I am going to have to argue with you a little bit. If you look at the
building panel with the Chinese characters the characters are distorted
by digital artifacts that look like jpeg and/or sharpening distortions
that are absent in the scanned photo. I suspect that you did not do a
raw file here and used the in camera processing with settings for
sharpening and jpeg which are always cruder than their application in
Photoshop. Even so, if you look at the wall on which the characters are
mounted you can clearly make out the shape of the individual stone
blocks in the digital picture and not at all in the scanned film
picture.
In the first set of pictures with the walkway, and a flagpole in one,
but not the other, I have to notice the difference in the lighting.
Obviously from the difference in progress of construction the pictures
were taken on different days with different lighting. In the walkway
picture by the 10D the light is nearly overhead and it illuminates the
small ledge on the supporting beam for the walkway making a white
stripe in the middle of the beam as well as lighting the the top of the
handrail, the supports for the handrail and even some light on the beam
face so that it lighter than the shadowed areas behind it. In the film
picture on the other hand the rail is back lit so that although it is
lit the supports are not. The ledge is no longer illuminated and no
longer looks like a white stripe in the middle of the beam. Here you
have dark shadowed rail supports and beam silhouetted against a light
colored wall. Of course it looks like there is more detail than in a
picture which has a white rail and supports in front of a light colored
wall.
Those are the reasons I have to disagree. However I thank you for a
most interesting exercise.
Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA
On Aug 15, 2004, at 5:51 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
> The scale are of course different as they are directly from scan and
> DC. You
> need to up sample the DC image to make a good compare of the
> difference:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/film1.jpg
> http://www.accura.com.hk/10D1.jpg
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/film2.jpg
> http://www.accura.com.hk/10D2.jpg
>
> You can see the film images are finer and the metel rod diameter is
> more
> accurate reproduced. Beside details, accurate reproduction of subject
> size
> (proportion) is also important, I consider there is distortion on the
> DC
> image which is not nice to see. The Chinese characters on the film
> image is
> also more clear and sharp.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Winsor Crosby" <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>
>> I have looked at this when you posted it before, but it is hard for me
>> to reach any conclusion either way when the scale of the photos are so
>> different. The detail in the 10D example is a fraction of the size of
>> the detail in the scan. How can you tell. Ironically the contrast and
>> color is so diminished in the scan that in many areas detail is no
>> better and sometimes worse than the same areas in the much smaller 10D
>> image.
>>
>> Winsor
>> Long Beach, CA
>> USA
>> On Aug 14, 2004, at 7:38 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>
>>> I have done lots of comparison, if just talking about resolution,
>>> film
>>> is
>>> still clearly better. But for "noise" and "color", digital is a
>>> winner.
>>> Below is a resolution test I have posted before:
>>>
>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/Film-10D.htm
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
