Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,660   Posts: 1,481,540   Online: 1032
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 63
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    895
    My concern is not with the scan - I suspect the 8x10 was not as sharp as it could have been - film plane flatness and tripod are just two issues; there are lots more.

    BTW, I don't see anybody talking about how GOOD the digital files were ;-) just how bad the film files were.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i don't think there is a conspiracy, just poor image reproduction and tight budgets.
    I agree 100%

  3. #33
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    991
    The IQ is a superb digiback no doubt about but it does not beat a well made 8x10. At f32 the depth of field would counteract the filmflatness problem apparently it didn't. The scans are something I would expect from a flatbedscanner and not from a drumscan. The IQ shot was sharpened in capture one (a superb programm maybe the best raw converter on the market imho), the scans of the film were sharpened with a homespun algorithm that supposedly reduces sharpening artefacts come on give me a break. The guy who's done the test is a 100% digiguy in and owns a company that specialises in fine art digiprints, so one can'T talk about him not beeing biased. A 100% film guy would be biased as well, so a photographer who is at home in both worlds would have been a better choice and is probably more objective.

    Dominik

  4. #34
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,618
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    A 100% film guy would be biased as well, so a photographer who is at home in both worlds would have been a better choice and is probably more objective.
    Don't you think the best test would be made by a film guy taking the 8x10 film image and a digital guy taking the digital image then handing both images over to a third party for analysis?

    Not only would that eliminate bias from the photographers, it would allow the reviewer to concentrate on the task at hand, reviewing, instead of taking pictures.

    (In a perfect world... )
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  5. #35
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    Don't you think the best test would be made by a film guy taking the 8x10 film image and a digital guy taking the digital image then handing both images over to a third party for analysis?

    Not only would that eliminate bias from the photographers, it would allow the reviewer to concentrate on the task at hand, reviewing, instead of taking pictures.

    (In a perfect world... )
    You might have a point.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    895
    Unless you could put the film and sensor in exactly the same camera, you can never have a completely 'fair' test. Like I've been saying, the best you can do is compare two systems meaning someone can always find fault with the test.

    Shoot what you like and forget about trying to 'one-up' the other guy.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    Conducting poorly designed or purposely flawed tests is pointless unless your intent is use the results to mislead people. I think Worker 11811 is right. To eliminate as much bias as possible, a well designed test would try to eliminate as many variables as possible. Having multiple independent third parties compare the best efforts of the same scene photographed at the same time by expert analogue and digital photographers would go a long way toward making the exercise fair and the results more meaningful.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    895
    Like I said - you can only compare systems - you can't generalize the results.

    BTW, In my opinion, I would have conducted the test using a 4x5 system rather than an 8x10; lens quality would have been more comparable, film plane flatness would be better, less camera shake, etc.....

  9. #39
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    The Dianippon drum scan resulted in a 64 megapixel image vs the 80 megapixel digital image (and is a good scanner); that's not my problem with the test.
    I don't see why that would not be one of your problems with the test. 745 dpi? Visible jaggies?

    745 dpi (I prefer spi, but whatever) cannot image anything less than 35 microns, fer cryin' out loud. A 745 dpi scan of a 24X36mm image yields less than .833 MP.
    The writer claims the appearance of grain at that level means no more resolution is available. Has he heard that scanning technique can affect apparent grain in the scan? Has he heard of grain aliasing? Why does that Acros grain look so weird?


    745dpi = 372.5 lp/inch. That converts to 14.66 lp/mm. Ridiculous.


    The test purports to compare resolution. The scanning sampling rate negates any possible objective comparison, even a casual one.

    The other issues regarding this test which you raised are also valid, and reveal this "test" to be fatuous.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    I don't see why that would not be one of your problems with the test. 745 dpi? Visible jaggies?

    745 dpi (I prefer spi, but whatever) cannot image anything less than 35 microns, fer cryin' out loud. A 745 dpi scan of a 24X36mm image yields less than .833 MP.
    The writer claims the appearance of grain at that level means no more resolution is available. Has he heard that scanning technique can affect apparent grain in the scan? Has he heard of grain aliasing? Why does that Acros grain look so weird?


    745dpi = 372.5 lp/inch. That converts to 14.66 lp/mm. Ridiculous.


    The test purports to compare resolution. The scanning sampling rate negates any possible objective comparison, even a casual one.
    Don't get fixated on the scanning resolution; what is important is the total number of pixels captured for the scene. A 4x5 would have had to be scanned at 1500 ppi to generate the same number of total pixels while a 35 mm frame would have had to be scanned at something like 6000 ppi!

    In the test, any give area of the scene (like a license plate) is reproduced by approximately the same number of pixels with both systems. The fact is the 8x10 image wasn't sharp (for reasons already mentioned and probably others).

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin