Thanks for posting the test information and results. I hope to do something similar at some point, and your efforts and the feedback you've received will help in setting up my test.
Your desire to use the same magnification for each image is understandable, but perhaps it would have been a better test to use the same size prints for the test. Most people ask for a print of a certain size, not of a certain magnification, and the results may have been truer to real world issues. Also, might it not have been worthwhile to use lenses that produce approximately the same image size, such as the 20mm for the digi and, what, 35mm or so for the film camera? I don't know the answer to that since the introduction of different lenses could effect the test, but then again, it's said that digital "sees" things differently through a given lens than film does, so maybe it's a non issue. What do the experts say? To my eye the Provia image seems to have greater sharpness, or accutance, but one has to look beyond the grain to see it. It seems that the digital results give a more pleasing result if one is just looking at the print, rather than trying to find points of comparison and to see which is "better." You didn't mention the ISO used for the digital image. The lowest ISO, I assume? Thanks for doing this, Gianfranco. While this may not be the ultimate scientific test, and I'm sure there will be some detractors on that point and others, it's nonetheless very worthwhile and was certainly worth your time. I, for one, appreciate the effort, and since you defined the parameters pretty well, I've no complaints. My comments above were questions, not complaints. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Gianfranco Irlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 11/24/2004 7:46:20 AM > Subject: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test > > William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Subject: Re: P67 vs D1s -- photo.net > > He should have chosen the EF50/1.7 and the SMCP 105/2.4 for > his test. > > And he should have gotten a high end optical print made from > the > > film, rather than a scan. > > Hi everybody, > > About this topic, I performed a film vs. digital test while in > Prague. > I shot the same scene with both the LX and the *istD, using the > M 20/4, set at infinity, planning to do a optical print from the > slide film (a Fuji Provia 100F) and a digital (still from a wet > process, though) print from the *istD file. I made a 30x45cm > (12x18'') print from the slide and a 20x30cm (8x12'') from the > *istD file, to have the same magnification and thus comparable > details on the two final prints. > Last step was a couple of 600dpi scans of the buildings (note > that the details are quite small compared to the actual print). > The pictures shown are 100% crops of those details: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=137823 > > I tried to reduce the differences in the colours of the two (the > original *istD file - and print - was a bit more yellowish), to > better show the differences in grain and resolution. The *istD > file had also been modified with a slight sharpening and > darkened (still in order to match more the slide) before > printing. > From what I can see, the *istD image shows a little more fine > details, although there is a certain loss in the saturation of > some colours (the slide was quite dark compared to the digital > picture, so it may have preserved better the colours in the > highlights of the scene). > The print from the slide costed me 18 Euros (what is that now, > US$ 23, right?) and the (smaller) print from the file 2 Euros. A > 30x45cm print from the file (that I made anyway, with good > results) was 5 Euros (US$ 6.50). > What do you think? > > Ciao, > > Gianfranco > > > > ===== > _ > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
