Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Hi Robert, Here's a link to an active D1/D1x forum where your questions can get answered immediately. Issues like yours are discussed daily: http://www.juergenspecht.com/d1scussion/ Larry >I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who >expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 >and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all >others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. That >sounds quite >unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and >throughs their MF scannera away to go digital? >Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding >photographer and commercial photographers is? *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://LettersFromThePacific.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Wedding photography and commercial photography tend to be two very different types of photography which have very different needs and demands. Most wedding photographers are selling prints and mostly small size prints 8x10 or smaller with a few wall size enlargements. They have used medium format typically because the films were both large enough and suitable for traditional retouching which 35mm film is not. Thus they might get away with a high quality 35mm digital camera. Commercial photographers, depending on how you define them, typically are not selling prints at all. Typically they are selling images for reproduction and publication in media produced by offset presses. While they typically do not have their images reproduced in very large sizes, they do need to display clearly and sharply fine details and not have blocked up shadow and highlight areas. They generally have to maintain relatively flat lighting so as to be within the contrast range of the printing presses which is usually much less than what can be captured on film. Thus they have typically used medium format and large format cameras and transparency films to capture their images. With respect to digital cameras and backs, commercial photographers would go for high resolution medium and large format digital backs so as to be able to capture detail sharply and larger density/contrast ranges and bit depths in order to capture subtle tones and details within highlight and shadow areas. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Meier Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about (2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi. Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20, i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and throughs their MF scannera away to go digital? Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding photographer and commercial photographers is? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Most wedding photos are relatively small and 6Mp will be ample. They also tend not to have any shots at infinity which is something my 3Mp camera is less happy about - the closer you get to the subject the nearer the quality gets to 35mm. This effect I think is due to digital quality degrading nastily at the edges of it's performance whereas film tends to lose definition gracefully. In the case of the 24x20 print you have made a mistake with the digital size. It should be 6MBx3 (RGB) hence 18MB and about 6 interpolated pixels for every real one. I have found that any noise in digital images is less intrusive than film grain and the cleaner image can be enlarged by a greater factor - particularly if you use a specialist program like Geniune Fractals to perform the enlargement. The Nikon D1x is by all accounts almost noiseless so I wouldn't expect any problem going to 20x24. Also most of the general public like the look of good quality digital images and are usually unaware of most digital artefacts. I printed an A3 on my 1270 using PGPP and I have yet to put it in front of anyone who isn't impressed. The more well informed are even more amazed to find out it is of digital origin and has been produced on an inkjet.There are a few digital artefacts but I would think 6Mp will print A3 without any real problem. The larger 24*20 will probably suffer a few minor problems nothing too noticeable. Don't take my word for it, download an image from the sample pages pages of this review (or find another) : http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/nikond1x.html and try a 24*20 print. If you have a decent inkjet you can get a good idea by enlarging to 24*20 and then printing each section on 6 A4 sheets or just print a single A4 section. Do remeber though that the inkjets dithering help hide some artefacts you may prefer to send the A4 section to a digital lab with a Fuji Frontier or something similar. I did write a few scribbles about the pros and cons of a prosumer 3Mp digital canera here http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/casio/casioqv3000.htm I wouldn't use it for commercial wedding photography but 6Mp I probably would. Any minor image quality problems (that I think almost no-one will notice) are more than made up for with the ability to see the bride closed her eyes or the page boy stuck his tongue out. I suspect there may be some extra orders as well if you can show a complete set of samples to the guests at the reception. Steve - Original Message - From: "Robert Meier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 5:51 AM Subject: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who > expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 > and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all > others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This > seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only > produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about > (2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes > assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi. > Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need > 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital > camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20, > i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite > unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and > throughs their MF scannera away to go digital? > > Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding > photographer and commercial photographers is? > > Robert > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ >
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Formal wedding shots (in your studio or posed shots at the alter) have to be done with medium format film because the customer will frequently want an 11x14 enlargement or bigger. Candid shots at the reception can be done with 35mm film because the largest print requested is likely to be 8x10 (or 8x12). Other than some highend digital studio cameras, digital cameras can't compete with film for quality. A local wedding/portrait photographer in my area just bought a digital studio camera that he'll use for senior portraits (maximum print size typically requested by custormers is 8x10). Everthing else he does with film. Most wedding/portrait photographers keep their negatives for a minimub of several years in case the customer needs a reprint. With digital, storing the files is too expensive and time consuming. If you really want a digital camera and are trying to justify based on your using it for wedding photography, then at least explain the limitations to your custom! er! s ahead of time so they aren't d isappointed afterwards. Digital has no advantage over film that I can see for wedding photography, and that includes speed, since film can be processed in one hour for quick proofs. And, remember that you need one or two backups for everthing in case of equipment failure and film cameras are cheaper than digital ones. Also, film processing, printing, and negative retouching can be done better and more economically than you're likely to be able to do if you do the digital work yourself. I read that the average US wedding cutomer pays $1500 for photography. My own fee is $800 plus film and processing and the customer can order as many reprints (8x10 or smaller) as desired at my cost. For that, I cover the wedding and up to 4 hours at the reception, and I do studio formals before or after the wedding. I work cheap. Commercial photographers generally charge by the job, and not by the hour. Their fee is based on the use of the photography and, for example, might be set at as much as 2 percent of the advertising budget. You may want to check with some commercial photographers in your area for guidance. And I know that there's at least one book on the market listing typical fees for various uses. Make sure you charge enough for the work you do. For every hour of shooting, you'll have many hours of support work. And you'll probably have $50,000 to $100,000 of equipment to pay for and maintain, and if any of it is digital, you have to depreciate it very rapidly as it becomes obsolete so fast. In a message dated Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:55:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who > expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 > and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all > others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This > seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only > produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about > (2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes > assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi. > Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need > 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital > camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20, > i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite > unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and > throughs their MF scannera away to go digital? > > Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding > photographer and commercial photographers is? > > Robert > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
I responded to the initial post last evening but it never showed up. There are a number of photographers shooting weddings with their D1x's. Here's a link to an active D1/D1x forum where your questions can get answered immediately. Issues like yours are discussed daily: http://www.juergenspecht.com/d1scussion/ Larry >Formal wedding shots (in your studio or posed shots at the alter) have to >be done with medium format film because the customer will frequently want >an 11x14 enlargement or bigger. > > I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who > > expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 > > and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://LettersFromThePacific.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
There are a couple of other considerations why MF is popular in wedding photos Lots of weddings are shot in poor light - both during the ceremony and the candids, there is only so much the portable flash can do. MF film, because of its larger image gathering area, performs better in the 'lower boundary'. Think LPM - if a film has say 200lpm resolution in its optimal exposure range (call it Zone VI) - and lets assume its color film so it has a 'minus range' down to Zone III, in Zone III its resolution will be probably down to about 50lpm. Now 1 mm on a 35mm image, is 4% of the whole image (24mm high) so the total vertical resolution ends up being say 1200 linepairs - blow that up to an 8x10 and you are down to 120dpi!!! Whereas on the 6x7 the SAME IMAGE is captured with 3000 linepairs - which at 8x10 is still 300dpi! Net result is that you get much better image quality, tonality, shadow detail etc. in the 6x7. Second - you can't change film backs on a 35mm. On a 6x7, you can go from Provia 100 for the 3 shot candid up-close smooch at the table, switch backs, and be shooting iso400 print film for the Whole Room shot and dancing. This IS a place digital can make a difference in the '35mm slr format'. Third, the 6 megapixel resolution is an interpolated resolution. The real resolution is still 3 or so megapixels. Interpolated resolution aint the same as the real thing Yet another thing to consider is image perspective. a 35mm SLR type, you are shooting 'eye to eye'. So for folks sitting, you are inducing parallax unless you kneel. For folks standing, you potentially over-emphasize facial detail. Shooting with an MF from the waist, changes both of these in a way that tends to be flattering for candid shots. Another part is the $1500. If I spend $1500, I want to feel I got my money's worth. Which means I want to be hiring someone that lets me feel like they are doing something that Uncle Harry with his Canon Rebel X cannot do. So if you show up with something that looks like a Rebel X - say a D-30, there is a value perception. That said, at a recent corporate event my wife and I attended, they had a 'get a shot with your sweetie' booth. And the guy there was using a D1 hooked up to a laptop with an external monitor for instant image review. It made a big difference, he reshot quite a few images where a couples hand wasn't quite right or the flash shadow was a bit unflattering etc. And the resultant images were prefectly fine for a wedding album. So I would suggest that a digital camera like the D-30 or the D1x would be fine for the 'studio shots' and the posed shots. As for commercial product shots - I work with a graphic artist that does layouts for Costco catalogs. ALL of those images are shot digitally. Lighting can be controlled very carefully, and digital has much greater 'grey scale' resolution (ie how many 'zones' it captures info in) than film does. And the ability to go straight from the camera into the catalog saves huge amounts in scanning costs. Which lets Costco save on the total cost of the catalog. Since the catalog work can be set up to be as close as possible and lit as needed, the D1x or D-30 works great in that environment. The main reason for going to 4x5 digital back is that the Tilt/shift/focus-depth controls are very useful in closeup product shots (I do art portfolio shots, and I much prefer the 4x5 to the 35mm. I don't need to be as 'perfectly aligned' with the 4x5 since I can compensate by changing the angle of the lens or film-plane independently). - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 9:32 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > Formal wedding shots (in your studio or posed shots at the alter) have to be done with medium format film because the customer will frequently want an 11x14 enlargement or bigger. Candid shots at the reception can be done with 35mm film because the largest print requested is likely to be 8x10 (or 8x12). Other than some highend digital studio cameras, digital cameras can't compete with film for quality. A local wedding/portrait photographer in my area just bought a digital studio camera that he'll use for senior portraits (maximum print size typically requested by custormers is 8x10). Everthing else he does with film. Most wedding/portrait photographers keep their negatives for a minimub of several years in case the customer needs a reprint. With digital, storing the files is too expensive and time consuming. If you really want a digital camera and are trying to justify based on your using it for wedding photography, then at least explain the limitations to your custom! > er! > s ahead of time so they aren't d > isappointed afterwards. Digital has n
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> Think LPM - if a film has say 200lpm resolution in its optimal exposure > range (call it Zone VI) - and lets assume its color film so it > has a 'minus > range' down to Zone III, in Zone III its resolution will be > probably down to > about 50lpm. Now 1 mm on a 35mm image, is 4% of the whole image > (24mm high) > so the total vertical resolution ends up being say 1200 linepairs - blow > that up to an 8x10 and you are down to 120dpi!!! Whereas on the 6x7 the > SAME IMAGE is captured with 3000 linepairs - which at 8x10 is > still 300dpi! Karl, I'm not buying the above resolution/zone claim. Of course MF film is larger than 35mm film, that's why it's MF, but I do not believe that the lp/mm changes between zone III and zone VI. > Third, the 6 megapixel resolution is an interpolated resolution. That is not true. The luminance information in one shot digital cameras is NOT interpolated (except in the Fuji cameras), only the chrominance. Color information is not near as critical as edge information. You still get full 6M pixels of edge information.
