Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank (Filippone, this time) Talking of small film format, your argument might be true for ASA 25 to 50 films - but above... not shure. I'm far away from being a scientifically comparing/testing dude, but found this interesting: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml Didier >Sorry Didier, I disagree. Film is still a long way ahead of digital in >resolution and will continue to be in that position for the >foreseeable future. And I am not saying 4x5 film vs APS sensor. I may >want to pick the film out ( no TriX) to be sure I win the >argument. Size for size of sensor, digital is still in second place. > >What makes digital look higher resolution is the printing algorithms. > >However, the best resolution possible is film scanned to digital to print. >Best of all worlds. > >In terms of dynamic range, film has a given dynamic range. You can push >and pull film to get this range to contract or expand it a >bit. Digital has the unique ability to allow the user to change those >setting on a frame by frame basis. Probably digital has >more dynamic range considering these issues. > >NOTE: No disagreement with digital for convenience, cost over a lot of >rolls of film, nor instant response. Probably none for the >Pro shooting for a living. Digital excels in these areas. > >But not resolution. Not now, maybe not in the future. > >Frank Filippone, film user. >red735i@earthlink.net > > >Frank >There's nothing to argue about what you say. Digital has passed film in >terms of resolution and dynamic range since several years; > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information