Mark -
I've done similar tests and without a doubt a MF scan will beat a 6 mp
exposure in terms of resolution, even on a cheap scanner.
But I'm not sure what the up sampling using nearest neighbor was all
about. But then - I'm not sure what 'pixel peeper' means. (I used to
read about
On 23/01/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone will find fault because it isn't a proper test.
I find it to be very strong anecdotal evidence though.
And the differences only become more apparent when using a good
dedicated film scanner to scan a shot made using a modern MF lens.
On Jan 24, 2007, at 6:59 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 23/01/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone will find fault because it isn't a proper test.
I find it to be very strong anecdotal evidence though.
And the differences only become more apparent when using a good
I meant to say that I agree. A better scanner would further improve
the MF results. But both of these samples are flawed because of the
interpolation method chosen. In my experience, nearest neighbor
does not yield good results.
Paul
On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On
I pulled the original images out of my archives, did a little prep work, and
put the results up for review. Here is a summary of what I did and what I
got.
1) Scanned medium format workflow
--Rolleiflex 3.5E (6x6 medium format)
--Kodak 400 T400CN
--Epson 4870 (resolution set to
- Original Message -
From: Mark Erickson Subject: MF Film vs 6MP Digital--sample pics
Comments? Questions?
Someone will find fault because it isn't a proper test.
I find it to be very strong anecdotal evidence though.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
6 matches
Mail list logo