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Third, the 6 megapixel resolution is an interpolated resolution. > > That is not true. The luminance information in one shot digital > cameras is > NOT interpolated (except in the Fuji cameras), only the chrominance. > Color > information is not near as critical as edge information. You still > get full > 6M pixels of edge information. Most digital cameras use an GRGB patter. Further, the luminance is defined as approx. Y=0.3R + 0.6G + 0.1B. Since you do not have all color information you first have to interpolate it to calculate the luminance value. Therefore, the luminance value is also interpolated. By the way, the formula also shows that the green channel is most important for the luminance. That is why there are usualy twice as many green values then red and blue values. That give you the advantage that the luminance channel will be more accurate then the chrominance channel. But it STILL has to be INTERPOLATED. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> --- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Third, the 6 megapixel resolution is an interpolated resolution. > > > > That is not true. The luminance information in one shot digital > > cameras is > > NOT interpolated (except in the Fuji cameras), only the chrominance. > > Color > > information is not near as critical as edge information. You still > > get full > > 6M pixels of edge information. > > Most digital cameras use an GRGB patter. Er, yep. It's called a "Bayer" pattern. The G is for increased contrast. There are no single shot cameras currently "for sale" that I am aware of that do not use mixed color sensors in some interleaved arrangement. The only one that "may" be available "soon" is using three sensors and a beam splitter. I have my doubts about the viability of that. > Further, the luminance is > defined as approx. Y=0.3R + 0.6G + 0.1B. Since you do not have all > color information you first have to interpolate it to calculate the > luminance value. Therefore, the luminance value is also interpolated. It is defined by "an" algorithm, and "the" algorithm is not cast in stone. Different implementations use different algorithms. I've designed digital imaging systems that use the sensors that have the Bayer pattern, and I did not do as you suggest is done. Full edge information can be attained, and not "interpolated".
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
- Original Message - From: Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:51 PM Subject: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who > expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 > and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all > others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This > seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only > produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about > (2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes > assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi. > Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need > 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital > camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20, > i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite > unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and > throughs their MF scannera away to go digital? "...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes..." 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 bytes/pixel it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. Bob Wright > > Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding > photographer and commercial photographers is? > > Robert > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ >
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
- Original Message - From: Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:14 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > > > "...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes..." > > 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 bytes/pixel > > it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. > > Bob Wright > > Er, no. That would be 144M BITS, not bytes, which is 24M Bytes... > Mea coupa! But still greater than 6 Mbytes.
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> > "...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes..." > > 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 > bytes/pixel > > it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. > > Bob Wright > > Er, no. That would be 144M BITS, not bytes, which is 24M Bytes... Sorry, typo...make that 18M Bytes...
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- "Robert E. Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Original Message - > From: Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > "...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes..." > > > 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 > bytes/pixel > > > it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. > > > Bob Wright > > > > Er, no. That would be 144M BITS, not bytes, which is 24M Bytes... > > > Mea coupa! But still greater than 6 Mbytes. Again, the 24Mbytes(@8bit/channel) are INTERPOLATED. The camera (S1, D1x) only captures 1 channel (not 3) for each pixel But that's it. I won't repeat it again. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- "Robert E. Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Original Message - > From: Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes..." > 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 > bytes/pixel > it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. > Bob Wright First it's 144MBITS not Mbytes. 144Mbits=18Mbytes (actually accoring to my first assumption of 12bits channel it's 27Mbytes). Second, as I have mentioned the cameras (S1, D1x) does NOT capture all three channels for all pixels. Only one channel per pixel. The other 2 channels (2/3 of the total output data) is interpolated either by the camera or software on the computer (in case of raw images). Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> > From: Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > "...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes..." > > > > 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 > > bytes/pixel > > > > it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. > > > > Bob Wright > > > > > > Er, no. That would be 144M BITS, not bytes, which is 24M Bytes... > > > > > Mea coupa! But still greater than 6 Mbytes. > > Again, the 24Mbytes(@8bit/channel) are INTERPOLATED. The camera (S1, > D1x) only captures 1 channel (not 3) for each pixel But that's it. > I won't repeat it again. > > Robert You can repeat it all you like, but what you say is not entirely accurate. The "data" is two dimensional. Each pixel has position (an XY coordinate) as one dimension and color information as the other. Interpolation requires the addition of new data points, like when a scanner that has an optical resolution of 1200 DPI gives you 2400 DPI. That is interpolation of positional data. Interpolation means to "insert" between other elements. Each of the 6M sensor IS seeing a different piece of the reflected image...the sensors do not overlap. In the case we are discussing, the cameras 6M pixel sensor gives you 6M entirely different "positions" of the image (providing the lense can resolve to at least 2x the sensor resolution that is...). No data has been inserted between other elements. Though the data points are not interpolated, the color value of each point MAY be arrived at by interpolation, if the algorithm uses interpolation. It is not necessary to use interpolation to arrive at the color information for each pixel. You could take the four color values, combine them and apply them to each of the four pixels...that isn't interpolating.
