Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Digital Reality Check

Subject: [OM] Digital Reality Check
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
Check please?

First of all, any claims of the 1Ds being better than 4x5 is
beyond laughable.  Anytime you compare low-resolution outputs
(anything under full-color 1200 dpi) the aliasing that occurs
between the ink drops or output pixels (dye sub or digi-to-FCA)
and scanned film's grain will show a marked image quality
decrease as compared to a high-quality DC.

Comparing output is a viable comparison, but not when you aren't
using the best output technology available.  I'm sorry, but IRIS
prints don't qualify as "quality". (hack, hack)  If screen
viewing is the goal, don't bother with anything but a pocket
DC--film is beyond your needs.

My scans of Fuji Velvia and Provia slides don't come close to
capturing 1/50 of the detail.  Even scans of HP5+ pushed to 1600
don't touch what is on the film.  How can that be?  The grain is
so large!  Film grain is not only different shapes and sizes,
but most T-grained films actually conform the shape of the grain
edges to the image being projected on them.  Way cool!

I've been shooting a bunch of 4x5 lately and find it an
enlightening experience. Delta 100 is phenominal film. A 35mm
neg is essentially grainless when enlarged to an 8x10 optical
print. But when a 4x5 neg (Delta 100) of the same scene is blown
up to 8x10, the grain is only marginally better (film base
causes more "grain" than the grain), but the depth of the image
is greatly enhanced. You can almost reach through the print like
reaching through an open window.  I think that DCs can mimick
this characteristic due to the "continous tone" aspect of the
"film".

Digital scans and output of the Delta 100 35mm negs are good,
but in no way, shape or form could they be even considered to be
close to a real quality optical print.  So much for "pixel
density of film"

Unless the "output technology" is true continous tone (at least
a true 16m color output per pixel) the aliasing that occurs with
film grain will make the film version of a comparison photograph
inferior.

But WHY do I want to restrict my quality to what is considered
"the norm" today, when tomorrow's technology will be so much
better.  Film keeps improving (Velvia 100F), output technology
keeps improving and so does the DC.  To say that the 1Ds has
"arrived" and that "film is dead--regardless of format" is a
joke.

Just look at the Minnisota photo feature in last month's
National Geographic and tell me that digital has arrived.

Lest I be a total kurmudgeon, I think the new E1 is awefully
intruiging.  My only gripe is that the photo sensor is way too
small.  It's fine for lenses, but lousy for SLR focus screens.
The magnification of a too small surface area makes for very
poor focusing screens.  I must have missed something along the
way, because I thought the 4/3 sensor was going to be a bit
bigger than it is.

I'm pleased to see that the 1Ds is considered to be as good as
Provia or Velvia.  I think I'll just go out and order a couple
more bricks from B&H with pride, knowing that ancient OM-2S is
JUST AS GOOD as the $8000 1Ds.

AG-Schnozz



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [OM] Digital Reality Check, AG Schnozz <=
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz