 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2005Film versus digital; Pure psychology?
Seems to me that people (some of them) who contend the best digitals are still not as good as film are suffering from a comparision problem. Before, when they took pictures, many of them never ventured from the old 4" x 6" print. Now, they routinely print 8.5" x 11" because that is what the most common print paper size is. So in reality, they are comparing their large print quality with the quality of 4" x 6" film prints. Of course the film will look better! However, if they decide to match them print per print, even a 3.3 megapixel camera will produce photos as good as 35mm film, provided you don't exceed that 4x6 print size. Had they printed all their 35mm prints on large paper, they might have been singing a different tune about film versus digital. -Rich Emacs takes too damn long to start up, and you can't depend on it being installed on any given computer. I much prefer vi.  SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall Yes, most definitely. Linux is too fragmented for me and many distros are not secure out of the box. I much prefer OpenBSD for my open source needs. > Emacs takes too damn long to start up, and you can't depend on > it being installed on any given computer. I much prefer vi. I think that's the pure psychology issue, but of course, emacs would be able to make better prints than any digital camera. Instead of using slrn, give gnus a try, and see if it doesn't give you better prints than digital cameras. See my headers. :-> SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > Seems to me that people (some of them) who contend the best > digitals are still not as good as film are suffering from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have been singing a different tune about film versus digital. > -Rich I think some of us that contend that are speaking regarding imagery used for offset printing,...not digital snapshots. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Seems to me that people (some of them) who contend the best > digitals are still not as good as film are suffering from [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Had they printed all their 35mm prints on large paper, they might > have been singing a different tune about film versus digital. No declarations about where the boundary is, but I've printed many film images at 8x12 that are as clean, and more detailed than a 6 MPix camera can produce. I'll grant that at most sizes, a good digital image prints cleaner than film at large sizes (thanks Dougie) but the detail from film is there to a larger size than the current crop of 6 and 8 Mpix camera..., just noisier than the digital. 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor. High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut and more picture information than images from any currently available digital sensor. Digital printing is the real difference: the digital color printing process provides much greater control over color, contrast and saturation than any wet printing process. Unless you have color darkroom experience you have no idea what is involved. It is much easier and faster to capture the image and process it in the digital realm. Digital images are good enough for most uses and one day will equal or surpass film originals. That day has not come. > Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater > exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor. > High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut That's not what I understand from reading these debates. Film has more detail (and noise) but not a larger gamut or dynamic range (except B&W). > and more > picture information than images from any currently available digital sensor. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > equal or surpass film originals. > That day has not come. > > Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater > > exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor. > > High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut > > That's not what I understand from reading these debates. Film has more > detail (and noise) but not a larger gamut or dynamic range (except B&W). That's because 95% of the "digital only debaters" in on the usenet don't have enough or good enough practical film experience "imop". SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > That's not what I understand from reading these debates. Film has more > > detail (and noise) but not a larger gamut or dynamic range (except B&W). > > That's because 95% of the "digital only debaters" in on the usenet don't > have enough or good enough practical film experience "imop". No, it's because SOME OF US actually read test results showing digital can outperform film in terms of dynamic range and color accuracy. We're not deluding ourselves about the performance of digital - we're being realistic about the limits of film. Even better, some of us actually use digital cameras and see the results firsthand. > > > That's not what I understand from reading these debates. Film has more > > > detail (and noise) but not a larger gamut or dynamic range (except B&W). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Even better, some of us actually use digital cameras and see the results > firsthand. You can read? , its a wonder with all that drooling ;-) Yes; quite frankly I do use digital slr cameras & yes I look at my practical results not test data. So I fear you are once again way off base by my standards. I guess your rightly considering yourself in the 95% as you say so yourself (see above). But as far a deluding oneself try matching my 4x5 or my 8x10 cameras with your 8 megapixel digital camera. Nice try - I think not now go home and be a nice boy. TTFN. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >I guess your rightly considering yourself in the 95% as you say so >yourself. Stop guessing and look at the facts. >But as far a deluding oneself try matching my >4x5 or my 8x10 cameras with your 8 megapixel digital camera. Whoooosh! the goal posts move again. When did SLR suddenly become MF or LF? -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > >I guess your rightly considering yourself in the 95% as you say so > >yourself. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > When did SLR suddenly become MF or LF? It probably never will be, but it seeks to supplant film imaging by shrinking the market for film. So therefore I expect it too be,...as good or better. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > No, it's because SOME OF US actually read test results showing digital > > can outperform film in terms of dynamic range and color accuracy. We're [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > practical results not test data. So I fear you are once again way off > base by my standards. So you have not experienced better color accuracy and more dynamic range? You must be doing something wrong. > I guess your rightly considering yourself in the 95% as you say so > yourself (see above). > > But as far a deluding oneself try matching my > 4x5 or my 8x10 cameras with your 8 megapixel digital camera. The discussion is color and exposure - not large format versus small format. > Nice try - I think not now go home and be a nice boy. If you could only discuss the topic at hand... > > > Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater > > > exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's because 95% of the "digital only debaters" in on the usenet don't > have enough or good enough practical film experience "imop". That's a completely wrong generalization. For years, the r.p.e.35mm group, originally a film group with 35mm cameras, has been getting increasingly populated by ex-film or co-film people who have changed to digital, or who use digital alongside film. That's what sparked the development of r.p.e.digital, and lately the variants of .dslr and .zlr. For what my humble opinion is worth, as a long-time photographer with professional experience, dslr cameras like Canon and Nikon (and others) far surpass 35mm film in sheer print quality overall, as well as exposure versatility, and have the ability to change effective ISO and white balance literally shot by shot, something that is impossible with film. And, shooting at ISO 800 or 1600 with film yields very poor results compared with the same in digital. Other benefits are no film costs, no need to 'finish' (read waste) a film to get a few shots processed, no negative scanner needed with its inevitable loss of quality, etc. Digital has more dynamic range, better color and noise, and yields better prints than 35mm film, period. Digital's Achilles heel is overexposure and blown highlights. You can blow highlights with film too, but with digital it's more sudden, so your exposure has to be better controlled than with film. But, most cameras have an exposure histogram display, and you can tell instantly where your exposure is, and correct if necessary. Can't do that with film. There will always be somebody who will take a reactionary stance to things new, for whatever reason. Ignore them, do your own homework, and progress. Colin > > That's because 95% of the "digital only debaters" in on the usenet don't > > have enough or good enough practical film experience "imop". [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > too, but with digital it's more sudden, so your exposure has to be > better controlled than with film. Uh thats a big one & not good when shooting weddings and probably not other action types of work, these cameras are not intuitive enough for my taste at the price point I want to afford. I guess I could shoot raw but for hundreds of shots its not an option. > But, most cameras have an exposure > histogram display, and you can tell instantly where your exposure is, > and correct if necessary. Can't do that with film. With film there's leeway so your not missing shots that your busy looking at the camera back for "chimping". > There will always be somebody who will take a reactionary stance to > things new, for whatever reason. Ignore them, do your own homework, and > progress. I appreciate your thoughtful reply, I in as much said what I did to see what kind of response I would get. Obviously some people like yourself are better enable to make a point. Quite frankly I personally rarely shoot 35 mm and find myself shooting the digital in place of that, problems I see compared to a same film image aside . SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Uh thats a big one & not good when shooting weddings and probably not > other action types of work, these cameras are not intuitive enough for > my taste at the price point I want to afford. I guess I could shoot raw > but for hundreds of shots its not an option. So... a completely intuitive DSLR is not intuitive enough for you? Wedding photography is one of the most popular areas for professional digital. We have several wedding photographers who shoot digital only who post here. I'm sure they could give you a few examples why you're wrong. As for shooting RAW not being an option over hundreds of shots... you have heard of RAW+JPEG, right? For a fast photo, you use the JPEG. For the shots you deem worthy of extra quality, you process the RAW file. These features exist for a reason, you know. > > But, most cameras have an exposure > > histogram display, and you can tell instantly where your exposure is, > > and correct if necessary. Can't do that with film. > > With film there's leeway so your not missing shots that your busy > looking at the camera back for "chimping". You've got more leeway with digital than you do with film, provided you shoot RAW. Very easy to recover a stop or more of highlights. > > There will always be somebody who will take a reactionary stance to > > things new, for whatever reason. Ignore them, do your own homework, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shoot 35 mm and find myself shooting the digital in place of that, > problems I see compared to a same film image aside . Well, if digital has replaced 35mm for you, doesn't that say something? You have the annoying habit of assuming "film" means large format only. IT doesn't. Digital has knocked over 35mm and is catching up to medium format, but that doesn't mean you have to get indignant every time mentions the advantages of digital over film - most of the time they're comparing 35mm to DSLRs. >> Uh thats a big one & not good when shooting weddings and probably not >> other action types of work, these cameras are not intuitive enough for >> my taste at the price point I want to afford. I guess I could shoot raw >> but for hundreds of shots its not an option. [ ... ] >As for shooting RAW not being an option over hundreds of shots... you >have heard of RAW+JPEG, right? For a fast photo, you use the JPEG. For >the shots you deem worthy of extra quality, you process the RAW file. > >These features exist for a reason, you know. Actually -- I see this complaint as having some validity. As an example, with medium/fine settings, my D70 offers 522 shots on a 1 GB flash card -- and actually delivers around 700+. However, if I switch to RAW, it drops to a claimed 95 exposures, and if I switch to RAW+BASIC, it drops to a mere 87 exposures. Even if I go to large/fine (JPEG), I have 293 images claimed capacity. So -- if hundreds of shots are indeed intended, RAW+BASIC (RAW+minimal size JPEG) is too limiting, unless perhaps there are a handful of CF cards on hand (rather expensive, with 1GB cards, and even more so with 4GB cards). Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- ><snipped> > However, if I switch to RAW, it drops to a claimed 95 exposures, > and if I switch to RAW+BASIC, it drops to a mere 87 exposures. Hell, that's over 10 MBytes per shot for a raw image. The Canon 10/300D cameras have a raw image size of about 7 MBytes, and I get an estimated 145 shots on a 1GB card, including the .jpg. A raw shot expands to a bit over 18 MBytes as a .tif, which is about what the D70 will do, I guess. My biggest problem with raw is the time it takes to convert to .tif, if you take the time to optimize the image during conversion. olin > ><snipped> > > However, if I switch to RAW, it drops to a claimed 95 exposures, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > olin Yes I do shoot Raw for scenic work and stuff I positively need a larger file. One thing you can do is set up a conversion action PS -"CS" whereby the raw file doesn't open into the conversion pane each time. The documentation in Photo Shop tells fairly clearly how to do this, that way you can automate the opening conversion and saving as a tif file into a folder of your choice. Then you just walk away and come back 45 minutes later once all image are processed. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Actually -- I see this complaint as having some validity. As an > example, with medium/fine settings, my D70 offers 522 shots on a 1 GB [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > handful of CF cards on hand (rather expensive, with 1GB cards, and even > more so with 4GB cards). Memory prices are at an all-time low. You can easily afford 2-4 GB of storage these days. Buy a bunch of 512MD cards for about $35 a piece from NewEgg.com and you'll be set. That should cover all but the most prolific photographers. God knows I can't burn through more than about 200 photos in a day. If you can - well, you can also carry along a used laptop and use it as a photo dump if you like. > Memory prices are at an all-time low. You can easily afford 2-4 GB of > storage these days. Buy a bunch of 512MD cards for about $35 a piece [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > well, you can also carry along a used laptop and use it as a photo dump > if you like. On average I have been shooting 400-600 images at weddings, for the file conversion needed from Raw that would be a hassle since these are ultimately turned over to another photographer next day. The small jpeg that comes with the Raw setting is too small for his purpose, so in this instance I am stuck shooting "L" Fine setting jpegs. