Well, it's been done to death, I know. The web will, also, give one about all they can stand. The reason it's been done and is being done is because of irrepressible curiosity about camera and process comparisons. I don't think I need to explain "what I'm trying to see" and I accept that your tests were for something altogether different. I'm ready to move on, Godfrey. ;-))
Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're trying to see. The only > reason to do this is to compare a film and scan vs a digital capture > > of the same subject. That's boring ... it's been done. > > Besides, I don't know what you use to do your DSLR image processing > is, but I don't have anything that includes an "Auto Sharpen" > command. Nor do I think that's a useful baseline for comparison or > printing. > > G > > > > On Apr 20, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > Why? Because I'd be interested in seeing YOUR results. ;-) > > >>> Anxious to see the 35mm scan comparisons. Put them up against a > >>> 100 ISO > >>> K10D image having received one click of "Auto Sharpen". > >> > >> Why? > >> > >> I'm not doing this for a "film vs digital" thesis. I'm doing this > to > >> characterize what the scanners I have at my disposal do so I can > use > >> them with film images I have already or will make in the future. I > >> already know what kind of quality I can get out of the K10D. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
