Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Tom, > My background > is imaging. As well is mine, for more than 25 years. > I have designed lenses and digital imaging > systems my > entire adult life. I have not designed lenses, but I have designed many digital imaging and digital imaging processing products, as well as owned and run two commercial studios. > I scanned a number of samples From what film, and on what scanner? This is all very important information if you are going to make a comparison, as they are critical to the understanding of the results. > ...The > problem with the image processing step was that it would enhance > grain noise Not all scanners do that. Some scanners do enhance grain, and some do not. If you really want to do a "fair" comparison, use an 8k or better PMT scanner. One issue with color and a CCD scanner, is the red channel will be fuzzy(er) on any of them, and a PMT will not. Also, CCD scanners have bloom and smear problems that PMT scanners do not. > and that just would not work at big enlargements. I routinely print 13x19 from 35mm film, and there is no evident grain from a standard viewing distance, even from pretty close. People have been making very large prints from film for quite a long time... > I don't think that you can get the same > quality as the >6 mega pixel cameras regardless of the scanner. That's simply not true, and certainly not my experience nor the experience of the hundreds of people I interact with frequently who scan film and print it digitally. I scan 35mm at 5080, and any properly exposed and developed film of ASA 160 or lower will not resolve to grain at that resolution. Simple question, if film and film scanners are "not that good", then why do $60k PMT (drum) 8k samples per inch and 12k samples per inch scanners exist? If film couldn't provide that much resolution (or near it), why would people spend that money? I have a 6M pixel digital camera that is not a Bayer pattern. It gives 6M PIXELS of real image data. It does not provide near the resolution I get from scanning 35mm film. It does give great prints up to 5x7 or so...but past that, the film wins hands down. > The work that I have done convinced me that I could reliably produce > subjectively good images up to 10X15 using a digital camera. That entirely depends on the digital camera. As a blanket statement, that is simply not true. I have a digital camera (7k x 7k discrete scanning back) that I can produce 30" x 30" images that are unquestionably outstanding...and I have a digital camera that even a 4x6 looks kind of shoddy. It's a matter of what can produce what, not whether "a" digital camera can produce "an" acceptable image. > More > important, > the image quality of the digital camera was overwhelmingly > selected by other > observers. It depends on who the observers are! If I show my extended family...they take a glance and decide...they don't know what they're really looking at, and to them, it isn't important. If I show someone who has decent experience in the field, then they know what to look for, and aren't fooled by the sharpness of the digital images over the lack of image detail. It's just like objective stereo listening...it takes training to learn about the subtleties of audio, as well it does to imaging. I'm not saying one's opinion as to what looks better is any more valid than another's...but as I said, it is purely subjective, not objective. > My gut tells me that I will have to work real hard to get a > better image in the darkroom, I agree. The resolution of photographic paper is less than that of the current crop of mid range and high end inkjet printers, that is why you really can't compare photographic paper printed images from a negative to digital printed images from a digital camera, and claim digital is better...digital what? That doesn't conclude that the digital image capture is better than film. > There is no question that > these digital > cameras are capable of great results. No one has argued to the contrary. > I have not met a single > photographer > that has NOT embraced digital for SOME aspects of their work after doing a > side by side comparison. Some, but not all. I have met many photographers that don't like digital at all, and it simply does not work for them. Both digital and film have their advantages and disadvantages, and it's important to know the strengths and weakness of each, so you can pick the workflow accordingly. It's also important, in my opinion, to not make blanket unqualified statements, as well as not exaggerate the abilities of either. > If you work in > Primarily in Black and White, digital is a waste of time, in my > opinion. Yes and no. There are monochrome sensors that do an outstanding job. They are not Bayer patterned, so they are full resolution. Unfortunately, they are a niche market item, and will probably not be very prolific. I've designed two monochrome cameras, and the results are in fact very very good. Are they commercially viable, well, time will tell. Regards, Austin - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html