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.
>
I generally agree, although the balance moves with different parts of
the images. Some subject details seem to work best with one or the other.
>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.
>
>
True, but part of the difference with the rocks is the shadows on the
land. Another, fast moving, group of clouds threw shadows that are quite
different in the two shots, although they were taken quite close
together in time.
>On Film vs Digital II note the pine tree branches in the bottom row
>behind the roof peak. There appears to be more detail in the film
>image. However, it's not enough for me to say for sure that what
>appears to be more detail may only be mottling of the image due to
>grain. However, if one judged sharpness and detail by the nail heads
>seen in the shingles the 300D wins.
>
I really think the difference in detail varies in different areas of the
image, with the film clearly a bit better in some and digital in others.
I included the little yellowish thing, a fountain, partly to remmind
that focus and DOF are also different, which affects apparent sharpness.
>There is another rather striking
>thing seen here and elsewhere. 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.
>
>
Yup, as I said in my reply to AG, color balance on the scan wasn't good
and my attempt at matching was late night quick and dirty. The brown is
probably my sloppy work. No conclusions about color accuracy should be
drawn.
>This particular comparison may also be somewhat affected by comparing
>images from the Kiron 28-200 shot at 28 and 50mm. I'm sure the lens
>performs at least a little bit better (and maybe quite a bit) at 50mm
>vs. 28mm and thus give the advantage to the film.
>
>
Worse, it's two different lenses at two different focal lengths to get
approximately the same FOV with different "sensor" sizes. Comparisons
with different sensor sizes and different dpis are very difficult even
when trying to be scientific, as you can't use the same fl for both.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|