The DSLR vs Bridge vs P & S Debate. Quick Thought

Kim Letkeman · Jan 5, 2008

LesDMess said:
. . . to paraphrase from your profile which stated "New to digital
photography but knew when I bought one, picture quality had to come
close to my old Canon F1 35mm camera I had as a kid"

Do you know how close is it?
What digital do you consider comes close to 35mm film?

There is a ton of info out there ... google "film versus digital" ...

Several of these agree that 8mp has the same apparent image quality as 35mm film. Most people who shoot cams like the 6mp D70 have no problem blowing them up to poster size .. and quite a few people shoot the 4.1mp D2Hs and are happy with its excellent output. Few would now argue that film is superior. However, read the last one for a pretty balanced discussion.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html (scroll to bottom for summary)
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm (6mp better for small prints)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml (4x5 versus 39mp)

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0105/dw0105-1.html (balanced perspective)

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

LesDMess · Jan 5, 2008

What photographic qualities of the D70 or the D2Hs do you know compares to 35mm film and how do you think they stack up?

Incidentally, I've already read those references, I just would like to know what you walked away with from them . . .

Kim Letkeman said:
LesDMess said:

. . . to paraphrase from your profile which stated "New to digital
photography but knew when I bought one, picture quality had to come
close to my old Canon F1 35mm camera I had as a kid"

Do you know how close is it?
What digital do you consider comes close to 35mm film?

Click to expand...

There is a ton of info out there ... google "film versus digital" ...

Several of these agree that 8mp has the same apparent image quality
as 35mm film. Most people who shoot cams like the 6mp D70 have no
problem blowing them up to poster size .. and quite a few people
shoot the 4.1mp D2Hs and are happy with its excellent output. Few
would now argue that film is superior. However, read the last one for
a pretty balanced discussion.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html (scroll to bottom for
summary)
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm (6mp better for small prints)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml (4x5 versus 39mp)
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0105/dw0105-1.html
(balanced perspective)

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

gp2003gt · Jan 5, 2008

My thoughts are simple, most people who have taken the time to learn all the different ways to take pictures with a film camera (aperture, shutter speed, lighting etc.) make great digital photographers cause they don't rely on the camera to make all the decisions for them, cause they don't need to rely on gizmos to come up with great pictures they have the know how that gets the job done.

the convenience of digital is a great tool, but does not replace the artistry in sharing a moment through photography digital or film.

I will be forever thankful to my neighbourg a great film photographer 75 years young (former photographer for national geographic) who has taken the time to teach me what I need to know so that I may express my self through this art, although the learning will never stop but the flame has been lit.

Regards
Albert

Kim Letkeman · Jan 6, 2008

LesDMess said:
What photographic qualities of the D70 or the D2Hs do you know
compares to 35mm film and how do you think they stack up?

Both of these digital cams have better s/n ratio ... by far. The D2Hs at low iso is especially smooth because of the large pixels.

I can get nice enlargements from both as well, so I doubt I would see any improvement with film for what I do. However ... should I try something as big as 30x45 I would definitely lack for pixels ...

LesDMess said:
Incidentally, I've already read those references, I just would like
to know what you walked away with from them . . .

Just that for most people most of the time, digital (4mp or better) will have as much or more effective detail.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

LesDMess · Jan 7, 2008

Kim Letkeman said:
LesDMess said:

What photographic qualities of the D70 or the D2Hs do you know
compares to 35mm film and how do you think they stack up?

Click to expand...

Both of these digital cams have better s/n ratio ... by far. The D2Hs
at low iso is especially smooth because of the large pixels.

Kim Letkeman said:
I can get nice enlargements from both as well, so I doubt I would see
any improvement with film for what I do. However ... should I try
something as big as 30x45 I would definitely lack for pixels ...

Neither are anywhere near the resolution or latitude of 35mm film. Compared to Velvia - their SN isn't better on top of it. "Nice enlargements" only because you don't have anything to compare what "real detail" is. Lack of it translates to "smooth" enlargements with no info. Maybe appealing to you but let's not mistake lack of detail to actually mean nice enlargements. Perhaps the sentimental value of pic has something to do with it rather then actual photographic characteristics?

Kim Letkeman said:
Kim Letkeman said:

Incidentally, I've already read those references, I just would like
to know what you walked away with from them . . .

Click to expand...

Just that for most people most of the time, digital (4mp or better)
will have as much or more effective detail.

This must be because "most" of these people you maybe referring to are ignorant of the facts. I actually know one 35mm film that has less resolution then 4MP and that is lossy desktop scanned Rollei ScanFilm CN400 Pro. All others - including Fuji Superia 1600 ISO film, outresolve 4MP digianything.

Would it be too much to ask for any such comparisons that you have made personally or are your statements made on faith from these references you pulled out of the web?

Kim Letkeman · Jan 7, 2008

LesDMess said:
Neither are anywhere near the resolution or latitude of 35mm film.
Compared to Velvia - their SN isn't better on top of it. "Nice
enlargements" only because you don't have anything to compare what
"real detail" is. Lack of it translates to "smooth" enlargements with
no info. Maybe appealing to you but let's not mistake lack of detail
to actually mean nice enlargements. Perhaps the sentimental value of
pic has something to do with it rather then actual photographic
characteristics?

You have no idea how much detail I am able to squeeze from my digital images ... perhaps you have not seen this done correctly because you do not know how to process for enlargement.

In my experience, people who choose to belittle others' work are generally competent only within their preferred methods ... if at all.

LesDMess said:
This must be because "most" of these people you maybe referring to
are ignorant of the facts. I actually know one 35mm film that has
less resolution then 4MP and that is lossy desktop scanned Rollei
ScanFilm CN400 Pro. All others - including Fuji Superia 1600 ISO
film, outresolve 4MP digianything.

I'm quite sure that I said "for most people" and "most of the time" ... which means files printed up to about 8x10 and some up to 12x18.

Your condescending remarks indicate to me that you are just spoiling for a juvenile argument. Have it with someone else.

LesDMess said:
Would it be too much to ask for any such comparisons that you have
made personally or are your statements made on faith from these
references you pulled out of the web?

Believe what you want. I have no desire to have a discussion with someone so willing to belittle others' work and ignore several good references all the while ignoring the substance of what I say.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

LesDMess · Jan 7, 2008

In your other post you stated that just because some people actually knew the facts with regards to the state of digi and film you label them as such. So I ask you to provide real data to back up your claims and now am labeled. I would suggest that should you put forward any claims in the future that you have actual data to backup those claims.

Kim Letkeman said:
You have no idea how much detail I am able to squeeze from my digital
images ... perhaps you have not seen this done correctly because you
do not know how to process for enlargement.

I for a fact know how much detail can be had from a range of cameras - digital and film. Unless by "doing so correctly" includes adding extra detail (PS or any other such means) those numbers don't change. For instance, if you think that the Fuji S2 actually capture 12MP then that would explain some of your background.

Kim Letkeman said:
In my experience, people who choose to belittle others' work are
generally competent only within their preferred methods ... if at all.

Belittle? If you think that by calling you out on the false information you are freely handing out is belittling then I would suggest you read a dictionary for the term.

Kim Letkeman said:
I'm quite sure that I said "for most people" and "most of the time"
... which means files printed up to about 8x10 and some up to 12x18.
Your condescending remarks indicate to me that you are just spoiling
for a juvenile argument. Have it with someone else.

Ditto . . .

Kim Letkeman said:
Believe what you want. I have no desire to have a discussion with
someone so willing to belittle others' work and ignore several good
references all the while ignoring the substance of what I say.

I believe what I know for a fact do you?

Kim Letkeman · Jan 7, 2008

LesDMess said:
In your other post you stated that just because some people actually
knew the facts with regards to the state of digi and film you label
them as such.

You are misrepresenting what I wrote in my "Luddites" post. I labeled people who insist that digital is inferior to film in every way. There are not that many of them left, but those who state it categorically never seem to provide any references (sound familiar?)

Note also that I stated it as opinion, and have backed that opinion with several references. You have, on the other hand, provided zero references to back your unstated opinion ... whatever it might be.

LesDMess said:
So I ask you to provide real data to back up your
claims and now am labeled. I would suggest that should you put
forward any claims in the future that you have actual data to backup
those claims.

I applied no labels to you ... I did mention that your arguments were juvenile in nature. That's hardly a stretch when one looks at your contribution of zero information along with all the badgering.

LesDMess said:
I for a fact know how much detail can be had from a range of cameras

digital and film. Unless by "doing so correctly" includes adding

extra detail (PS or any other such means) those numbers don't change.
For instance, if you think that the Fuji S2 actually capture 12MP
then that would explain some of your background.

Where did I write anything about Fuji S2 cameras capturing 12mp? And I said nothing about adding extra detail. You really seem to need to stretch the truth to come up with counter-arguments ...

LesDMess said:
Belittle? If you think that by calling you out on the false
information you are freely handing out is belittling then I would
suggest you read a dictionary for the term.

Calling me out? That would imply you have posted some actual facts and/or data as a counter-argument. I provided a half dozen references that I consider convincing in toto. You have merely badgered me and dismissed those resources out of hand ... without providing your own.

Regarding belittling:

"Perhaps the sentimental value of pic has something to do with it rather then actual photographic characteristics?"

"This must be because "most" of these people you maybe referring to are ignorant of the facts."

LesDMess said:
I believe what I know for a fact do you?

I provided my references. My own experience backs it: one of my D2Hs's 4.1mp images enlarged to 12x18 hangs in a private gallery with images from a dozen other people ... mine is a woman's portrait and looks as detailed as any other image there. The hair looks magnificent. This I know for a fact ...

So ... why don't you write something that could be interpreted as an opinion? Better yet, post some actual data along with that. Even a few references. A little content would be nice for a change.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

LesDMess · Jan 7, 2008

. . . because to date, no DSLR can match the resolution of lossy desktop scanned 35mm film as shown in the results of this test . . .

http://www.fototime.com/83CD0F60DCB3981/orig.jpg

You can review the setup and results in my album a http://www.fototime.com/inv/7FA2D97823BDBD6

Unlike your assumptions, I have actually conducted the test and provided a repeatable test by which you can either prove me right or wrong - unlike those others that you reference that are proprietary or none repeatable in nature.

Kim Letkeman said:
Note also that I stated it as opinion, and have backed that opinion
with several references. You have, on the other hand, provided zero
references to back your unstated opinion ... whatever it might be.

Kim Letkeman said:
I applied no labels to you ... I did mention that your arguments were
juvenile in nature. That's hardly a stretch when one looks at your
contribution of zero information along with all the badgering.

Kim Letkeman said:
Where did I write anything about Fuji S2 cameras capturing 12mp? And
I said nothing about adding extra detail. You really seem to need to
stretch the truth to come up with counter-arguments ...

Actually I was wondering how in the world you could have ever derived your unsubstantiated opinions from is all.

Kim Letkeman said:
Calling me out? That would imply you have posted some actual facts
and/or data as a counter-argument. I provided a half dozen references
that I consider convincing in toto. You have merely badgered me and
dismissed those resources out of hand ... without providing your own.

Regarding belittling:

I provided my references. My own experience backs it: one of my
D2Hs's 4.1mp images enlarged to 12x18 hangs in a private gallery
with images from a dozen other people ... mine is a woman's portrait
and looks as detailed as any other image there. The hair looks
magnificent. This I know for a fact ...

So let's see the results of how much real detail can be achieved by a 4MP digianything because as you can see, I in fact have the results from the D2X.

Kim Letkeman said:
So ... why don't you write something that could be interpreted as an
opinion? Better yet, post some actual data along with that. Even a
few references. A little content would be nice for a change.

Sorry, but I don't deal on opinions and I will not represent other's as fact when I happen to know firsthand that they are incorrect.

Perhaps you are referring to an old article whereby a said "expert" stated that a 3MP DSLR outresolved a "drum" scan (actually a "virtual drum - Imacon) of 35mm Provia 100F and used that to catapult to your other assumptions?

Kim Letkeman · Jan 7, 2008

LesDMess said:
. . . because to date, no DSLR can match the resolution of lossy
desktop scanned 35mm film as shown in the results of this test . . .
http://www.fototime.com/83CD0F60DCB3981/orig.jpg

That's a lot of work you did, and yet I still see no writing anywhere. One has to ask how you can come to such strong opinions without publishing the sort of analysis that appears, say, on the Clarkvision site I quoted as one of my references?

But I also observe that these scans are all sorts of different sizes and lack any real organization. Certainly no rigorous attempt to make them all directly comparable. They are noisy ... some fatally ... and the detail is quickly mitigated by the ICE algorithms and outright crushed by the heavy handed use of Neat Image and Noise Ninja.

And what happened to the D2X image? When you put it with those "best of" film crops, you seem to have expanded it to match their dpi ... but you used some sort of strange algorithm that butchered the letters and lines. Nearest neighbour perhaps? Halos all around the characters but not of uniform size ...

You will remember that I commented on the quality of the processing mattering a lot. I can't say that the processing performed here is at all convincing.

LesDMess said:
You can review the setup and results in my album a
http://www.fototime.com/inv/7FA2D97823BDBD6

Right ... where, exactly? That little bit of text at the bottom of the rankings? Considering the range of images shot here (albeit only three decent cameras in the digital group, yet all crops of different sizes from each other and from the film crops), one would expect a significant amount of text clearly explaining the noise thresholds used to determine ultimate resolution, the calculated resolution ( not the scanned resolution, which is irrelevant), and crops processed in a fashion that make them clearly comparable.

LesDMess said:
Unlike your assumptions, I have actually conducted the test and
provided a repeatable test by which you can either prove me right or
wrong - unlike those others that you reference that are proprietary
or none repeatable in nature.

You have conducted a test. Repeatable? Doubtful. I see no significant settings listed ... I see no analysis that could lead someone else to understand how you interpret what you are seeing. I see nothing mentioned of how that D2X crop got hammered ... or should I say adjusted.

Your list is ordered by dpi ... looks like the scanned DPI, not the measured dpi from something like IMATEST and based on a choice of noise floor. The work of people like Clarkvision looks to be far above yours in rigorous analysis.

I'm quite sure that you are convinced by all those crops you have in that gallery. I'm not.

LesDMess said:
Kim Letkeman said:

Where did I write anything about Fuji S2 cameras capturing 12mp? And
I said nothing about adding extra detail. You really seem to need to
stretch the truth to come up with counter-arguments ...

Click to expand...

LesDMess said:
Actually I was wondering how in the world you could have ever derived
your unsubstantiated opinions from is all.

Well ... your opinions are no doubt derived from an informal review of these rather poorly organized crops. I don't see that being much in the way of substantiation.

LesDMess said:
So let's see the results of how much real detail can be achieved by a
4MP digianything because as you can see, I in fact have the results
from the D2X.

As I said before ... the quality of the processing makes all the difference. The D2X actually looks quite good, far better than the majority of the 35mm scans. But the crops I see there say that the image is being reshot. Yet I see no crops that don't say that. Was it reshot?

And when you put all the "best" together, the D2X crop used (same one? reshot?) has these strange artifacts from whatever you did to equalize sizes (I must presume.) That negates the comparison from a detail perspective (although it holds its own anyway.) However ... the contrast and smoothness is definitely superior in the D2X shot. As I had already mentioned it would be ...

LesDMess said:
Sorry, but I don't deal on opinions and I will not represent other's
as fact when I happen to know firsthand that they are incorrect.

According to you, the half dozen references I pointed you to are all wrong ... but your unorganized and eclectic collection of scans and crops with no analysis whatsoever wins the day. Well ... I gotta disagree.

LesDMess said:
Perhaps you are referring to an old article whereby a said "expert"
stated that a 3MP DSLR outresolved a "drum" scan (actually a "virtual
drum - Imacon) of 35mm Provia 100F and used that to catapult to your
other assumptions?

Never read that article. You again want to put words into my mouth. How strange.

