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

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> > 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


Hey Johnny, might want to switch to decaf and lay off the salt ;-)

Regards,

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