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > On average I have been shooting 400-600 images at weddings, for the > file conversion needed from Raw that would be a hassle since these are > ultimately turned over to another photographer next day. > > The small jpeg that comes with the Raw setting is too small for his > purpose, so in this instance I am stuck shooting "L" Fine setting jpegs. Most cameras allow you to shoot RAW+Whatever size JPEG you like. So, if you need the "Large" JPEG, no problemo. >> On average I have been shooting 400-600 images at weddings, for the [ ... ] >> The small jpeg that comes with the Raw setting is too small for his >> purpose, so in this instance I am stuck shooting "L" Fine setting jpegs. > >Most cameras allow you to shoot RAW+Whatever size JPEG you like. So, if >you need the "Large" JPEG, no problemo. "Most" does not translate to "all". If he's using the D70, that is *not* an option. The RAW+ version is only "RAW+BASIC" which translates to RAW + maximum JPEG compression -- and the image size option is greyed out so you can't select large or medium to go with that ultra-compressed JPEG. It is there only because the camera can't display the RAW images on the LCD monitor. Enjoy, DoN SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > >Most cameras allow you to shoot RAW+Whatever size JPEG you like. So, if > >you need the "Large" JPEG, no problemo. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ultra-compressed JPEG. It is there only because the camera can't > display the RAW images on the LCD monitor. Well, if you're not using the right tool for the job... > Well, if you're not using the right tool for the job... You Jack a.s. > > Well, if you're not using the right tool for the job... > > You Jack a.s. Yeah, yeah. I've heard it all before. Previously anonymous loser tries to pick a fight. *yawn* > "Most" does not translate to "all". If he's using the D70, that > is *not* an option. The RAW+ version is only "RAW+BASIC" which > translates to RAW + maximum JPEG compression -- and the image size > option is greyed out so you can't select large or medium to go with > that ultra-compressed JPEG. It is there only because the camera can't > display the RAW images on the LCD monitor. Of course it can. All of my RAW only shots show up just fine on my D-70's monitor. [ ... RAW+BASIC ... ] >> that ultra-compressed JPEG. It is there only because the camera can't >> display the RAW images on the LCD monitor. > >Of course it can. All of my RAW only shots show up just fine on my D-70's >monitor. A quick check shows that you are right. I apparently mis-read the manual back when, and have gone with the RAW+BASIC when I wanted RAW. Of course, some programs won't *display* RAW without a plugin, and that may be what I read about. Thanks for correcting me. DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >>> that ultra-compressed JPEG. It is there only because the camera >>> can't display the RAW images on the LCD monitor. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the manual back when, and have gone with the RAW+BASIC when I > wanted RAW. There is an embedded jpg file inside the D70 raw files. Some guy made a nice command prompt tool which is (among other things) able to extract the jpg from a raw file. It is very fast btw. So with this and a batch file to automate extraction of jpg's I'm able to save some space on CF while having jpg's as soon as the pictures are transferred to my pc. http://home.comcast.net/~jonathan.oman/d70/index.html Signaturegroeten, Remco homepage: http://rraap.demon.nl Mail : remco at isgitarist dot nl [ ... ] >> A quick check shows that you are right. I apparently >> mis-read [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >http://home.comcast.net/~jonathan.oman/d70/index.html Nice -- he covers linux as well as Windows, which makes me happier. And -- it includes the source code, so I should be able to compile it on my other unix flavors. Compiling as I type. Thanks, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > "Most" does not translate to "all". If he's using the D70, that > is *not* an option. The RAW+ version is only "RAW+BASIC" which > translates to RAW + maximum JPEG compression -- and the image size > option is greyed out so you can't select large or medium to go with that > ultra-compressed JPEG. It is there only because the camera can't > display the RAW images on the LCD monitor. It's similar on the Maxxum 7D. In "Large/Fine" you get a roughly 3.5 MB JPG image; in RAW+JPG you get a "Large/Standard" JPG of 1.6 MB (for the same scene). 