----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: istD test needs doing.....
> What I would like to see is a (scanned) film > vs. digital output of the *istD using a really > good lens at a good fstop and really good > film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f. > > A good scanner wouldnt hurt either, 4000ppi? > > I would like to see an exteme crop blowup > of the same detailed subject taken with > same lens on a rock solid tripod please.... > > My hunch is the digital will be far smoother > less noisier/grainy but not as sharp as the > film image, overall probably better looking > than 35mm film... Why are you insisting on testing a scanner vs a camera? If you want to do the test, get a high end custom print made from a good quality 35mm negative, and compare that to a print made from the digtal camera, using the output of your choice. Ctein, a technician of some renown has found that prints made optically on photo paper look better than film scans done at 4800 dpi. Specifically, the film scans are grainier and less sharp than prints made on Kodak Supra paper. The pro boys that I know here have done exactly that, though not with formal tests, just by shooting pictures and comparing, and have dumped their medium format cameras in favour of the 6mp digitals. These are wedding shooters though, which is not a high resolution game, by any means. I still think only weiners are intent on proving this sort of stuff. The rest of us just go out and take pictures, and if we find something that works better than what we are doing now, we go with it if possible. Personally, I think the photo lab industry is going to force people into digital cameras, slowly but surely, by reducing services and quality from film. I am already seing it where I am. The new machine we got scans 35mm film at something like 2000 x 3000 pixels, and prints at 320dpi. This is fine for a 5x7 with some cropping, or a 6x9 with no cropping, not so good for larger print sizes, and it shows. This says nothing about poor bit depth, and rather harsh flesh tones because of it, unfortunate in a business that is dependant on making people look good. I won't have my films printed on the thing, but we still have an optical printer, so for now I have the option. At some point, our optical printer will be replaced, most likely by another digital printer. Scanning technology is not especially compatable with film. Much of the grain artifacts that people complain about is the fault of the scanning process, not the film. This is why I think JCO's proposed test is stacked in favour of digital, though at the same time, I suspect the digital may well win the test no matter how it is done. William Robb
