Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Thu, 26 October 2000, Paul Chefurka wrote: > Two months ago I'd have disagreed vehemently with this. Today, after > reading Michael Reichmann's comparison of the output of a Canon D30 to an > EOS shooting Provia 100F, I'm inclined to think it's going to happen a lot > sooner than most of us think. After reading the article, I could not help but notice some flaws in his experiment. The smaller area in the CCD actually gives CCD a substantial edge by providing much greater DOF for the given image size. He incorrectly claims that having to change the focal length to accommodate the difference put film in favour, but it just is not true. By scanning the film, he introduced artifacts that added noise to the image. D30 image did not have to go through this step, so more information may have been preserved. Jim Brick can explain this much better than I, but as I understand it, interpolations and filtering are performed on RAW data during conversion to jpeg or other file formats. RAW data format only carries one colour channel per pixel, and filtering is done to fill the empty buckets. Such process can increase the subjective impression of sharpness and colour saturation. He also applied a sharpner filter on both. The filtering may have performed better or worse in Provia image or the D30 image. This step introduced a factor that made the final result less predictable. This step should have not taken place. In all, he failed to eliminate all the factors that affect the apparent sharpness and colour saturation of the images, rendering the conclusion meaningless. I do not disagree that digital is a useful and effective medium, but to discredit the traditional medium based on one flawed experiment is not terribly scientific.