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can repeat it all you like, but what you say is not entirely > accurate. > The "data" is two dimensional. Each pixel has position (an XY > coordinate) > as one dimension and color information as the other. I don't follow you. I didn't talk about dimensions but about number of channels per pixel. And while it does not address my point at all there are more then the two 'dimensions' you mentioned, i.e. time, etc. > Interpolation requires the addition of new data points, like when a > scanner > that has an optical resolution of 1200 DPI gives you 2400 DPI. Interpolation does not require new data points, it can produces them. Also it does not necessary mean that there will be more pixels. Interpolation can simply add missing color information. When you look at the R, G, and B channel each on a 6MPixel grid many data points in each channel will be missing. So it does not generate new pixels but new data points within the channels to produce a true color pixel. > That > is > interpolation of positional data. Interpolation means to "insert" > between > other elements. Exactly, you insert the blue, green, and red data points where they are missing on the 6Mpixel grid. > Though the data points are not interpolated, the color value of each > point > MAY be arrived at by interpolation, if the algorithm uses > interpolation. It > is not necessary to use interpolation to arrive at the color > information for > each pixel. You could take the four color values, combine them and > apply > them to each of the four pixels...that isn't interpolating. Hah, that approach produces so terrible image quality, especially along edges, that I don't even consider it for anything where image quality is of any importance. Or would you use a nearest neighbor approach to size up your image? People don't even want linear interpolation but bi-cubic interpolation, etc. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> And while it does not address my point at all there > are more then the two 'dimensions' you mentioned, i.e. time, etc. It certainly does address your point, you may not understand why though. There are not any other dimensions than I stated (positional and value) to the data you get from a digital camera. > > Interpolation requires the addition of new data points, like when a > > scanner > > that has an optical resolution of 1200 DPI gives you 2400 DPI. > > Interpolation does not require new data points, it can produces them. Of course interpolation produces them how is that different than "the addition of new data points"? The definition of interpolation REQUIRES that additional data points be "produced" or, more accurately, "created". > > That > > is > > interpolation of positional data. Interpolation means to "insert" > > between > > other elements. > > Exactly, you insert the blue, green, and red data points where they are > missing on the 6Mpixel grid. You are NOT inserting any new data points. The 6M points are already there. You are only changing their value. Simple as that. Interpolation is an algorithm, and as such, the derivation of color information does not have to be done with interpolation. Good, bad, or indifferent.
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are not any other dimensions than I stated (positional and > value) to > the data you get from a digital camera. Well, you did get off-topic so I took the right to go off-topic as well. For instance for an interlaced digital video camera time sure can be important for interpolation. > > > Interpolation requires the addition of new data points, like when > a > > > scanner > > > that has an optical resolution of 1200 DPI gives you 2400 DPI. > > > > Interpolation does not require new data points, it can produces > them. > > Of course interpolation produces them how is that different than "the > addition of new data points"? The definition of interpolation > REQUIRES that > additional data points be "produced" or, more accurately, "created". A requirement is something that is necessary in order to do the thing with the requirement. But creating additional data points is the result of an interpolation. Nit-picking, as you do. Maybe I should better let that be as my English is not really the best. > > Exactly, you insert the blue, green, and red data points where they > are > > missing on the 6Mpixel grid. > > You are NOT inserting any new data points. The 6M points are already > there. > You are only changing their value. Simple as that. Yes, there are 6M pixels but these are incomplete (at least what photography is concerned) as each pixel is missing two color channels. As you mentioned before one important 'dimension' is the position of each such value. The green, blue, and red values are all positioned on different positions on the 6M pixel sensor. So for all positions where there is a green value there is no blue and red value. You have to interpolate(or use any other method) the values for the two missing channels to get a true color pixel. That is what you refer to by 'changing values'. You are inserting/interpolating the values in the two missing color channels. > Interpolation is an algorithm, and as such, the derivation of color > information does not have to be done with interpolation. Good, bad, > or > indifferent. Sure, you don't even need to 'change their (pixel) values' as you suggest. Just use an RGB pattern, look at it from FAR away and it looks ok (well you might have to adjust the gain for each channel, etc). But my original question was about resolution. I doubt that this or your nearest neighbor solution would give any reasonable price/performance ratio, resolution, etc. Especially considering that the sensor costs quite a bit more then the minimal additional computation power to use a simple interpolation that already can increase performance quite a bit. But I stop it here as it starts escalating. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> --- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are not any other dimensions than I stated (positional and > > value) to > > the data you get from a digital camera. > > Well, you did get off-topic so I took the right to go off-topic as > well. I was only commenting on what I believed was inaccurate information in your post, not making something up out of thin air (er, interpolating ;-)...like you did! > > Of course interpolation produces them how is that different than "the > > addition of new data points"? The definition of interpolation > > REQUIRES that > > additional data points be "produced" or, more accurately, "created". > > A requirement is something that is necessary in order to do the thing > with the requirement. But creating additional data points is the result > of an interpolation. It would appear you agreeing with me by saying that "creating additional data points is the result of an interpolation". You obviously understand the point. As I said, the digital cameras (aside from the Fuji) do not create additional data points, they only changing the values of these data points. I believe we disagree on whether this is really interpolation or not. > But > my original question was about resolution. OK, I'll go back to your original question: "Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20, i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and throughs their MF scannera away to go digital?" I believe we got the arithmetic straight in other posts. The color depth is not relevant to resolution. A pixel is a pixel, no matter how many bits are used to represent it (providing the number of bits is > 0), so take that out of the equation for resolution. A 6M pixel camera, assume 2000 x 3000, will give you a very nice 8x10-11x14, but that's about the limits unless you use Genuine Fractals you won't get very good looking images above that. For general reception (candid) shots, a digital "35mm equivalent" should work OK, but I certainly would not use it for formals. In general, MF lenses typically don't have as high a resolution as 35mm lenses, so the increase in film size does not scale linearly to resolution on the film. You certainly will get better images with MF, no doubt about it. I scan MF at 2540SPI and routinely print 24x24 even larger. 2540 x 2.25/24 = 238 PPI to the printer. At 4000SPI, you may run into grain/grain aliasing (I'd be interested what others have to say about this...) on certain films. I do with 35mm films which I scan at 5080. To answer your question, no, I would not give up my scanner for a digital camera yet. When the digital cameras get to 16M pixels, I will consider getting one...but I will probably always use film anyway, since I shoot mostly B&W these days, and I don't do weddings any more. I would easily use digital for commercial work though. Typically, most commercial work doesn't require much enlargement, but it really depends on what the client expects for an end result. I hope that gives you more of an answer to your original question.
