Norman Koren, on his site, uses a mathematical model for attacking the
problem using information theory. He feels that there is not much
difference between 6MP and 35mm film, unless you apply noise reduction
to just the visible grain in the sky of the scanned film. Then he
thinks that film wins by a small margin in that case.
I noticed that too. The film seems to bronze all the foliage that is in
shade. There is no getting away from an individual films color
characteristics.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On May 9, 2005, at 4:30 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Very interesting comparisons. I think both image sets show that the
> film image has slightly higher resolution but the 300D wins with the
> more pleasing image due to its almost total lack of noise. For
> example,
> on Film vs Digital I, examine the arc of rocks on the nearest hill near
> the bottom center of the image. The rocks stand out more on the film
> image but the film image loses out overall due to the very grainy sky.
-snip
> Note that the 300D image (in the pine
> branches and the roof peak) has dramatically less brown. It's very
> subdued on the roof peak and missing altogether in the branches. Maybe
> Moose has an explanation for that.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|