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> "Most" does not translate to "all". If he's using the D70, that >> is *not* an option. The RAW+ version is only "RAW+BASIC" which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >JPG image; in RAW+JPG you get a "Large/Standard" JPG of 1.6 MB (for the >same scene). Pentax, who embed a full-resolution JPEG in their RAW files (but who remain reticent about admitting to this feature) seem to use Large/Low. > Memory prices are at an all-time low. You can easily afford 2-4 GB of > storage these days. Buy a bunch of 512MD cards for about $35 a piece [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > well, you can also carry along a used laptop and use it as a photo dump > if you like. I've gone over 500 at a wedding reception. I think I've gone over 200 touristing, even. And that was on film, where I tended to shoot a bit more conservatively (it costing actually money and all). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> ... > However, if I switch to RAW, it drops to a claimed 95 exposures, > and if I switch to RAW+BASIC, it drops to a mere 87 exposures. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > handful of CF cards on hand (rather expensive, with 1GB cards, and > even more so with 4GB cards). The RAW counter underestimates by 100%. You'll have, on the average, twice as many RAW exposures left. I get around 190 on a 1G card. >The RAW counter underestimates by 100%. You'll have, on the average, twice >as many RAW exposures left. I get around 190 on a 1G card. Then you are probably shooting at the lowest ISO, with un-busy scenes. RAW files with lossless compression can vary in size by a factor of about 6x, in my experience. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater >exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >equal or surpass film originals. >That day has not come. I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan. The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital but I don't know what size the film is. Probably at least medium format. -Rich > I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan. > The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital > but I don't know what size the film is. Probably at least medium > format. > -Rich One camera I saw for the U-2 was huge. So big in fact that the film was spit down the middle and ran in opposing directions in order to keep the weight and balance of the aircraft neutral. (How they matched it all up afterwards is another matter). I don't recall how wide the film was, definitely larger then MF, but anyone near Duxford (outside Cambridge), England can go to the US Army Air Corps museum and check it out if they wish). 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > > I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan. > > The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > weight and balance of the aircraft neutral. (How they matched it all up > afterwards is another matter). The U2 is obsolete for the most part, used 10" roll film. The USAF/CIA satellites like KH-11 are digital, and can transmit in real-time. The U2 has to overfly and return to base, the film has to be processed etc.. I do believe the U2 now carries real-time imaging equipment, otherwise it would be useless compared to the Predator and Global Hawk. Alan had written, but Darrel snipped out: "...but anyone near Duxford (outside Cambridge), England can go to the US Army Air Corps museum and check it out..." > The U2 is obsolete for the most part, used 10" roll film. The USAF/CIA > satellites like KH-11 are digital, and can transmit in real-time. The U2 has > to overfly and return to base, the film has to be processed etc.. I do > believe the U2 now carries real-time imaging equipment, otherwise it would > be useless compared to the Predator and Global Hawk. What part of the word "museum" confused you? 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> > I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan. >> > The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >believe the U2 now carries real-time imaging equipment, otherwise it would >be useless compared to the Predator and Global Hawk. According to Aviation Week (I believe) it still uses film. With large installations to be photographed (as opposed to say, truck-mounted missles) you don't have to worry about real-time as much. -Rich >> I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech >> Pan. The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > anyone near Duxford (outside Cambridge), England can go to the US Army > Air Corps museum and check it out if they wish). When I was a Photo Interpretation Specialist in the USAF the principal film was nine inches wide. Depending on camera, the frames were 9x9 or 9x18, with about a quarter-inch unexposed border (half-inch between frames). I had no experience in U-2 photography as a PI. We used 35mm shots of radarscopes to score practice bombing runs made by RB-47 pretending to drop unclear weapons on divers targets including Dallas and Miami. Later I was a Photogrammetrist, making charts from all sources, including the big photos and U-2 stuff (shh: at that time no one admitted the U-2s existed; I caught a hop to Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico, and on the bus from the plane to base ops I saw one in a hangar. It looked so pretty compared to the air tankers and B-36s that surrounded it that I said something. The bus driver looked at me with a dead-eye and shook his head.). I don't remember that the U-2 photos were of different format, but they might have been. I do remember the photography we saw was near-usless for cartographic purposes. It was all oblique, 200-inch f/l if I recall correctly, and very difficult to relate to other sources. There was undoubtedly better U-2 photography available, but our squadron was about a third-level resource for the Map-maker-in-charge, and the Guys at Offutt and the Center of the Universe in St Louis got first shot at the good stuff. My favorite chart was of Mt Ararat and environs. I found a shape of the right size, cubit-ly soeaking, near the summit, and marked it with a wrecked-ship symbol. I've never seen the published chart, but I bet the Ark was edited off. Seems to me an American astronaut was involved in an expedition to find it, some time in the 60s. I'll have to check for closer, similar U-2 exhibits. March Field (Riverside, California, 90 miles up the road) has an air museum. Maybe tomorrow. SignatureFrank ess On 15/03/2005 12:52 PM, Frank ess wrote: > We used 35mm > shots of radarscopes to score practice bombing runs made by RB-47 > pretending to drop unclear weapons on divers targets ^^^^^^^ And this presumably confused the hell outta your enemies; what were they disguised as, cantaloupes? :-) > On 15/03/2005 12:52 PM, Frank ess wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And this presumably confused the hell outta your enemies; what were > they disguised as, cantaloupes? :-) Presumably your emphasis was intended for the (purposely) misspelled newkyuhler adjective. I'd have to reckon the targets were essentially unaware of the aircraft's presence at altitudes of 40,000+ feet. From what I could see on the radarscopes, the "enemies" were disguised as small towns, really large and dense structures, and in one remarkable case, a drive-in theater between dusk and one a.m.. I was awarded a three-day pass for figuring out _that_ anomaly. Half some times it was there, most of the time it wasn't. I looked at the hours of each, factored GMT, and called the only drive-in in Irving, Texas, to verify their exact location. Wa lah. I couldn't imagine anything with the required bulk and density moving in such a small interval. I have no idea what the air crews could see, but if the cantaloupes intended to avoid identification as targets, they probably succeeded. Seriously: the bomb release button was wired to a light on the radarscope panel, where release time, aircraft direction, altitude, and speed could be seen in the photo. We could calculate the bomb's likely trajectory and impact point, and the distance of impact from the target. The bombardiers were eligible for battlefield promotions (pay raises) on the basis of consistent good scores. In typical "what have you done for me today"-American style, they were subject to demotion if their releases strayed to far or too often. It was a rare day when we didn't have some marginal bomb-er hanging over our shoulders, hoping to fudge that gross error (5000 feet or more) back into the promised land. The really good scorers seldom showed up. They were confident in their skills, whereas the guys who couldn't do it right seemed to know that, too, and tried to use everything, including body english, to influence the outcome. I suppose the same kind of data is all automatic and digital, these days. It would have been difficult to imagine a film-recorded bomb run being faked or fudged in the olden-days work flow. You can bet there are some sophisticated button-pushers up in the air right now. SignatureFrank ess > When I was a Photo Interpretation Specialist in the USAF the principal > film was nine inches wide. Depending on camera, the frames were 9x9 or [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > (Riverside, California, 90 miles up the road) has an air museum. Maybe > tomorrow. Very interesting :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > I can believe it for larger format film and the now deceased Tech Pan. > The U2 spy plane still uses film for it's photos rather than digital > but I don't know what size the film is. Probably at least medium > format. > -Rich If I remember correctly, the negatives for those cameras were freaking huge. At least a foot or so across. >>Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater >>exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >but I don't know what size the film is. Probably at least medium >format. Sorry, the UR-2 can carry wet film but that's not the media of choice. It's digital from it's sensors due to the lag time for the data. It's the nine inch film. http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/u2ds/part04.htm ****************************************************************** "It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the public interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolised, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." "General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century" Pierre Proudhon > Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater > exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor. > High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut and more > picture information than images from any currently available digital sensor. I agree. > Digital printing is the real difference: the digital color printing process > provides much greater control over color, contrast and saturation than any > wet printing