal resolution of 3008x1960. [2] If you shoot JPEGs, there is absolutely no way you can get a 10mp file. [3] Nikon never really touted the D1x as a 10mp camera, and did not for a long time support (ie give you any way of producing) a 10mp file. [4] It was only after third party software like Qimage and Bibble allowed the conversion that eventually Nikon yielded to providing the means to produce a 10mp file from raw files. The D1x is NOT a 10mp camera by any stretch of the imagination. Never was, never will be.

    nikon is definitely not going to use simple & cheap algorithm to do that. the s/w must be of hi-quality, hi-standard.

    Incidentally, plenty of debate spawned about whether Qimage produced the better conversions, or if Bibble did, or if Capture did. Certainly Capture did not win by the country mile. When it comes to interpolation algorithms, again there is plenty of debate, but I'd trust a full blown desktop machine running dedicated software like GF or PS to run interpolation algos over a camera which has to juggle 18mb files three times a second.

    if u look at reviews, they often compare cameras among their class, price range if u want to put it the other way round.

    I agree, and I would not have started this whole palaver if you hadn't made your comments with respect to 6mp cameras in general.

    Actually, I would still have done, but I would have used a D100 or 10D as an example instead.

    how about experimanting with film scanning, grain reduction, interpolation & sharpening to get a 35mm to 20x30? frankly, i dun have a scanner but rely on the photolabs. pls dun misinterpret this as a challenge to u, just a friendly discussion & experiment. i m very curious to know how a 35mm film blows up to 20x30 after digital enhancement. thx & dun forget that smile.

    Erm, and what do you think I was doing with my little test?

    How does it blow up? Perfectly fine. Would I rather have my D2h data to work with? Yes. Would I rather have a D1x over that? Marginally. Would I take 645 over that? Yes. And would I rather have 14n data over that? Heck yes. But I never anywhere here said that 135 film doesn't produce decent enlargements.

    I did some comparison crops about a year ago with Velvia 100F and D1x shots, will try and find them, but it's 4am and I'm exceedingly tired so it'll have to wait.

  20. #60

    Default

    -> Like that?
    -> here
    -> and here

    Digital = good for some,
    Film = good for some,
    So both good for some.

    So never for all but both good enuf for most. We are consumers and enjoy the freedom of choice. Choices is one of the previlleges that you can only decide for yourself and noone else. Ha, also I'm technically not good except using eyepower.

    Also, opinions are mend to be different, that is why they are opinions. Otherwise they would be call conclusions. No hard feeling

    Power to you all.

    Last -> what have you produce today?
    Last edited by whoelse; 13th April 2004 at 11:15 AM.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

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
  •