Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/09/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]What is interesting to me - and which would seem to bear out what I queried in a post about a week ago to BD - is that although film may have greater scannable resolution, at a certain point you're just scanning the _film_, rather than the scene - i.e. the grain, the structure of the medium itself. The digital file examples posted in the review are extremely clean - I doubt such results are possible from film scans. No doubt the lack of noise means they can be manipulated and enlarged far better than scans. Whether the claim is bullshit or not, the examples are pretty convincing. Looks like one hell of a camera, although priced beyond my reach for my present needs. Let me say at once that I am not taking any money from Canon for saying this, nor do I have a degree in scanner or CCD technology. - -- Rob http://www.robertappleby.com Mobile: (+39) 348 336 7990 Home: (+39) 059 303436 - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:03 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] Thoughts on digital and the impact on Leica > Don, > > > This was posted earlier but anyone interested in digital should > > re-read this > > article, > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml > > > > Pay attention to the comparison to film. You will notice that this 11MP > > camera is resolving more than film with the 70-200L lens. > > That calls to question the integrity of the article and testing. I KNOW > that 11M pixels from a Bayer pattern CCD is FAR less than most any properly > developed and exposed film. > > I'm being nice here, but what I really want to say is that claim is simply > BS. > > Austin > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html