Here's the kicker in all this:

Even if I made the same leap that you have ... that 35mm film is far superior to digital because your scans say so (I shudder when I even pretend that they are compelling) ... your violent attack goes for naught.

My primary assertion was and still is that "most people, most of the time, will not see any difference with digital resolution of 4mp or better (and frankly, 3mp is enough)" ... and that remains true.

I am certain that most people would choose an 8x10 made by my D2Hs over an 8x10 made from most of the 35mm scans you show in your gallery. Noisy and washed out versus crystal clear, contrasty and saturated.

YMMV ... and obviously does.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

ZorSy · Jan 7, 2008

LesDMess said:
. . . because to date, no DSLR can match the resolution of lossy
desktop scanned 35mm film as shown in the results of this test . . .

It would be really apreciated if you stop posting film debate in every tread you can hijack. Look at the title of this tread set by OP - it is DSLR vs. bridge vs. digicams. No film mentioned, can you get that? Even when mentioned along discussion, stop turning treads in Digital VS film discussion. It is annoying. You have your stuff you like, scanning, denoising, sharpening etc in your quest to get arguments to jump at anyone who says digital is now and is on and the film is not so, in particular in digicam forums (not even a DSLR) . And this is a digital forum about digital cameras - not scanners and films. Perhaps you are confused by the Fujifilm name.....
Please.

LesDMess · Jan 7, 2008

It is overwhelming to the uninitiated, especially those with the wrong preconceptions. Don't feel bad as there have been a considerable others who found it such an assault on their reality they addressed everything but the facts being presented.

Let me recommend that if you should conduct the test yourself - as listed in the rather simple outline given, the reality will become more obvious.

Kim Letkeman said:
That's a lot of work you did, and yet I still see no writing
anywhere. One has to ask how you can come to such strong opinions
without publishing the sort of analysis that appears, say, on the
Clarkvision site I quoted as one of my references?

But I also observe that these scans are all sorts of different sizes
and lack any real organization. Certainly no rigorous attempt to make
them all directly comparable. They are noisy ... some fatally ... and
the detail is quickly mitigated by the ICE algorithms and outright
crushed by the heavy handed use of Neat Image and Noise Ninja.

Good observation but as part of full disclosure, where these were applied, the original is always there for comparison.

Keep focused on the topic - resolution. Noticed that although some of the film are truly grainy, they still have so much real detail, that they outresolve their cleaner competitors. Do you believe that all that cleanliness came at no cost?

Kim Letkeman said:
And what happened to the D2X image? When you put it with those "best
of" film crops, you seem to have expanded it to match their dpi ...
but you used some sort of strange algorithm that butchered the
letters and lines. Nearest neighbour perhaps? Halos all around the
characters but not of uniform size ...

This was contributed by its owner. If it were me, I would show it like I did my Canon 20D - JPEG, RAW default and enhanced. After our mutual review, our decision indicated a tie with Velvia. Just to point out a couple of the points of interest, look at the "Bight of Benin", "Maiduguri" from both Fuji RVP_01-03.jpg vs D2X_DRF7355.jpg. And you're right, the D2X was shot with less coverage as the film and has not been reshot. You noticed we're way past your 4MP digianything at this point . . . Goes without saying but always needs to said . . .

Kim Letkeman said:
You will remember that I commented on the quality of the processing
mattering a lot. I can't say that the processing performed here is at
all convincing.

Right ... where, exactly? That little bit of text at the bottom of
the rankings? Considering the range of images shot here (albeit only
three decent cameras in the digital group, yet all crops of different
sizes from each other and from the film crops), one would expect a
significant amount of text clearly explaining the noise thresholds
used to determine ultimate resolution, the calculated resolution
( not the scanned resolution, which is irrelevant), and crops
processed in a fashion that make them clearly comparable.

Kim Letkeman said:
You have conducted a test. Repeatable? Doubtful. I see no
significant settings listed ... I see no analysis that could lead
someone else to understand how you interpret what you are seeing. I
see nothing mentioned of how that D2X crop got hammered ... or should
I say adjusted.