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
--- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A 6M pixel camera, assume 2000 x 3000, will give you a very nice > 8x10-11x14, > but that's about the limits unless you use Genuine Fractals you won't > get > very good looking images above that. For general reception (candid) > shots, > a digital "35mm equivalent" should work OK, but I certainly would not > use it > for formals. > To answer your question, no, I would not give up my scanner for a > digital > camera yet. When the digital cameras get to 16M pixels, I will > consider > getting one...but I will probably always use film anyway, since I > shoot > mostly B&W these days, and I don't do weddings any more. > > I would easily use digital for commercial work though. Typically, > most > commercial work doesn't require much enlargement, but it really > depends on > what the client expects for an end result. Well, that was the kind of answer I was hoping to get. Thanks, Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
- Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:21 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > It would appear you agreeing with me by saying that "creating additional > data points is the result of an interpolation". You obviously understand > the point. As I said, the digital cameras (aside from the Fuji) do not > create additional data points, they only changing the values of these data > points. I believe we disagree on whether this is really interpolation or > not. I do believe this is the disagreement. if a Red-Green diagonal crosses this "GRGB Quadrulplet" - and the software tries to figure out what the Red and Green values should be for the two sub-pixels outside of the actual diagonal, there are significant pathological cases where it will get it wrong. So from a photographic perspective, a Pixel, is the whole Quad - which is why the Fuji isn't really a 6Mpixel camera (even though it reads 6 Million dots). Also earlier you said >Karl, I'm not buying the above resolution/zone claim. Of course MF film is >larger than 35mm film, that's why it's MF, but I do not believe that the >lp/mm changes between zone III and zone VI. I refer you to the latest issue of PhotoTechnique and its article on Gigabit film. If you think about the physics of how film works, a drop in LPMM resolution as inbound light intensity drops, makes a great deal of sense. FGZMPLE lets assume it takes 10 photons to "flip" a silver-nitrate (or whatever silver compound is in use) crystal (yeah I'm simplifying a bit here). So the LPMM resolution in Zone VI is controlled by the density, size and diffusion of the silver crystals since there is ample light to flip the photons in the 'white line' and just below the threshold to flip the black lines. Going down to Zone III exposure the crystal parameters are the same, but the number of inbound photons is significantly reduced. Given random photonic distribution, the likelihood that enough adjacent crystals in the 'white line' will flip to be measurably more opaque than film fog, goes down. Since the probablity goes down, the actual number of times it happens in the aggregate goes down. What that in effect means is that the 'white/gray' line, becomes a series of dots, not a well defined line that 'counts' in LPMM. Now if you widen the line, the likelihood that enough crystals in the region of the line, sufficient to actually create a 'contiguous' line will flip, goes up. Why? Because the probability of a single crystal flipping stays the same, but the number of crystals involved goes up, and hence the aggregate probability of actually recording the line, goes up. But a 'widen the line', in essence you are decreasing LPMM. So in Zone III, the LPMM will be lower - and from what I have read and seen, empirical data bears this out. Heck my personal experience with changes in my eyesight as I age, bears this out. Stuff I could read as a kid in shade light, I now need to shine a flashlight on to read.
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
>Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding >photographer and commercial photographers is? Depends on a number of variables like location, type of commercial work in the case of commercial photography, type of weddding coverage in the case of wedding photography, what is to be provided the client by way of services, and finished products, etc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Meier Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about (2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi. Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20, i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and throughs their MF scannera away to go digital? Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding photographer and commercial photographers is? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> So from a photographic perspective, a Pixel, is the whole Quad - I certainly disagree with that... > which is > why the Fuji isn't really a 6Mpixel camera (even though it reads 6 Million > dots). The reason the Fuji isn't 6M pixels is because the sensor isn't a 6M pixel sensor! It's a 4.3M pixel sensor, interpolated to make 6M pixels. > Also earlier you said > > >Karl, I'm not buying the above resolution/zone claim. Of course > MF film is > >larger than 35mm film, that's why it's MF, but I do not believe that the > >lp/mm changes between zone III and zone VI. > > I refer you to the latest issue of PhotoTechnique and its article > on Gigabit > film. If you think about the physics of how film works, a drop in LPMM > resolution as inbound light intensity drops, makes a great deal of sense. I believe you missed my point. You need contrast...ANY contrast to distinguish two lines. It is the amount of contrast that will vary depending on how far the two line "tones" are apart. It obviously depends on what you are comparing to what. If you compare Zone III with Zone IV, you have substantially reduced contrast, but that does not make it less resolution, just less contrast. If you compare Zone III with Zone X, you have higher contrast, and not necessarily higher resolution.
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Title: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > So from a photographic perspective, a Pixel, is the whole Quad - > > I certainly disagree with that... Well, I agree with it. Lets see this from a basic perspective. Image a chip with just 4 sensors, two green, one red and one blue. A camera manufacturer (and you I assume) would see this as a 4 pixel chip. I (and Karl I guess) would see it as a 1 pixel chip. Anything else is a lie. Regards /Soren
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> > > So from a photographic perspective, a Pixel, is the whole Quad - > > > I certainly disagree with that... > Well, I agree with it. > Lets see this from a basic perspective. Image a chip with just 4 sensors, two green, > one red and one blue. > A camera manufacturer (and you I assume) would see this as a 4 pixel chip. > I (and Karl I guess) would see it as a 1 pixel chip. Anything else is a lie. Only the color information is shared amongst multiple pixels NOT the edge information. That does not make the four pixels one pixel. Do the geometry. Each of the four sensors is capable of sensing an entirely unique "section" of the image. Why is that so hard to understand? Take the four pixels, a 2x2 box, and say the left two are sensing only black, and the right two, only white. What are the four resultant values going to be? Television works more or less the same way, having some fraction (1/4th?) the color information to the edge information. And I believe human eyes also work similarly, resolving less color information than edge information.
