On Jul 22, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It's also interesting to note that no sharpening was done on either
image.
The one from the istDs was made with standard sharpening and other
standard
settings and the scanned film was just a straight scan -push the scan
button, let 'er roll - and no sharpening of any sort was used
anywhere in
the process.
The image from the DS was certainly not captured with standard
settings. Otherwise, the EXIF information (easily visible in Pentax
Browser, EXIF-O-Matic, Photoshop CS2, and iView Media Pro) would have
had lens name, aperture, and other information, and it would not have
had Manual exposure, CW Averaging and other non-default settings.
You've also already stated that the white balance was set to Tungsten.
Putting a piece of film in a scanner and pressing the "scan" button
on virtually any scanning application will cause it to drive the
scanner and perform data acquisition, exposure adjustment,
sharpening, contrast and color adjustment, etc. as well. There's no
such thing as a 'straight scan' unless you are capturing the data
into a RAW format, which would look entirely different from the
picture you've presented.
Perhaps this has become a test of more that equivalency ;-)) Maybe
it even
shows that film is superior to digital <ROTFLMAO> I did use
Superior film
<LOL>
I laugh with you..
But seriously, the examples showed nothing of film or digital
superiority. It showed what it was designed to show: that the field
of view of an 18mm lens on the DS body is virtually identical to the
field of view of a 28mm lens on a 35mm film body. It didn't show DoF
differences nor can it be used as a comparison for image quality
discussion.
Godfrey
