On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> Also, I've seen some 16x20 prints from 5+ mp ditial cameras. The
> detail is not there for close inspection, but is adequate for normal
> viewing distance. Also, the color depth just doesn't compare with
> film, at this time. They're not bad standing alone, but put them
> beside a film print and the comparison is obvious.
As much as I prefer film, I don't quite agree with this. I've seen prints
made from the better digitals and enlarged to 16x20, and they look no
worse than 16x20's taken with a lot of 35mm film. If you want to compare
digital to MedF film, I'd agree with you, but then to be fair you'd really
have to use MedF digital, which is entirely different. It's not always
easy to enlarge 35mm negs to 16x20, and IMO these enlargements frequently
don't hold up to close inspection.
On a related note, The Luminous Landscape published a comparison online
between a Canon D30 and an EOS 1v loaded with Provia 100F slide film, and
enlarged a sample section of the images. Totally subjective, but the
author was convinced--and surpised--that the digital image actually
surpassed Provia in terms of colour accuracy and detail. That's just one
interpretation of one test, so please don't take it as a blanket
generalization of any kind on my part. You can see it at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
