Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 7/22/01 2:54 PM, Frank Filippone at red735i@earthlink.net wrote: > FYI:::: To figure what kind of camera sensor would be needed to print a > digital print in the same "mood" as a analog print, you can not go backwards > from what a digital printer can do... you can only go backwards from what > analog negatives and paper can resolve! Then you may come close to what a > diffraction limited lens like a Leica optic is capable of.....and then > establish numerically why this thread is silly..... > > BTW, that Piezo driver is one of those tools that INVENTS pixels. unlike Frank I suspect I have actually printed 35mm on both traditional materials and piezo, and have also worked with digitally acquired images for my money there is little to choose between silver prints and piezo prints for 35mm. Some guys prefer one, other guys the other. digital behaves quite differently than film. anti-digitalists always conveniently forget that film has grain. The impact of that grain on the perceived sharpness and detail of a print is *MASSIVE*. Never mind the defocus filter in front of the CCD, think about the noise filter that's part and parcel of film when you print, say, a 3 megapixel digital image at around 5x7, it does *not* look like a 35mm image printed that size it looks like large format it is gorgeous you look at it and you think, jeez, with four times as many pixels I can print a 16x20 from a camera that looks like a 35mm camera but it's going to look like large format. And it is going to show off my Leica lenses. Even now, a well printed 14x11 image from a Canon D30 will fool you into thinking it is ISO 100 film. You have to get real close to see that it isn't. And the colors... well the colors are amazing. like I say, watch the bumblebee - -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com ICQ: 109343205