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Title: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Only the color information is shared amongst multiple pixels > NOT the edge information. That does not make the four pixels one pixel. > Do the geometry. Each of the four sensors is capable of sensing an > entirely unique "section" of the image. Why is that so hard to understand? Because it isn't true. Each sensor has a filter in front of it (R, G or B). That means that you have to use sensors next to it to get a true value of the luminance at each sensor. Each sensor just measures the luminance within a small spectrum. I think that's pretty clear, isn't it? :-) > Take the four pixels, a 2x2 box, and say the left two are sensing only > black, and the right two, only white. What are the four > resultant values going to be? Good point, because that shows the problem. You can't determine what the TRUE value was at each sensor, only guess or treat that 4 sensor group as one pixel. How would you distinguish between the red sensor getting no light or blue light? You can't unless you look at the sensors next to it, and then you're treating them as a group! > Television works more or less the same way, having some > fraction (1/4th?) the color information to the edge information. Well, if you're satisfied with TV picture quality, that method works fine :-) But there's a reason why high-end digital capture doesn't work that way. > And I believe human eyes also work similarly, resolving less color > information than edge information. Yes, it does (that's how jpeg compresses images). But as I mentioned in the first paragraph, even the edge information suffers from this "guessing" approach. Regards /Soren
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> > Only the color information is shared amongst multiple pixels > > NOT the edge information. That does not make the four pixels one pixel. > > Do the geometry. Each of the four sensors is capable of sensing an > > entirely unique "section" of the image. Why is that so hard to understand? > Because it isn't true. What part of it isn't true? Be VERY specific. > Each sensor has a filter in front of it (R, G or B). > That means that you have to use sensors next to it to get a true value of the > luminance at each sensor. No, it means you get a different color value from a DIFFERENT PART of the image. > Each sensor just measures the luminance within a small spectrum. > I think that's pretty clear, isn't it? :-) To me it is, but your perception of how it works is incorrect. > > Take the four pixels, a 2x2 box, and say the left two are sensing only > > black, and the right two, only white. What are the four > > resultant values going to be? > Good point, because that shows the problem. You can't determine what the TRUE > value was at each sensor, True value of WHAT? The color, no, but the edge information is still there. > > Television works more or less the same way, having some > > fraction (1/4th?) the color information to the edge information. > Well, if you're satisfied with TV picture quality, that method works fine :-) It's called aliasing. To the human eye, color aliases far more than edge information. > But as I mentioned in the first paragraph, even the edge information suffers > from this "guessing" approach. Not in the way you believe it does. I really do hate to mentioning this, but I am a professional engineer and have been designing digital imaging systems for over 20 years. I really do know exactly how these things work. What is your background WRT digital imaging? Have you actually done designs with these sensors, and you are speaking from experience? I have, and I am.
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
on 8/17/01 6:00 PM, Soren Svensson (EUS) at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> >>> So from a photographic perspective, a Pixel, is the whole Quad - >> >> I certainly disagree with that... > > Well, I agree with it. > > Lets see this from a basic perspective. Image a chip with just 4 sensors, two > green, one red and one blue. > > A camera manufacturer (and you I assume) would see this as a 4 pixel chip. > > I (and Karl I guess) would see it as a 1 pixel chip. Anything else is a lie. well, it is contributing 4 data points about luminance and 1 about chrominance. Since luminance information is more critical than chrominance that makes it worth (to me) rather more than 1 pixel and somewhat less than 4. the problem with this stuff is that people look at the numbers and say 'blimey, my scanner will produce a 20 Mpx file from 35mm" and do a mental comparison which is completely invalid. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com ICQ: 109343205
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
I guess it is a matter of semantics when faced with the imaging sensor(s) you describe. In the strictest sense, the aforementioned sensors would be 4 pixels, since a pixel is literally a picture element, indeed. But in practical terms, they form 1 RGB pixel, which is all that matters for color imaging. The 4 sensors acting as individual pixels is only useful in a one-channel color space, monochrome. They can of course act as any color, with the proper filter in front of either the sensor or lens. One way to (sorry for the term) visualize this is to think of the original Technicolor process, which is created from three black and white negatives exposed through a single lens, split by (I assume) a prism. Technicolor is a monochrome film process yielding color results (and the best color fidelity, when done right). The fact that three negatives capture the image does not increase the resolution, which is fixed by the lens/film combination. The resolution is that of one of the single color channels, in this case film (actually, it must be lower, but that is a few other cases). Pat - Original Message - From: "Soren Svensson (EUS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 3:00 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > So from a photographic perspective, a Pixel, is the whole Quad - > > > > I certainly disagree with that... > > Well, I agree with it. > > Lets see this from a basic perspective. Image a chip with just 4 sensors, two green, one red and one blue. > > A camera manufacturer (and you I assume) would see this as a 4 pixel chip. > > I (and Karl I guess) would see it as a 1 pixel chip. Anything else is a lie. > > Regards > /Soren > _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> One way to (sorry for the term) visualize this is to think of the original > Technicolor process, which is created from three black and white negatives > exposed through a single lens, split by (I assume) a prism. > Technicolor is a > monochrome film process yielding color results (and the best > color fidelity, > when done right). The fact that three negatives capture the image does not > increase the resolution, which is fixed by the lens/film combination. The > resolution is that of one of the single color channels, in this case film > (actually, it must be lower, but that is a few other cases). Try thinking about it this way. Each of the negatives was exposed through a mask with holes in it. Each mask is offset from the other ones, such that they don't share any of the same image information. Does that increase the resolution or not? If not, why?
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
There are a number of traditional reasons why MF films have been used in wedding and portrait photography. In the not so distant past, a lot of touch up work was done directly on the negs, and MF allowed for this more simply. Further the usually square format allowed for variable cropping, and traditional sizes (like 8 x 10" and 11 x 14" can often be produced without cropping on the long dimension. 35mm frames require cropping in the long dimension to fit these standard dimensions further decreasing resolution. Art
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Title: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sorry it took so long to answer this (been sick). Lets make this really simple. Take three scenarios: 1: The four sensor chip we've been discussing so far (GRGB). 2: A beam splitter with three monochrome chips of the same size as above. 3: One chip with twice the density (each pixel position contains full RGB info). You're saying that scenario 1 will produce the BEST image? > I really do hate to mentioning this, > but I am a professional engineer and have been designing > digital imaging systems for over 20 years. I really do > know exactly how these things work. > What is your background WRT digital imaging? Have you > actually done designs with these sensors, and you are > speaking from experience? I have, and I am. Well, you have 5 years head start on me. I'm also a professional engineer and have been designing high-end embedded systems (yes, even digital imaging systems) for about 15 years. I do (design and implementation) software for them, not hardware, but I think I'm still qualified to discuss this issue. I don't question that you're qualified for this and I find your posts on the Piezo list very informative. But I don't agree that the current crop of consumer/prosumer CCD chips is the best solution. The most cost-effective maybe, but it's still cheating! Regards /Soren
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
> Sorry it took so long to answer this (been sick). > Lets make this really simple. Take three scenarios: > 1: The four sensor chip we've been discussing so far (GRGB). > 2: A beam splitter with three monochrome chips of the same size as above. > 3: One chip with twice the density (each pixel position contains full RGB info). > You're saying that scenario 1 will produce the BEST image? No, I did not say that anywhere. 3 will "probably" give you the best image, but it entirely depends on implementation, 2 may, and 1 may. > But I don't agree that the current crop of consumer/prosumer CCD chips is the > best solution. But I never said it was!
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Always gives you guys something to laugh about when a ignoramus dives in. I have an engineering PhD as well but it's in Chem Eng from the 70's which I guess makes my opinion worth as much that of the average taxi driver. I had an Agfa 1680 for a while. 1.3 MP CCD and some fancy interpolation that supposedly took it to equiv 1.9 MP. Dunno if I believed that. The point was it did A4 prints that I considered fairly acceptable, although my scanned neg stuff was a bit better. I have Kodak FD300 and HP S20 film scanners. I know there are scanners that do APS and 35 but that's not the way it happened for me. Both are 2400 dpi. Have just upgraded to a Casio 3000 (3.3 MP). Also had the misfortune to be followed home by a used Epson Stylus 3000 A2 printer. Printed some A2 stuff off the digicam and it just blew me away. Orright orright it's not the same as one would get off an MF neg and Sprintscan 4000 (I assume). Was pretty damn good though - some pixelation visible when viewed from 10 cm (who views this size print at from 10 cm anyway). I know the dot arithmetic doesn't work. The digi pic is about the equiv of a 1200 dpi 35mm neg scan. Blowing that out to A2 is a res on the paper of about 100-odd dpi. Obviously totally unsatisfactory. I just have to tell my eyes that :) Have now been amusing self by copying slides on a light box using 5 diopters of closeup lens on the front of the zoom in macro mode. Purists should feel free to faint. More pretty damn good results. I would not be bothered in the least if someone sold me a pic of this quality suitably printed on a matt paper perhaps under glass and framed up nice. Cheers Ian
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Ian, Ignoramus? Rubbish! Take a Nobel Prize, or at least a D.Sc for having done the experiment; tried it out! I have a friend with a digicam who keeps finding out things like this. He's a professional who likes to do things properly for the paying customers, but will also do the experiments. You and he are the folk who're really at the sharp end of practical modern photography. Alan T - Original Message - From: Ian Boag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:08 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > Always gives you guys something to laugh about when a ignoramus dives in. I > have an engineering PhD as well but it's in Chem Eng from the 70's which I > guess makes my opinion worth as much that of the average taxi driver. > > I had an Agfa 1680 for a while. 1.3 MP CCD and some fancy interpolation > that supposedly took it to equiv 1.9 MP. Dunno if I believed that. The > point was it did A4 prints that I considered fairly acceptable, although my > scanned neg stuff was a bit better. I have Kodak FD300 and HP S20 film > scanners. I know there are scanners that do APS and 35 but that's not the > way it happened for me. Both are 2400 dpi. > > Have just upgraded to a Casio 3000 (3.3 MP). Also had the misfortune to be > followed home by a used Epson Stylus 3000 A2 printer. Printed some A2 stuff > off the digicam and it just blew me away. Orright orright it's not the same > as one would get off an MF neg and Sprintscan 4000 (I assume). Was pretty > damn good though - some pixelation visible when viewed from 10 cm (who > views this size print at from 10 cm anyway). > > I know the dot arithmetic doesn't work. The digi pic is about the equiv of > a 1200 dpi 35mm neg scan. Blowing that out to A2 is a res on the paper of > about 100-odd dpi. Obviously totally unsatisfactory. I just have to tell my > eyes that :) > > Have now been amusing self by copying slides on a light box using 5 > diopters of closeup lens on the front of the zoom in macro mode. Purists > should feel free to faint. More pretty damn good results. > > I would not be bothered in the least if someone sold me a pic of this > quality suitably printed on a matt paper perhaps under glass and framed up > nice. > > Cheers Ian > > >
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras -wedding/commercial photography
Great commentary Ian. I think sometimes we take the numbers too seriously and don't look at results. Of course, the loupe-heads will be unhappy with a 100 dpi image, but, if it is a large format print, only bad manners says you should be scrutinizing it at 8", anyway. Of course, I do understand it that the only subject matter you guys photograph is sheep, so they all look rather fuzzy most of the time anyway, right? ;-) Art Ian Boag wrote: > > Always gives you guys something to laugh about when a ignoramus dives in. I > have an engineering PhD as well but it's in Chem Eng from the 70's which I > guess makes my opinion worth as much that of the average taxi driver. > > I had an Agfa 1680 for a while. 1.3 MP CCD and some fancy interpolation > that supposedly took it to equiv 1.9 MP. Dunno if I believed that. The > point was it did A4 prints that I considered fairly acceptable, although my > scanned neg stuff was a bit better. I have Kodak FD300 and HP S20 film > scanners. I know there are scanners that do APS and 35 but that's not the > way it happened for me. Both are 2400 dpi. > > Have just upgraded to a Casio 3000 (3.3 MP). Also had the misfortune to be > followed home by a used Epson Stylus 3000 A2 printer. Printed some A2 stuff > off the digicam and it just blew me away. Orright orright it's not the same > as one would get off an MF neg and Sprintscan 4000 (I assume). Was pretty > damn good though - some pixelation visible when viewed from 10 cm (who > views this size print at from 10 cm anyway). > > I know the dot arithmetic doesn't work. The digi pic is about the equiv of > a 1200 dpi 35mm neg scan. Blowing that out to A2 is a res on the paper of > about 100-odd dpi. Obviously totally unsatisfactory. I just have to tell my > eyes that :) > > Have now been amusing self by copying slides on a light box using 5 > diopters of closeup lens on the front of the zoom in macro mode. Purists > should feel free to faint. More pretty damn good results. > > I would not be bothered in the least if someone sold me a pic of this > quality suitably printed on a matt paper perhaps under glass and framed up > nice. > > Cheers Ian
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras -wedding/commercial photography
> Of course, the loupe-heads will be > unhappy with a 100 dpi image, but, if it is a large format print, only > bad manners says you should be scrutinizing it at 8", anyway. Or, that's where you just happen to be standing ;-)
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras -wedding/commercial photography
Austin Franklin wrote: > > > Of course, the loupe-heads will be > > unhappy with a 100 dpi image, but, if it is a large format print, only > > bad manners says you should be scrutinizing it at 8", anyway. > > Or, that's where you just happen to be standing ;-) If circumstances place you in an embarrassing situation (for yourself or others), kindly etiquette is to keep what you see to yourself. I suppose that should extend to if one is placed in the position of viewing other people's pixels from having to stand too close as well ;-) Art
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras -wedding/commercial photography
> Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > > Of course, the loupe-heads will be > > > unhappy with a 100 dpi image, but, if it is a large format print, only > > > bad manners says you should be scrutinizing it at 8", anyway. > > > > Or, that's where you just happen to be standing ;-) > > If circumstances place you in an embarrassing situation (for yourself or > others), kindly etiquette is to keep what you see to yourself. I suppose > that should extend to if one is placed in the position of viewing other > people's pixels from having to stand too close as well ;-) > > Art Yes, I agree, but that does not mean that I would not be unhappy about it. I know you will find this quite hard to believe, but I actually keep a lot to my self that I am unhappy about ;-)
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
I have similarly printed Casio QV3000 pics so called "super A3" (13x19) on an Epson 1270 and don't see many normal prints to match. In general if you are close to your subject the best digital images can be very close to the best 35mm can produce. Lack of film grain gives it an advantage and many people overlook most digital artefacts. But digital can be prone to fall over ungracefully, in particular watch out for smallish details at around 30m against a bright background. See my review of the QV3000 http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/casio/casioqv3000.htm Enjoy the camera I certainly use mine far more than my film cameras which are restricted to "serious" work. Steve - Original Message - From: "Ian Boag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:08 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography > Always gives you guys something to laugh about when a ignoramus dives in. I > have an engineering PhD as well but it's in Chem Eng from the 70's which I > guess makes my opinion worth as much that of the average taxi driver. > > I had an Agfa 1680 for a while. 1.3 MP CCD and some fancy interpolation > that supposedly took it to equiv 1.9 MP. Dunno if I believed that. The > point was it did A4 prints that I considered fairly acceptable, although my > scanned neg stuff was a bit better. I have Kodak FD300 and HP S20 film > scanners. I know there are scanners that do APS and 35 but that's not the > way it happened for me. Both are 2400 dpi. > > Have just upgraded to a Casio 3000 (3.3 MP). Also had the misfortune to be > followed home by a used Epson Stylus 3000 A2 printer. Printed some A2 stuff > off the digicam and it just blew me away. Orright orright it's not the same > as one would get off an MF neg and Sprintscan 4000 (I assume). Was pretty > damn good though - some pixelation visible when viewed from 10 cm (who > views this size print at from 10 cm anyway). > > I know the dot arithmetic doesn't work. The digi pic is about the equiv of > a 1200 dpi 35mm neg scan. Blowing that out to A2 is a res on the paper of > about 100-odd dpi. Obviously totally unsatisfactory. I just have to tell my > eyes that :) > > Have now been amusing self by copying slides on a light box using 5 > diopters of closeup lens on the front of the zoom in macro mode. Purists > should feel free to faint. More pretty damn good results. > > I would not be bothered in the least if someone sold me a pic of this > quality suitably printed on a matt paper perhaps under glass and framed up > nice. > > Cheers Ian > > >
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras -wedding/commercial photography
Spoken like a true gentleman! - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > > Of course, the loupe-heads will be > > > unhappy with a 100 dpi image, but, if it is a large format print, only > > > bad manners says you should be scrutinizing it at 8", anyway. > > > > Or, that's where you just happen to be standing ;-) > > If circumstances place you in an embarrassing situation (for yourself or > others), kindly etiquette is to keep what you see to yourself. I suppose > that should extend to if one is placed in the position of viewing other > people's pixels from having to stand too close as well ;-) > > Art > _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