It is repeatable as anyone in the world can purchase the cheap map, and shoot it at any time day or night. Compared to all the others you reference, I believe you actually have to travel to their location, wait for the right time of day and weather conditions, hopefully all the referenced plantlife are exactly how they were when taken.

Having been a test engineer for over a couple of decades, the main consideration was to make sure that the test is repeatable. This way anyone can duplicate the efforts exactly and either prove me wrong or right. What is not accounted for are those who would complain rather then actually conduct the test . . . wonder why that is you think?

Kim Letkeman said:
My primary assertion was and still is that "most people, most of the
time, will not see any difference with digital resolution of 4mp or
better (and frankly, 3mp is enough)" ... and that remains true.

I am certain that most people would choose an 8x10 made by my D2Hs
over an 8x10 made from most of the 35mm scans you show in your
gallery. Noisy and washed out versus crystal clear, contrasty and
saturated.

I just merely wanted to point out that just because you're pleased with your results - and I'm sure a fine picture it was, does not mean you can extrapolate that as meaning anything more technical then that. I believe content trumps all other technical considerations.

LesDMess · Jan 7, 2008

Sounds like you're another teacher's helper. As you say, if you were to actually read my post, I simply asked a simple question when the other teacher's helper went off tangent . . .

ZorSy said:
LesDMess said:

. . . because to date, no DSLR can match the resolution of lossy
desktop scanned 35mm film as shown in the results of this test . . .

Click to expand...

It would be really apreciated if you stop posting film debate in
every tread you can hijack. Look at the title of this tread set by OP

it is DSLR vs. bridge vs. digicams. No film mentioned, can you get

that? Even when mentioned along discussion, stop turning treads in
Digital VS film discussion. It is annoying. You have your stuff you
like, scanning, denoising, sharpening etc in your quest to get
arguments to jump at anyone who says digital is now and is on and
the film is not so, in particular in digicam forums (not even a DSLR)
. And this is a digital forum about digital cameras - not scanners
and films. Perhaps you are confused by the Fujifilm name.....
Please.

ZorSy said:
Film and chemicals suck (my hands are finally clean, it took mere 20
years but it's done) I burried my past and moved on (some ghosts from
past are still around me as the reminder never to look back....

Well now this makes sense - your attitude. Sorry about raising the dead . . .

Matthew Miller · Jan 7, 2008

So, uh, since you're not using it, mind if I borrow that for a little while?
--
Matthew Miller « http://mattdm.org/ »

ZorSy · Jan 8, 2008

LesDMess said:
ZorSy said:

Film and chemicals suck (my hands are finally clean, it took mere 20
years but it's done) I burried my past and moved on (some ghosts from
past are still around me as the reminder never to look back....

Click to expand...

Well now this makes sense - your attitude. Sorry about raising the
dead . . .

It's OK to call me that. You see, I had Nikon F as a young bloke, You had Canon F1 as a kid. You show stubborn arrogance in your communication with others, I finalise my "teaching" with a magic word - PLEASE. English is far from my first language, yet still - PLEASE. I have performed general reset in my life years back and YES left a lot behind, including years in labs. Nothing wrong with that and I fear no past. Back then chemicals were my livehood and I was not aware they suck as nothing was better or more convenient. But now I can say it. I am now just amateur familly paparazzi (who prints own stuff on Phaser 450 and 480X dye-subs - obsolete yes - but I am too).

While at teaching lessons - so your tests include scanning different films on different scanners using different PP (NR, USM etc). I tried to understand what scientific value such tests would have (do not take me wrong here, I am not trying to provoke nasty replies). All tests performed by Mr Askey and guys do have consistency in technical parameters used, otherwise the whole comparision tests would be pointless. IMO just grab the best scanner you have, scan at whatever best native dpi it has and that should do. If you have to do heavy PP on those scans through any other software but default (even preset) scanner software, any form of DSLR (or DC) built in NR, sharpening and other "in camera" PP just go in "pros" for digital workflow.

Finally to kill this for good, there are fewer and fewer places where real enlargements are still available - it comes down to "prints", digitalized workflow where (if any more) advantages of film will be lost a great deal ( it's the ccd at the end, 8 or 12 or 14 or 24 or whatever bit colour, its not the film anymore).