process. Unless you have color darkroom experience you have no > idea what is involved. For the average user no, but I would say that if one has access to a very good higher end color inkjet the gamut and controls could be better "depending on the operator", but maybe not the resolution by comparison to a wet print. If one is printing lambdas or lightjet prints then the out put resolution can be on par or better if the original is flawed in any way, and one can get truely excellent results if ones lab is attuned to giving you good results. > It is much easier and faster to capture the image and process it in the > digital realm. Digital images are good enough for most uses and one day will > equal or surpass film originals. > That day has not come. No it hasn't, I question when that day might be because I don't see standards as being raised but somewhat if only for the short term somewhat lowered in favor of that quick "required" turnaround. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater >> exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor. >> High quality canned film originals contain a wider color gamut and >> more picture information than images from any currently available >> digital sensor. > I agree. Huh? Digital camera sensors have a very large gamut, greater than that of even ProPhoto RGB. The problem happens when you try to make a print. >> Digital printing is the real difference: the digital color printing >> process provides much greater control over color, contrast and >> saturation than any wet printing process. Unless you have color >> darkroom experience you have no idea what is involved. > For the average user no, but I would say that if one has access to a > very good higher end color inkjet the gamut and controls could be > better "depending on the operator", but maybe not the resolution by > comparison to a wet print. Digital inkjet prints comfortably exceed the resolution of the eye, so it's fairly irrelevant to argue about whether the resolution is better or worse than that of wet prints. Andrew. > Film can capture a wider color gamut at higher resolution and greater > exposure latitude than any currently available digital sensor. No it can't. Modern DSLRs have a much wider exposure latitude than film, and produce much more accurate color. >Seems to me that people (some of them) who contend the best >digitals are still not as good as film are suffering from >a comparision problem. Before, when they took pictures, many >of them never ventured from the old 4" x 6" print. Now, they >routinely print 8.5" x 11" because that is what the most common >print paper size is. Strawman hypothesis. As I already noted in a post to the E-300 vignetting thread, the best 35mm films have resolution far exceeding any digital. Try looking at a *large* print (20x16, or even 20x30). I've seen a 20x30 print from a 6MP digital camera. It's pretty darn impressive (especially in the lack of noise in the sky). But it's not a patch on what you can get from film. [As I also noted, you'll never see the difference unless you are using top-quality glass, optimal shooting conditions, and top-of-the-line scanning and/or printing. Furthermore, if you really want resolution, stop messing around with small formats] > really want resolution, stop messing around with small formats] Okay you win. Now, back to regular, charter sanctioned programming... "Debating the pros and cons of digital photography vs. film photography is off-topic." http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsyscharter.htm ( Yeah, I've sinned too. ). 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > As I already noted in a post to the E-300 vignetting thread, > the best 35mm films have resolution far exceeding any digital. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > darn impressive (especially in the lack of noise in the sky). > But it's not a patch on what you can get from film. Have you seen a 20x30 print from 35mm film? Not pretty. Some films can capture extra detail beyond what a digital sensor can resolve - but the contrast is so low and the grain so great that you're not going to get much real detail past a certain point. From what I've seen, read, and experienced first hand, a 8 megapixel DSLR is just about equal to 35mm color film in terms of usable resolution. At speeds above ISO 200 or so, digital certainly has the advantage due to the lack of grain. >>Seems to me that people (some of them) who contend the best >>digitals are still not as good as film are suffering from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Strawman hypothesis. Hence the reference to psychological reasons for the belief. This is EASY to figure out. No debate needed. How large is the grain in fine-grained, 100 speed film and how large are the pixels in an 8 meg digital camera? Simple to figure out which would hold the most data. -Rich >As I already noted in a post to the E-300 vignetting thread, >the best 35mm films have resolution far exceeding any digital. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >top-of-the-line scanning and/or printing. Furthermore, if you >really want resolution, stop messing around with small formats] |
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
|
©2009 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.