[Leica] Oh for heaven's sake WAS 1Ds digital results

[Johnny Deadman <lists@johnbrownlow.com>]

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 05:03 PM, bdcolen wrote:

> However, Doug, sarcasm aside, personal experience or no, given that the
> ribbing is visible in the white hockey socks in both the film scan and
> the digital shot, the questions about those to shots that really do 
> have
> to be answered relate to brightness and angle of illumination, etc., 
> and
> not to "personal experience."

That whole ribbing thing is f***ing ridiculous. Even if the damned 
images weren't of two different fast-moving hockey players (whose knees 
were presumably travelling at different speeds) shot on long lenses 
under different lighting conditions (one considerably more angular than 
the other), trying to judge a 11 MP camera, or indeed film, from an 
jpeg image like that is beyond nuts. My dinky Nikon 5000 renders more 
detail than that ribbing with ease. It "turns to mush" because you are 
looking at it at 72 dpi on a compressed image, duh. The only way to 
make comparisons is to go to 'actual pixels' level in uncompressed and 
unsharpened versions of both the digital and the scanned image. 
Otherwise you are just blowing smoke up each other's asses -- behaviour 
which I might point out is not exactly unknown on this list, and 
however pleasurable it may be for consenting participants does not add 
to the sum of human knowledge.

My own guess is that an 11 MP camera will blow any 200 ISO 35mm film 
out of the water, and will look better than 100 ISO 35mm film at 
anything less than 10x enlargement. I think those are conservative 
estimates too.

- --
John Brownlow

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html