Simon Worby wrote:
>The basic problem with film vs. digital as that any possible comparison is by
>nature hugely and unhelpfully favourable to digital.
>
>Digitalising film to compare it with digital media is just grossly unfair.
>
>
I would say only slightly unfair when a really good scanner is used, but
unfair nonetheless.
>The only real comparison is to project a slide to a good size and compare it
>with a true-pixel projection of a digital image. But no projector I know gets
>anywhere near the 3000x2000 resolution of a 6MP camera, let alone the
>4500x3000-odd resolution of the pro digital SLRs. So that comparison simply
>isn't possible.
>
>
An underlying assumption here. You equate film with transparency. In
that case, you are certainly correct that no meaningful projected
comparison can be done,.
From my perspective, slides immediatly lose out to both color neg and
DSLRs, not on sharpness/resolution, but on dynamic range. With either
neg or pos film and digital, a useful comparison should be possible for
someone who has access to really high quality wet prints and equally
good digital printing. somewhere about 24x36 or above, things should be
pretty clear. Certainly a test not biased against film, so such a thing
is theoretically possible. The recent Pop Photo tests of the 1Ds II vs.
film used prints as part of the evaluation.
My guess is that it would be much like the comparisons I make, but I
can't be sure.
>By way of example, I have a photo of our son with a 50€ note in his paw, and
>on that 50€ note is written "für Max". Projected at 7 x 5 by a (not
>particularly good scanner) onto a (not particularly good) screen the words are
>clearly visible. When scanned in at 4,800 dpi on our Epson 4990, though the
>grain of the film can be seen, the words are a complete blur.
>
>
High res flatbed scanners like the 4990 are quite wonderful. They do,
however require lots of sharpening compared to output from dedicated
film scanners. I don't know exactly why, but that's what all testers
find. And in the end, they aren't as sharp as film scanners, higher dpi
or not. Take a look at the photo-i review of the 4990, particularly page
8
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%208.htm>.
The 4000 dpi scanner I use is at least as sharp as the Nikon 4000 he
compares to the 4990 there. So you are right that the 4990 isn't doing
full justice to your slides, but that's not the best there is.
Your comparison is a personal one, just as I have labeled mine.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|