Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm in agreement with you here, George. My experience with the F2/ D200 suggests that with reasonably fine slide film - Provia 100 in this case - the D200 is somewhat ahead due to cleanliness at low ISOs, but if you scan at higher resolutions (and interpolate the D200 raw file) then it's a wash for fine detail being lost in grain structure, or artefacts from the interpolation software. On May 31, 2009, at 9:53 PM, George Lottermoser wrote: > Not sure what you mean by "slow speed ISO neg" > (I'm not speaking of drum scans of kodachrome 25) > > And yes you can make a drum scan at monstrously huge resolutions. > I did not do that. The scans were made for 300 ppi x 13 in x 19 in > Plenty high enough to get to the grain structure of the film. > > I specifically compared 160 through 640 ISO negs to sensor images. > Same lens, same subject, same light. > > The drum scan of 160 film provides sharp grain structure > which becomes evident in magnification > before pixels become evident at similar magnification. > > Aesthetically some may prefer the film look. > But from a purely technical perspective > the digital image appears as > a much slower (or larger) grain-less scanned film > than the equivalent 160 through 640 35 mm film. > > I did not compare 30x40 prints. > I compared on screen and 11x14 prints. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > On May 31, 2009, at 1:02 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > >> I can't imagine that a drum scan of a 24 x 36mm slow speed ISO neg >> shot with >> Leica glass shot on a tripod would not have a whole lot of >> information in >> it. >> >> Pit against a KAF-10500 sensor with an active area of 27 x 18 mm >> which you >> find in an M8 I'm not sure I'd root for the sensor in the camera. >> >> I'm not a betting man normally but I'm afraid I'd put 2 bucks down >> on the >> drum. >> >> I've made 30 x 40 inch darkroom prints from 35mm negs and its >> amazing the >> stuff in there from medium speed film even. Or 400 speed film. >> And a drum scan can have billions and billions of megapixels in >> there. >> >> >> >> Mark William Rabiner >> >> >> >>> From: George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 19:23:22 -0500 >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: D3x vs. 'Blad CFV 16MP full sized samples >>> >>> I've done this test with cameras locked down on tripods. >>> >>> I have no doubt that your M8 will technically out perform even drum >>> scanned 35 mm film at: >>> 160 asa >>> 320 asa >>> 640 asa >>> >>> I've not done higher speed film comparisons. >>> >>> The only way you'll technically out perform the best decent sized >>> digital sensors >>> is with drum scanned very large format transparencies shot with >>> extremely fine lenses. >>> >>> The aesthetic qualities of film continue to carry their own weight >>> very well. >>> >>> Regards, >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information THEIN Onn Ming *photohorologer ming at www.mingthein.com www.flickr.com/mingthein