I tried doing "something" with my slides - at the end decided to maintain slide projector just in case I wanted to go through them again. I was stupid for spending $70 on the spare light bulb! 7 years ago!

no hard feeling, cheers

Kim Letkeman · Jan 8, 2008

LesDMess said:
It is overwhelming to the uninitiated, especially those with the
wrong preconceptions. Don't feel bad as there have been a
considerable others who found it such an assault on their reality
they addressed everything but the facts being presented.

You can shelve the condescension Les ... you presented no facts. Just some crops that were not particularly well organized nor processed in a useful way for comparison. You also presented no analysis using IMATEST or any other tool that could show absolute resolution limits at noise thresholds. You didn't do a particularly good job of juxtaposing crops either.

In other words, that gallery is not compelling.

What is interesting is that you still have not made a specific statement regarding those crops. I don't really know what you are saying, except the very generic statement that everything I have said is somehow not right in your mind ...

LesDMess said:
as listed in the rather simple outline given, the reality will become
more obvious.

What reality? You've provided no analysis or even a statement that defines the reality that is apparently obvious to you.

LesDMess said:
Good observation but as part of full disclosure, where these were
applied, the original is always there for comparison.

Didn't notice any originals.

LesDMess said:
Keep focused on the topic - resolution. Noticed that although some of
the film are truly grainy, they still have so much real detail, that
they outresolve their cleaner competitors. Do you believe that all
that cleanliness came at no cost?

Of course not. But noise destroys perceived detail ... absolute resolution is of little interest when comparing 8x10s ... and there is no question as to which will be perceived as higher detail once printed at that size ... to spell it out, an image shot with my D2Hs certainly would look the same or better because of its other advantages.

LesDMess said:
This was contributed by its owner. If it were me, I would show it
like I did my Canon 20D - JPEG, RAW default and enhanced. ...
And you're right, the D2X was shot with less coverage as the film and
has not been reshot. You noticed we're way past your 4MP digianything
at this point . . . Goes without saying but always needs to said . . .

And one more time ... makes no difference until prints are very large ... and then it makes less difference than you and your buddy would admit ...

LesDMess said:
It is repeatable as anyone in the world can purchase the cheap map,
and shoot it at any time day or night. Compared to all the others you
reference, I believe you actually have to travel to their location,
wait for the right time of day and weather conditions, hopefully all
the referenced plantlife are exactly how they were when taken.

No ... the others I referenced provided some excellent data .... shooting of test charts with resolution grids etc to determine ultimate resolution and resolution versus noise etc. You haven't actually read them, have you?

LesDMess said:
Having been a test engineer for over a couple of decades, the main
consideration was to make sure that the test is repeatable.

People like Clarkvision take the time to do it right. So do pros like Bjorn, Moose, Thom ... the guys who have been doing film and have switched to digital ... for a reason.

Repeating a poor test is of little interest.

LesDMess said:
I just merely wanted to point out that just because you're pleased
with your results - and I'm sure a fine picture it was, does not mean
you can extrapolate that as meaning anything more technical then
that. I believe content trumps all other technical considerations.

I wish your content was rigorously shot and processed so we could have a conversation around that data.

I fully understand, by the way, that 35mm has the edge in absolute resolution over my D2Hs .... most sites agree that 35mm film has an effective resolution around 8mp after everything is considered.

But the difference between 4mp and 8mp is far smaller than it sounds because linear resolution is only about 40% higher ... and that makes little differences until prints are really big. You should know all this ...

And you have failed to consider the fact that most people will not notice any difference for 8x10 prints. Which is all most people ever print ....

You have also failed to take noise floors into account, and to normalize the sizes of your crops to make them truly comparable, especially on the digital side. The 20D and 40D crops are too small ... the D2X crop was mangled. There is no way that one can make any absolute statements from these data.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Kim Letkeman · Jan 8, 2008

LesDMess said:
Sounds like you're another teacher's helper.

He's right ... your arrogance does not help the discussion. Of course, neither does your lack of rigorous data.

