Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Eric, > > You weren't paying attention there, Eric. That was said > sarcastically...of > > course I can get excellent results from a 6M Bayer pattern > sensor...that's > > one of the things I DO... > > Well, one of the thing I've learned over the years, is that > equipment-oriented people don't necessarily know how to make good > photographs. Because YOU believe that of the people you've run into, doesn't mean it holds true for EVERY person who is "equipment oriented". > So knowing hardware has little to do with taste, knowledge of > how to get the best reproduction in pre-press, or a scad of other issues > besides literal translation of pixels or grain in print/reproduction. True enough, but knowing hardware doesn't mean you don't know! > > A TWO pixel camera is as sharp as you can possibly get...so really, > > sharpness is simply not relevant to the fidelity of the image. > Do not hang > > your hat on "sharpness", it is a manufactured property, and in > fact, shows > > lower fidelity (accuracy of reproduction). > > Anyone who knows me would tell you I've been singing that mantra > for years. > > So what's your point? Don't hang your hat on sharpness, it's not relevant to image fidelity. If you think sharpness is a critical thing (of the type we are talking about), then read comic books. All the picture you could ever ask for is there. > > Because it IS called a Bayer pattern sensor when it has an RGBG > filter over > > the sensing elements, which provides %50 green, %25 red and %25 blue > > information...and that information is interpolated to give you > 6M pixels. > > The sensors them selves are 6M SENSORS, not pixels. > > Again, you missed my point. Calling it a Bayer pattern sensor means diddly > squat to someone outside your field. It's pompous to throw out such techno > jargon without explaining it. How technical is technical? Is "shutter button" a technical term? It may surprise you, Eric, but there are a LOT of people who know what a Bayer pattern sensor is...and there are a lot of web sites that give good descriptions/tutorials of this...so I think you are selling a lot of people short. Plus, it's necessary to the understanding of why the images you get from these sensors are NOT what some people think they are. > > > >> Who > >> knows that that means besides people who spend too much time on > >> digicam web > >> sites? > > > > Who knows? People like me who design these things! > > Um, yeah, my point exactly. No, that isn't your point. I'd say if you asked this group how many people know what a Bayer pattern CCD is, you'd, obviously, be surprised how many do. > > > Yeah, but you don't, do you? > > Nope, I just spend about $250,000 a year licensing photos from > Fred Ward to > the Queen of England. And I shoot several thousand images a year as well > when I can't find them elsewhere. Covering such a limited topic > requires me > to shoot such things as flame fusion rubies under long wave ultraviolet > light to see how they fluoresce. And the color has to be accurate. Ah, a very mainstream application, eh? You seem to narcisticially believe because something doesn't work for you (for what ever reason), that it must be inferior for everyone else. That's not reality. I understand very well that what you believe works for you VERY LIMITED use works for your VERY LIMITED use, but that is, obviously, a VERY LIMITED use...and may not have any bearing on other people's uses. > It is what it > > is, and it IS, SOMETIMES, the right tool for the job. > > And I did? No, I did not. YOU missed what I was saying. I've said it > elsewhere recently, so I won't go over it again. I NEVER said digital was > always better. But in some things it certainly is. > > >> Scanners cannot remove completely a bad drift of color in > unusual light. > > > > Why not? > > Because they can't, without distorting the colors in the film so much that > it has no resemblance to reality. For someone inexperienced at tonal curve manipulation, possibly, it depends on what's on the film. But, again, as usual, you're talking about a situation that is not common for %99.99999999 of people. You harp on these very very very fringe cases to somehow believe your points are somehow valid. > Just like shadow detail can only be > rescued if there's something there, so it's the same with color. True...but that's a matter of getting the image correct in the first place. Not such a difficult thing to do, really. > >> With a Nikon 4000ED scanner, you can't fix the color in many > situations. > >> Maybe with some more high-end scanners that are a lot more > money than the > >> $5,000 you mention. > > > > The scanner has nothing to do with it. > > It most certainly does. And if you don't know that, then I wonder > about the > rest of your expertise. Well, Eric, I certainly don't need your approval with respect to what I know and don't know...so you can believe what you want, bit I KNOW I know more about scanners than you do, and I also know what I said is correct. Now, if you want to refute it, please, do so with facts and reason instead of just "no it isn't". > >> When I shot a Leica microscope we sell - which is painted black > >> and white - > >> with our D60, the color is so neutral you could mistake the photo for a > >> black and white image except for the red Leica logo. Film can't touch > >> digital period for shooting in other than daylight. > > > > That's simply not true. B&W certainly is FAR better on film than with > > digital, unless you happen to have a monochromatic digital > camera, which I > > do...and there aren't many out there, they are mostly all > converted from the > > RGBG Bayer pattern, and are far inferior to film. Now as far > as color goes, > > the new films with the 4th layer are VERY good in mixed lighting. Also, > > color balance can easily be corrected using tonal curve > adjustment after (or > > during) scanning. > > Zoom, right over your head. I was not talking about making black and white > photos with digital. Why is that "right over my head"? YOU didn't say you weren't talking about B&W, now did you? YOU said FILM. > I was talking about how neutral the digital > image is - > as opposed to ALL films which have color biases. Yeah, as do all digital sensors. YOU are correcting for that in the camera, which is the exact same thing as scanning the color film and correcting for it by using tonal curve adjustments. > That's why professional > photographers use significant numbers of gel filters when they're shooting > for color accuracy. Even Ektachrome Pro 100, which last time I > checked (ask > Fred Ward) was the most neutral film on the market, has biases. My > experience with digital shows this area is one that the numbers fall in > favor of digital. - Canon's specifically. AND something that can be easily correct in scanned color film as well. You're making a big issue out of something that simply isn't. > >> I still own $25,000 worth of Leica hardware, and I just shot > some photos > >> today on film. My only personal digital camera is a Canon G3 > >> point-and-shoot > >> (albeit a high-end one). > > > > Well, then, how come you're such a digital expert then if you > don't really > > have much digital experience? > > I have plenty of professional digital experience. If you say so...but I am only going by what you write, and what you have wrote doesn't give me that impression. > I don't build digital devices. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you build them or not, but the claims you make just fly in the face of fact and reason and most other people's experience, that's all. > I get > results that work and are published and sent around the world. Yes, Eric, and so do I. > > Well, Eric, it's YOU who came across as Mr. Digital...and now, > come to find > > out, you shoot mostly with Leicas and have not much "real" digital > > experience. > > All that proves is you don't read very carefully. But again, Eric, you just make claims that simply have no backbone and are apparently based on pure speculation and/or misunderstanding. I DO read very carefully, apparently too carefully for your taste. I am only going by what you have written, and that's it. You go onto a dog mailing list and spew on about how cats are better, someone's going to challenge you. Austin - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html