 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / October 2006Have You Gone Digital Yet?
An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: "The question "have you gone digital yet?" is a presumptuous fallacy is pushed by camera stores and camera makers, since they make big bucks when you buy a digital camera that you'll want to replace in a few years. "Going digital" is by no means inevitable or even desirable. Digital does not replace your film camera for many kinds of fine art. Even today your dad's 20 year old Canon AE-1 can make technically better images than any digital camera. The Canon AE-1 is about the same as a 20 megapixel camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, presuming you are using Canon brand lenses." > An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, > presuming you are using Canon brand lenses." A 35mm film camera does not even come close to a 20 MP digital camera, it has a hard time matching a 8 MP camera. I know you scan your film, show me your 20MP image that you believe is the same as a 20MP digital. For reference here is a 21 MP digital camera image. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/67082645/original This is the same image size you would get from scanning 35mm film at 4000 ppi. A lot of people believe that just because they can get X number of pixels from a scan that the scanned image is the same as having a digital camera of the same number of pixels, this is just not true. Scott >> An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/67082645/original Well put. -Additional verbage snipped--since the image does your talking for you... :) What captured this?  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson /67082645/original > Well put. > -Additional verbage snipped--since the image does your talking for you... > :) > What captured this? It was stitched from a number of images from the 350D. The point is of course it is what a 21 MP digital camera would produce, I just could not get all the pixels at the same time. In fact if you scaled up teh 350D sensor to full frame it would be very close to 21MP. And since the lens I was using was the 50mm f/1.8 (A full frame lens) I could use the same lens. Scott > /67082645/original >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > since the lens I was using was the 50mm f/1.8 (A full frame lens) I > could use the same lens. The only quibble here would be that you didn't strain your lens as much as a 21MP sensor would have... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > /67082645/original > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The only quibble here would be that you didn't strain your lens as much as a > 21MP sensor would have... It would because a 21MP FF sensor would have the same pixels size, just a bigger area. Think of the 350D cropping out the center 39% of the pixels, all I did was add the other pixels using stitching instead of having them there all at once. Scott >>> /67082645/original >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the pixels, all I did was add the other pixels using stitching > instead of having them there all at once. Any time you don't have to rely on the outer edges of your lens, you're going to gain some advantage... Again--It's only a minor quibble. Your point is still well-made... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Scott Here we ago, again, the BIG error in the which is better, film or digital war: Scanning the film. Any advantage film would have over digital is negated by the scanning process even with a 4000 ppi scan. If you want a true evaluation, make 20X enlarged silver prints straight out of the cameras (film and full frame digital -- same lens on both) correcting only for color and overall density. No Photoshoping of the digital image permitted. Only what can be set in the camera permitted. Compare. Then make a second print of the digital image, the best you can make, using any technique or process you desire. And do the same with film: glass, oil carrier; vacuum easel, point light source, Apo enlarging lens, custom burned and dodged, pull out all the stops. Compare. Then you'll know. As far as what megapixels equals film, this is the algorithm I find reasonable to make a estimate. A good 35mm lens resolves about 55 lppm (A great one does 75 or more) under "average" contrast lighting or 110 lines/dots/pixels per millimeter. In a 24 x 36mm 35mm frame this would be about (110 * 24) * (110 * 36) = 10.45 megapixels/dots/lines. Lets just round it up to 11 to make calculations easy. But this is for gray scale images only. For true color you'd need three of these sensors, one each for Red, Green and Blue of this resolution. Or in the case of a Bayer type sensor that is mostly used in digital cameras, you need 11 for Green, and half of that -- 5.5 -- each for Red and Blue or a 22 megapixel. And this is just for an "good" lens. Now, this is by no means definitive. There are many other factors that come into play with a real sensor, the digital process as well as the film process. This is only a rough estimate of equivalence, but it's good enough for photographers. However, it's not for engineers and digital fanatics. Stef >Here we ago, again, the BIG error in the which is better, film or digital >war: Scanning the film. Any advantage film would have over digital is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >burned and dodged, pull out all the stops. Compare. Then you'll >know. Over on RPE-MF I've been trying to get that comparison done for years, and haven't found any takers. You'll see my own examples and case studies on this very issue here: <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/> ... about 3/4 of the way down the page (under the header "Scanned Film vs. Scanned Optical Print." In short: I've found that well-scanned film loses *nothing* compared to a good optical print. If your results diverge from my own (on the URL above) I'd sure like to see them. The fact of the matter is that real detail in film, beyond 2500 dpi or so, is exceedingly rare. Oh, sure, it can be shown in the lab. But it takes excellent gear, excellent technique, excellent film, excellent lighting. Digital capture is another story. How can it *not* be advantageous to skip one optical transformation altogether? rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > ... real detail in film, beyond 2500 > dpi or so, is exceedingly rare ... > it takes excellent gear, excellent technique, > excellent film, excellent lighting ... That's the whole fun of it. Doing it better gets better results. Doesn't matter how you plug the USB cable into the camera, the pictures come out the same. Silver is like playing a violin; digital is like playing a CD of someone playing a violin. (Wow, that was over the top.) SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> ... real detail in film, beyond 2500 >> dpi or so, is exceedingly rare ... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > playing a CD of someone playing a violin. (Wow, > that was over the top.) No! No!!! You got it all wrong: Film is like playing a violin; digital is like playing a violin using your computer keyboard & your soundcard's MIDI output... > Doesn't matter how you plug the USB cable into the > camera, the pictures come out the same. Actually, you still need good lenses, good technique, good lighting etc. >You'll see my own examples and case studies on this very >issue here: <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >compared to a good optical print. If your results diverge >from my own (on the URL above) I'd sure like to see them. I agree with that. I don't know good the print is that I got, but there is no big difference between the print and a 4000 dpi scan. See: <http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/print-scan/> SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >You'll see my own examples and case studies on this very > >issue here: <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > See: > <http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/print-scan/> That is one very soft photo, not really a good test of either scanning or printing. I don't think there is any image detail past 1000 ppi in the negative. Scott >> See: >> <http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/print-scan/> > >That is one very soft photo, not really a good test of either scanning >or printing. >I don't think there is any image detail past 1000 ppi in the negative. Did you take into account that the resolution in those images corresponds to 6000 dpi? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >> See: > >> <http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/print-scan/> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Did you take into account that the resolution in those images corresponds > to 6000 dpi? Missed that part, still even taking that into account the image is pretty soft. But now I would say that is no image detail past 1500 ppi. Scott >But now I would say that is no image detail past 1500 ppi. I did a 0.25x/4x resize (on the ls4000.jpg), and I'd say that some small details in the eye got lost. A factor of 3 still gives very small differences. A factor of two is essentially a nop (as far as image details are concerned). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >But now I would say that is no image detail past 1500 ppi. > > I did a 0.25x/4x resize (on the ls4000.jpg), and I'd say that some small > details in the eye got lost. In trying this I can't pick out any detail that is lost in the resample version compared the original. The smoothing of the grain does make the image look softer but in looking for hair that I could see in the original and not in the resample image I could not find any. The scanner clearly is resolving pretty good because the scratch looks way softer in the resample version. I find it interesting that I believe I can make out some of the blood vessels in the resample image better then the original, the smoothing of the grain seems to help make them more visible. Scott > >> See: > >> <http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/print-scan/> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Did you take into account that the resolution in those images corresponds > to 6000 dpi? Missed that part, still even taking that into account the image is pretty soft. But now I would say that is no image detail past 1500 ppi. Scott >> >You'll see my own examples and case studies on this very >> >issue here: <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Scott The only way I have to look at these things is on my computer monitor, which appears to be roughly 300 dpi. From my understanding of good quality inkjet printers, they aren't much better either, although I don't yet own one of these. So, I don't know how one would be able to tell the difference between a good digital image and a well scanned (4000 dpi) piece of film. Certainly, most of my scans are at about 1250 dpi, and they look perfectly good to me.....When I want to blow up a small object in the background on one of my slides, I will scan at higher resolution, but it still looks pretty bad on my computer monitor, so I really don't gain anything by scanning at 1800 or 2500 dpi. and I lose a lot of time doing it. 5400 dpi takes forever, and I haven't yet seen anything that it helped....... > The only way I have to look at these things is on my computer monitor, which > appears to be roughly 300 dpi. From my understanding of good quality inkjet [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 2500 dpi. and I lose a lot of time doing it. 5400 dpi takes forever, and I > haven't yet seen anything that it helped....... Your computer monitor will be in the range of 70 to 90 ppi. If you want to get an idea of how something might look printed at say 300 ppi then you can stand back and get a pretty good idea. Let's say you normally view a photo at a distance of 12 inches, then when viewed on the computer can can get a good idea of what it will look like by viewing it at 3 to 4 feet depending on your monitor. Getting anything thing worthwhile past 2000 ppi with color film is very hard. But getting back to the original question of optical prints vs. scanned negatives. To really test this a very sharp negative would be needed, I would think a high resolution BW photo. We have sample of what a scanner can do with a very high resolution image and it is pretty amazing. This is a scan 4000 ppi that Max Perl did using Gigibit film. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tobermory_SH_crop_1000.jpg. Scott >> The only way I have to look at these things is on my computer monitor, >> which [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Scott Yes. I've seen that photo before...(It was posted several months ago) - It is really amazing.....This is just a small piece of the original. You can read the license plates on those parked cars. I seldom get anything that good, because most of my outside pictures are taken hand held, and even when one isn't, I don't document them well enough to remember which ones I took from a tripod. I shouldn't have bought that 5400 dpi scanner....The older 2500 dpi model would have been perfectly good for my purposes, but you know how it is.....You, (or me, anyway) always go for the best I can get, on the off chance that I won't be happy with anything less...... > An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, > presuming you are using Canon brand lenses." I haven't a clue where the megapixel equivalents are coming from. Just about all 35mm SLR cameras should all be equivalent to the same megapixel count, whatever that would be. What would change equivalent megapixel values would be the film and the resolution of the lens [and use of a tripod]. In short, it is completely bogus to say the Canon AE-1 is equivalent to a 20MP camera and that, in the same paragraph, say tha the Canon AE-1 Program is somehow better and equivalent to a 25MP camera. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, > presuming you are using Canon brand lenses." Simmer down, Jeremy. Since about 90% of digital cameras are point and shoots, in the hands of simple snapshotters, that's where the sales massage is aimed - not at true amateurs or knowledgeable users. It's just a sales pitch, nothing to do whatsoever with the relative merits of film vs. digital But, your film-oriented bias is apparent for all to see, so you will get plenty of dissenters for your post. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > But, your film-oriented bias is apparent for all to see, so you will get > plenty of dissenters for your post. And you will note that I did post it in film-oriented newsgroup. >> But, your film-oriented bias is apparent for all to see, so you will get >> plenty of dissenters for your post. > > And you will note that I did post it in film-oriented newsgroup. That's a moot point, Jeremy, oft discussed, and cussed, by inhabitants of r.p.e.35mm. Nowhere in the group name or charter does it say that this is a film group - it is a 35mm equipment group, and as almost all dslrs have lineage directly back to 35mm film cameras, and use the same lenses etc., they are on topic. End of story. Colin D. PS: But it's better here than in r.p.digital groups, I guess {:-) Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> But, your film-oriented bias is apparent for all to see, so you will get >> plenty of dissenters for your post. > > And you will note that I did post it in film-oriented newsgroup. And, to be fair, he did use the phrase "fine art". That sounds so, well, condescending, but ... There **IS** large format. No large format digital yet ( modulo of course the recent thread on combining 16 or 64 digital images in a montage!) There **IS** B&W film grain as art. Etc. But, fact is, digital is superior, all other things being equal (Except price ... digital still costs more for "fine art quality" whatever that might be.) Doug McDonald >>> But, your film-oriented bias is apparent for all to see, so you will get >>> plenty of dissenters for your post. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And, to be fair, he did use the phrase "fine art". That sounds so, well, > condescending, but ... The point was that film does have its merits, that there really is no presumption that "everyone" will abandon film and "upgrade" to digital, and that for some people, digital image capture was much more expensive relative to film. This was not meant to be a "my way is better than your way," argument, although a few people were all too eager to turn it into a debate. Sheesh! Is it even possible to put some ideas onto the table for consideration and discussion without turning it into a fight? > The point was that film does have its merits, that there really is no > presumption that "everyone" will abandon film and "upgrade" to digital, and > that for some people, digital image capture was much more expensive relative [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sheesh! Is it even possible to put some ideas onto the table for > consideration and discussion without turning it into a fight? You quote and idiot and then wonder that people take issue with what he said? Note that in the quote you feed us there was no talk about cost, just that your film camera was like having a 25MP digital. At statment like this needs something to back it up, like an image maybe? Scott >The point was that film does have its merits, that there really is no >presumption that "everyone" will abandon film and "upgrade" to digital, and >that for some people, digital image capture was much more expensive relative >to film. Film may well its merits, but lower cost for image capture is *not* one of them. If you buy a top of the line camera and never use it, then digital is more expensive than film. If a camera is put to work, it takes only a relatively short time to pay for the digital camera with the *zero* cost of digital image capture compared to buying and processing film. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>The point was that film does have its merits, that there really is no >>presumption that "everyone" will abandon film and "upgrade" to digital, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > digital camera with the *zero* cost of digital image capture > compared to buying and processing film. Agree 101%. Digital does encourage people to take lots and lots of shots. Whether most of those shots have any value is another question entirely. I have found that my best work is done when I take my time, set up the shot, use a tripod, think about how to compose the scene to best achieve what I want, not in taking rapid-fire snaps and hoping that a couple of them turn out well. When I shoot with the digital, the tendency is to just fire away. It is just so easy to do it, it becomes seductive. Whether the experience gained from shooting lots of relatively-thoughtless shots is worth it is something each person must decide for himself. Obviously, I am of the opinion that volume of images taken has done nothing to improve my work. Your mileage may vary. The cost of film, processing and the transportation can be the major factor in deciding when to make the change. For those of us that shoot in the 50 rolls/year range, the financial incentive to migrate isn't all that compelling. But I can't argue with anybody that doesn't want to keep paying for film and processing. > Whether the experience gained from shooting lots of relatively-thoughtless > shots is worth it is something each person must decide for himself. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > compelling. But I can't argue with anybody that doesn't want to keep > paying for film and processing. Places that have yielded good images for me tend to be visited more than once. At least the ones within a few hours' drive. On my first visit I tend to travel light, and the 10D (DSLR) is my favorite for that. If the place warrants a 2nd or 3rd visit, that's when I bring along the "serious" gear -- the MF or LF kit. Digital capture encourages experimentation. If that's coupled with some thoughtful review and editing (back at the ranch) then it can be a means of growing and honing skills. I'm not impressed by those who brag that they've taken 15,000 images in the last month with their newest digicam. OTOH, when I'm shooting with a DSLR, I tend to be more shutter- happy than when I'm shooting film. And why not? There's no real cost to pushing the shutter. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com The single most important thing that digital has done for me is provided instant feedback on the images I have just taken either through the camera's LCD review or the almost instant computer displays. Through the digital camera's LCD displays there is instant feedback that allows both critical review and often the ability to recompose and shoot again. This feature alone taught me more about taking pictures than 30+ years of film camera's most of it with SLR's. The image count may be high but it is a low cost way to get good experience. I use a DLSR now, my image count is higher than when I used film but not recklessly so. I have a camera with me essentially all the time, take long walks on weekends in an interesting wilderness area and take about 400 pictures a month. w.. > Digital does encourage people to take lots and lots of shots. >> An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But, your film-oriented bias is apparent for all to see How awful! I think that the digital users on this NG should demand an immediate apology from Jeremy, hold a day of anger and burn some rolls of film! > How awful! > > I think that the digital users on this NG should demand an immediate > apology from Jeremy, hold a day of anger and burn some rolls of film! Naw, but I think Jeremy should write "I will not quote Ken Rockwell again" 100 times. Scott > > How awful! >> I think that the digital users on this NG should demand an immediate >> apology from Jeremy, hold a day of anger and burn some rolls of film! > > Naw, but I think Jeremy should write "I will not quote Ken Rockwell > again" 100 times. For once (or twice???) I agree with you! :-) > > > How awful! > >> I think that the digital users on this NG should demand an immediate [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > For once (or twice???) I agree with you! > :-) Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. Scott > Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. You're not comparing racing cars or cameras. Neither was "better". Both were peers of a tiny number of the very best. > > Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Both were peers of a tiny number of the very best. Mozart was very good, but Bach was great. Scott >> > Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott Wrong. Bach was great; Mozart was great. Jim > >> > Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Wrong. Bach was great; Mozart was great. > Jim Ok, maybe Mozart was also great....but Bach was greater yet. Scott >>>>> Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ok, maybe Mozart was also great....but Bach was greater yet. I'll see your greater yet and raise you a greatEST. (Not my turn; I meant to put my money on J.S. Bach) > >> > Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Wrong. Bach was great; Mozart was great. > Jim And just think about this with out Bach's Toccata & Fugue in D minor what would mad scientist play on the organ late at night? Scott >And just think about this with out Bach's Toccata & Fugue in D minor >what would mad scientist play on the organ late at night? Too much Neal Stephenson for you, Scott. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>>Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mozart was very good, but Bach was great. Don't be childish. > > Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Both were peers of a tiny number of the very best. True, but true in the same sense that "Both Newton and Landau were members of a tiny group of the very best" is (I exaggerate a bit). >>>Twice, we both think Bach was better then Mozart. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > True, but true in the same sense that "Both Newton and Landau were > members of a tiny group of the very best" is (I exaggerate a bit). No. Newton was and remains the giant of all giants. Alone. Einstein, Hawking and Witten are giants to us, midgets to Newton. Cheers, Alan > >>Both were peers of a tiny number of the very best. > > > > True, but true in the same sense that "Both Newton and Landau were > > members of a tiny group of the very best" is (I exaggerate a bit). > > No. Newton was and remains the giant of all giants. Alone. That was precisely my point. Landau is also a giant: while what he did isn't mentioned in popular science books (not being cosmology or string theory; how do you explain why the concept of "order parameter" is exciting, for example? No baby universes here!), modern physics would be very different if it hadn't been for him. In fact, to someone like me it would be almost unrecognisable. Nevertheless, Landau is recognisably human in his achievements, as opposed to Newton. Actually, Mozart irritates me (well, his music does) while Landau is one of my heroes, so I shouldn't really be drawing this analogy, but there you go. > Einstein, Hawking and Witten are giants to us, midgets to Newton. Let's see who remembers Hawking in 100 years (for what? Hawking radiation? "A brief history of time"?). I wouldn't even mention those two in the same sentence as Einstein, frankly. But this isn't the place to argue about this. > Let's see who remembers Hawking in 100 years (for what? Hawking > radiation? "A brief history of time"?). I wouldn't even mention those > two in the same sentence as Einstein, frankly. But this isn't the place > to argue about this. HR is an astounding physical "trick" that is subject to E=mc^2 yet lets black holes radiate photons, which seems counter to what a BH "is". Yet Einstein would have refuted it as not being possible (as it is also quantum). Hawking will definitely be remembered where Landau's accomplishments are hardly known (to the gen public). I've heard of him but had to look him up to even know his areas of contribution. ABHOT was a fine vulgarization. Even I understood most of it. Sort of. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > Let's see who remembers Hawking in 100 years (for what? Hawking > > radiation? "A brief history of time"?). I wouldn't even mention those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > accomplishments are hardly known (to the gen public). I've heard of him > but had to look him up to even know his areas of contribution. Well, I must disagree. There are several (not just one) things Landau did that are far more impressive than Hawking radiation. Hawking has been one of the central figures of GR/cosmology in the last 30 years, but Landau more or less shaped huge areas of physics by his work. As I said, I (and others) would not even recognize most of modern theoretical physics if Landau's basic ideas somehow had not emerged; the same cannot be said of Hawking, except perhaps in the area of GR/cosmology (but I don't know as I am not a specialist). What the public perceives as most important isn't necessarily so; other factors come into play. > ABHOT was a fine vulgarization. Even I understood most of it. Sort of. >An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, >presuming you are using Canon brand lenses." There are loads of websites and millions of images that lay waste to such claims. This is naught but a troll. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com jeremy wrote: >> An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: >> >> "The question "have you gone digital yet?" is a presumptuous >> fallacy An even more interesting comment quoted from "a Web site": "The question 'Have you quit beating your wife?' is more relevant to jeremies (people who like to see evidence their writing has appeared on the computer screens of thousands, and who are otherwise unconvinced of their own existence) than to any other category of being." SignatureFrank ess "There are some people it is our duty to annoy." -- Lord Reith > than any digital camera. The Canon AE-1 is about the same as a 20 megapixel > camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, > presuming you are using Canon brand lenses." Does the article explain why a film camera body with "Program" improves the resolution by 20%? I suggest you get your decisive info from higher quality sources. > > than any digital camera. The Canon AE-1 is about the same as a 20 megapixel > > camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I suggest you get your decisive info from higher quality sources. Yup, especially since this is the source http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm Scott >>>than any digital camera. The Canon AE-1 is about the same as a 20 megapixel >>>camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yup, especially since this is the source > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm ah yes, the great source of mis-information, Mr. "in-camera JPG is all you need" himself. > An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, > presuming you are using Canon brand lenses." I should have known, more crap from Ken Rockwell, and old crap at that. I should have googled this before. Scott I went medium and large format. 35mm is not the same as 20-25 megapixels. With Velvia, maybe 15-18 megapixels. With 400 ISO color negative film, maybe 4-6 megapixels if you are lucky. I will eventually replace my 35mm shooting with digital. I don't see replacing large-format with digital. > An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, > presuming you are using Canon brand lenses." > An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as a 20 megapixel camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 > megapixel camera, presuming you are using Canon brand lenses." Mixed.. but of course I have no idea why and AE-1 and AE-1P would have different resolutions with the same lens... same film size, same lens, same lens to film distance = same resolution. SignatureJim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo >> An interesting comment, quoted from a web site: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > different resolutions with the same lens... same film size, same lens, > same lens to film distance = same resolution. I had assumed that the camera models may have come with different lenses, because there would be no other logical explanation. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.