LesDMess said:
As you say, if you were
to actually read my post, I simply asked a simple question when the
other teacher's helper went off tangent . . .

Your condescension is hardly warranted. Your simple question was designed to force the digital versus film debate yet one more time, just as he said it was ... don't try to make it sound innocent or somehow noble.

Obviously, you cannot admit when 35mm film has more or less reached end of life for the vast majority of people. So be it. But you should take your sn*tty "teacher's helper" remarks somewhere else. You embarrass only yourself when you are unable to control yourself and remain objective or even just polite ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Lepewhi · Jan 8, 2008

Is all of this really necessary. This is meant to be a forum to discuss cameras and photography in general, not to name call. Let's all kiss and make up. There are far more serious things in the world now without spewing vemum over something that should bring beauty to us all, no matter what medium. Lepewhi

LesDMess · Jan 8, 2008

English isn't my first language either but if you want to articulate and have a discussion in a primarilly English language forum then that's what you have to do.

As for the scientific value of the test, it is for the purposes of showing what true lossy desktop scans (using modern scanner) of film (older to current) looks like relative to digi (older to current). Where I conducted the tests, I would normally show raw and enhanced. The fact that it clearly outresolves digi today is simply a result of it which is obviously unsettling to the uninformed. Afterall, one of the resources provided by the other poster states that a 3MP outresolves an Imacon (emphasis on $10K cost of scanner) scan of 35mm Provia 100F (emphasis on highest resolving film). As it turns out, there is in fact a 35mm film that it could possibly outresolve - Rollei Scanfilm. Interestingly is that it was recently released and not available at the time the so called "professionally conducted test" was performed. Just goes to show that "professionals with very expensive gear" doesn't guarantee they know what they're doing.

BTW, Mr. Askey has no such comparisons - clearly you didn't review the provided references by the other poster you thought you were defending for reasons unknown.

Arrogance? Feel free to think so but it is far better then ignorance . . .

ZorSy said:
LesDMess said:

ZorSy said:

Film and chemicals suck (my hands are finally clean, it took mere 20
years but it's done) I burried my past and moved on (some ghosts from
past are still around me as the reminder never to look back....

Click to expand...

Well now this makes sense - your attitude. Sorry about raising the
dead . . .

Click to expand...

It's OK to call me that. You see, I had Nikon F as a young bloke, You
had Canon F1 as a kid. You show stubborn arrogance in your
communication with others, I finalise my "teaching" with a magic word

PLEASE. English is far from my first language, yet still - PLEASE.

I have performed general reset in my life years back and YES left a
lot behind, including years in labs. Nothing wrong with that and I
fear no past. Back then chemicals were my livehood and I was not
aware they suck as nothing was better or more convenient. But now I
can say it. I am now just amateur familly paparazzi (who prints own
stuff on Phaser 450 and 480X dye-subs - obsolete yes - but I am too).
While at teaching lessons - so your tests include scanning different
films on different scanners using different PP (NR, USM etc). I tried
to understand what scientific value such tests would have (do not
take me wrong here, I am not trying to provoke nasty replies). All
tests performed by Mr Askey and guys do have consistency in technical
parameters used, otherwise the whole comparision tests would be
pointless. IMO just grab the best scanner you have, scan at whatever
best native dpi it has and that should do. If you have to do heavy PP
on those scans through any other software but default (even preset)
scanner software, any form of DSLR (or DC) built in NR, sharpening
and other "in camera" PP just go in "pros" for digital workflow.
Finally to kill this for good, there are fewer and fewer places where
real enlargements are still available - it comes down to "prints",
digitalized workflow where (if any more) advantages of film will be
lost a great deal ( it's the ccd at the end, 8 or 12 or 14 or 24 or
whatever bit colour, its not the film anymore).
I tried doing "something" with my slides - at the end decided to
maintain slide projector just in case I wanted to go through them
again. I was stupid for spending $70 on the spare light bulb! 7
years ago!

no hard feeling, cheers

Kim Letkeman · Jan 8, 2008

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

The DSLR vs Bridge vs P & S Debate. Quick Thought

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts