Reading mode: Light Dark

N14-Film still better.

Go to last post
Igor R. said:
Nobody is using Photoshop bicubic resizing! B-Spline or Genuine
Fractals are the only possable ways! Some guys also like Lanczos,
but I don't like it. Actually, Genuine Fractals is more advanced
algorythm
Click to expand...
You repeat the companies advertisement babble, but if you would really step into the matter, it would quickly become clear that a stair bicubic interpolation in PS is better and gives better detail than Genuine fractals.

I have tried it out several times side by side, and PS has won every time.

If you dont manage to get decent results, buy Fred Mirandas photoshop stair interpolation, its on is site.

So, dont say nobody´s using it, whereas its the better solution.
 
Ok, about the Pro14N being used for calendars.. hmm NOPE... the resolution is not enough.. you can make a SOLID 10x15 at 300 DPI. Not upsizing.. You can upsize to 15x21.5 with no normal human seeing the difference... but still not enough.. the 14N is to replace 645/6x6 MF.. and from what I have seen from some Fuji S2 pictures (and the S2 is not a true 12mp no matter what anyone says.. Looks more like what a 9mp cam would look like) the pics look prett impressive on some 16x20.. so I can say the 14n is closer to 6x7.. even though a 6x7 with some really good film and perfect exposure will beat the 14n.. Average users will not notice the difference..

the digital backs out their would work for calendars.. Esp when people are shooting 4x5 film

Oh yea... one other thing... When we are comparing digital to film.. We are talking about slide right? Neg film looks horriable and is only good when you need the exposure latt :)
George Richardson said:
Guy Mancuso said:
Montypyfly said:
George Richardson said:
Because what they want is a picture on their Macs showing 300
dpi,at 20x16 inches (or near as-due to cropping).
Click to expand...
True back in the days of needing double the line screen for offset
printing. But if the linescreen is 150, like most printers I deal
with (using digital presses), you can deal with image resolution at
150 dpi at actual size. The "doubling" isn't required anymore.

So sitting at their macs they would be looking at a 20x30 image at
150dpi. That will still give you lots of room to crop and then some
extra resolution left over. (actually you get 16 x 24 with the
14n's format, but even that would be 189 dpi)

Now there are definitely times when this camera will not do the
resolution, that is why you keep your medium format camera and
scanners. (Use the right tool for the job)
--
-Glenn-
Nikon (x3) & Olympus (x2) 35mm film
Hasselblad 120 (x3)
Oly E-10 and smaller digital
Click to expand...
I always thought that in general shooting digital is better because

it is a first generation file.(Film is PIN sharp CCD's are not) Take a 35mm slide and scan it makes

it a second generation file.(A second generation slide usually means a duplicate slide.)and a Given the fact that say a 760 camera

produces 300dpi 8x10 much to small for large high quality work would that not be better then a scan at the
same resolution at 300 dpi 8x10.
Click to expand...
A lot of calendar companies won't even take 35mm slides.
George Richardson said:
--
GUY
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
PS... The resolution of the human eye... is over 200mp...My backgroud was medical imaging (MRI and CAT quit after 1st year of school though :( ) before I started my own business.. (did not like working for anyone else and I sucked at typing damn reports + I make more money now and less work :) The average person can not resolve 200mp images from their eyes, so you may be closer but peopel with PERFECT vision have much better resolving power then 20mp...

Most people view Images from 12" or more.. so you dont really need 300 dpi on photos.. BUT if you are doing text.. you really need much more then 300dpi.. When we did offset printing the RIPS outputed 3361 DPI to film for text but our images were 300 DPI.. we did some work that the images were from 4x5 and were printed to 8x10 at something around 1100 DPI for fine art prints.. This is VERY expensive and makes very good pritnts.. We did not do the printing though just worked a little on the scanned files..

Some people will say film LOOKS better.. it does in my opinion(slide at least) only when exposed perfectly... But most viewers dont notice it and would rather have their pictures faster & cheeper..
Igor R. said:
Igor R. said:
File size is what its all about to me,and many other full time pro
photographers.
A calendar company will still NOT look at digital pictures from a
D-SLR.
Why ?
Because what they want is a picture on their Macs showing 300
dpi,at 20x16 inches (or near as-due to cropping).
Click to expand...
For the calendar, even 35mm film is not enough, people are usually
shooting 6*6 or 6*9 slides for this.
Igor R. said:
My S2 will do MAX 300 dpi,at 9.493x14.187 inches.
SO what image size would the n14 do at 300 dpi ?
Click to expand...
Well, offset printing is not 300 lpi, it is 150 lpi, but can still
interpolate a little bit, 200% will not be so visible. And 200
persent of 14 megapixel will be 56 megapixels. And again, if
resolution of our eyes is not more than 20 megepxiels, we don't
really need 100Mp files, that comes from 6*9 film.
Igor R. said:
Not quite there I would say-but at a price of $5,000 it should be.
Click to expand...
Medium format camera with good glass will cost more.
Igor R. said:
Please dont talk about what your little Epson printer will do at
home - as printing companies work to a different system.
Click to expand...
Their resolution is 3048 dpi per each of CMYK color, it is about
150 lpi with regular raster.
Igor R. said:
I use a Epson 1290 and the quality of the prints are simply amazing.
SO when will a D-SLR compete with large format film.
Click to expand...
When it will have resolution more than 20 megapixels.
Igor R. said:
Very soon at a guess (about 6 months).
Click to expand...
Not so fast, man!
Click to expand...
 
Igor R. said:
Open your eyes (C) VANILLA SKY
Nobody is using Photoshop bicubic resizing! B-Spline or Genuine
Fractals are the only possable ways! Some guys also like Lanczos,
but I don't like it. Actually, Genuine Fractals is more advanced
algorythm, it is like B-Spline and USM the same time, but Spline is
cheaper and faster, nad it comes with ACDSee, while GF is a
dedicated Photoshop plugin, that costs alot, but it is a
professional pre-press software.
Click to expand...
GF started out as a solution for highly compressing files that were destined for transmission and printing. It would take a Photoshop file and compress it to a fraction of its size (lossy) and then expand it larger than the original with very good quality. But it would also sharpen the image when expanding so when compared with Photoshop resizing it looked better.
The Photoshop interpolation would have looked good too with a little sharpening.

So the legend of GF started from the mouths of people who really didn't know how to use Photoshop properly.
Someone mentioned the Fred Miranda action...Here's a link:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/SI/index.html
Rick
 
Bernie Ess said:
stair bicubic interpolation in PS is better and gives better detail
than Genuine fractals.
Click to expand...
Igor,
Please explain steps in doing this.
Learn something new every day.
Thanks,
Don
 
Not always. Most clients are scared of digital because they've seen it in the past and given up on it, at least for now. The reason some still don't like it is that they haven't seen digital shot and processed properly. I've seen my stuff from my D1x as a 2-page spread that looks better and has more apparent detail than the stuff I shoot on 35mm 100F or Velvia. It approaches that of my medium-format stuff. Clients are slowly coming around, but it takes education on both sides. Photographers have to learn to maximize the tools they use, or have assistants who can, so that the images hold everything that they can. This is true whether you shoot 35mm color neg or digital or whatever.

Relying on fixing poorly shot images, whether expecting RAW format and Photoshop to save your butt for over/under exposure or doing the same with color neg and printing, isn't going to do this. Spending the time to learn the technical aspect of your camera and workflow is. Get out there and shoot what you love to shoot, learn to shoot it well. Then bring the images in and learn to ge even more out of them with the best digital workflow you can.

-T
 
I agree.. I have allways shot film because it looked better to me... We had some photographers here shooting digital for 3 years and we allways told our clients that you may get them faster but digital 3 years ago is no where near what it is now... Untill I saw cams like the D1, D60 and S2 I would never think of switching... Some clients are brainwashed then Film is the ONLY good way to go.. They have seen the results from their $300 digital camera and think the pro shots cant look much better... What they dont realize is that the good pic they took with their cheap 35mm was processed to look better then a raw negative... I have seen some really good ameture 35mm shots done at good labs and visa versa... when I see raw pics from most local photographers who are using digital they look REAL BAD.. then when I see the final print they look REAL GOOD :)

Digital is still not on the same par on film in the way the color looks and exposure (NEG FILM) BUT being able to see your picture right their and retaking it meand you will probaly get a better pic in the end...

PS.. older digital camera's color gamut were set the same as digital video cameras, so they NEVER looked anything like Film... Video's Gamut is a diag like.. useally perfectly straight... Film has a little S to it... this is also differnt in each film and each color layer. Now as you know digital cams, even cheaper one have filter and DPS to emulate films color curves...

Thanks
photony said:
Not always. Most clients are scared of digital because they've seen
it in the past and given up on it, at least for now. The reason
some still don't like it is that they haven't seen digital shot and
processed properly. I've seen my stuff from my D1x as a 2-page
spread that looks better and has more apparent detail than the
stuff I shoot on 35mm 100F or Velvia. It approaches that of my
medium-format stuff. Clients are slowly coming around, but it takes
education on both sides. Photographers have to learn to maximize
the tools they use, or have assistants who can, so that the images
hold everything that they can. This is true whether you shoot 35mm
color neg or digital or whatever.

Relying on fixing poorly shot images, whether expecting RAW format
and Photoshop to save your butt for over/under exposure or doing
the same with color neg and printing, isn't going to do this.
Spending the time to learn the technical aspect of your camera and
workflow is. Get out there and shoot what you love to shoot, learn
to shoot it well. Then bring the images in and learn to ge even
more out of them with the best digital workflow you can.

-T
Click to expand...
 
I do for some clients as well, but it can be a pain. I'd rather take two digital bodies than adding a film body or two to that, and film at the airport is a huge hassle. It can be worth it to sway clients over to digital if you provide both and show them the advantage of digital. I prefer digital, so most of my clients simply trust my judgement, and once they see that they're getting the quality they expect, there's no further discussion.
 
Masterdeath said:
PS... The resolution of the human eye... is over 200mp...My
backgroud was medical imaging (MRI and CAT quit after 1st year of
school though :( ) before I started my own business.. (did not
like working for anyone else and I sucked at typing damn reports +
I make more money now and less work :) The average person can not
resolve 200mp images from their eyes, so you may be closer but
peopel with PERFECT vision have much better resolving power then
20mp...

Most people view Images from 12" or more.. so you dont really need
300 dpi on photos.. BUT if you are doing text.. you really need
much more then 300dpi.. When we did offset printing the RIPS
outputed 3361 DPI to film for text but our images were 300 DPI..
we did some work that the images were from 4x5 and were printed to
8x10 at something around 1100 DPI for fine art prints.. This is
VERY expensive and makes very good pritnts.. We did not do the
printing though just worked a little on the scanned files..

Some people will say film LOOKS better.. it does in my
opinion(slide at least) only when exposed perfectly... But most
viewers dont notice it and would rather have their pictures faster
& cheeper..
Click to expand...
---------------
To be digital or not to be digital.

The truth is digital, on a big shoot,is far cheaper than using film.

If i shoot (abroad) 100 rolls of 220 film (6x4.5) that can quite easly cost over $1,500 (film & processing + clips).

A Kodak n14 will cost about $3,500 (just wishful jesting),so the mathematics speak for themselves.

Why a n14 ?

Because it uses JPG 2 ,with 2 stops either way in latertude-and it rotates the pictures inside the camera ready for downloading.Great stuff.

All I have to do now is somehow by hook or by crook-get a 60 meg file to the client.

In fact I spoke to one of the calendar companies to-day and the said hire a n14 and do a test.

So be it.

Lets hope he's never heard of the word 'interpolate'.

Regards to all

& we battle on.

George Richardson

Here on the 10 November 2002 in the UK we had our remembrance day - for all the fallen of two world wars.

But let us also not forget the Canadian,and American young men who came to Europe in its darkest days,only never to return to their homeland.

We observed a minutes silence to-day , on the 11th hour, 11th day ,11th month for our dead.

Let us hope that some countries, run by dictators-will learn that our resove will never fail us,and that our soldiers are still guarding the front line for democracy.

Our democracy is not perfect - but its all we've got.
Masterdeath said:
Igor R. said:
Masterdeath said:
File size is what its all about to me,and many other full time pro
photographers.
A calendar company will still NOT look at digital pictures from a
D-SLR.
Why ?
Because what they want is a picture on their Macs showing 300
dpi,at 20x16 inches (or near as-due to cropping).
Click to expand...
For the calendar, even 35mm film is not enough, people are usually
shooting 6*6 or 6*9 slides for this.
Masterdeath said:
My S2 will do MAX 300 dpi,at 9.493x14.187 inches.
SO what image size would the n14 do at 300 dpi ?
Click to expand...
Well, offset printing is not 300 lpi, it is 150 lpi, but can still
interpolate a little bit, 200% will not be so visible. And 200
persent of 14 megapixel will be 56 megapixels. And again, if
resolution of our eyes is not more than 20 megepxiels, we don't
really need 100Mp files, that comes from 6*9 film.
Masterdeath said:
Not quite there I would say-but at a price of $5,000 it should be.
Click to expand...
Medium format camera with good glass will cost more.
Masterdeath said:
Please dont talk about what your little Epson printer will do at
home - as printing companies work to a different system.
Click to expand...
Their resolution is 3048 dpi per each of CMYK color, it is about
150 lpi with regular raster.
Masterdeath said:
I use a Epson 1290 and the quality of the prints are simply amazing.
SO when will a D-SLR compete with large format film.
Click to expand...
When it will have resolution more than 20 megapixels.
Masterdeath said:
Very soon at a guess (about 6 months).
Click to expand...
Not so fast, man!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
George Richardson said:
File size is what its all about to me,and many other full time pro
photographers.

A calendar company will still NOT look at digital pictures from a
D-SLR.

Why ?

Because what they want is a picture on their Macs showing 300
dpi,at 20x16 inches (or near as-due to cropping).

My S2 will do MAX 300 dpi,at 9.493x14.187 inches.
Click to expand...
You need to seriously add in the fact that high end digital images are free of the grain that is associated with film at lower ISO's, this will contribute to your being able to get away with some upward interpolation to achieve a desired resolution. In fact, the interpolated mode of the S2 is a great example of this, it is a very well done interpolation of only 6mp of image data.
George Richardson said:
SO what image size would the n14 do at 300 dpi ?
Click to expand...
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1026&message=3753714

15 x 10 at 300dpi ...dang good..and pretty close to your 20 x 15, in fact the scaling needed to get to that size should yield imperceptible changes in sharpness in the image at the larger print size. Especially if it's low in noise to begin with...
George Richardson said:
SO when will a D-SLR compete with large format film.
Click to expand...
Large format, you'd be amazed how beautiful an upsampled digital file can print when manipulated by the right tools and the right photographer. I expect no less from the 12+ mp cameras to come.(in fact I expect more) If you want to talk medium format, the latest 6mp cameras are giving them a run for their money already.

Regards,

--

 
David SL said:
. I expect no less from the 12+ mp cameras to come.(in
fact I expect more) If you want to talk medium format, the latest
6mp cameras are giving them a run for their money already.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting a lot from the 12+ MP cameras but I have to disagree about 6MP cameras. For me they are almost up to 35mm quality.

Rick
 
I think 6MP kill 35mm.. I shot a image using 100ISO 35mm and a Nikon 5000 5mp cam at iso 100.. The Nikon 5000 looked ALOT better then the 35mm... NO GRAIN!! thats the difference... not compared to 645.. different story.. at least at 5mp
Rick Boden said:
David SL said:
. I expect no less from the 12+ mp cameras to come.(in
fact I expect more) If you want to talk medium format, the latest
6mp cameras are giving them a run for their money already.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting a lot from the 12+ MP cameras but I have to disagree
about 6MP cameras. For me they are almost up to 35mm quality.

Rick
Click to expand...
 
If your only comparing GRAIN only then yes your right! If you compare that colour and dynamic range the your wrong.

The best solution to to comare the entire range of qualities and it a lot closer.

I think film has it at the moment thu, do to there complete range of applications it exels at. Thu digital is catching up fast and next year that may well not bue true.
Alex
Masterdeath said:
Rick Boden said:
David SL said:
. I expect no less from the 12+ mp cameras to come.(in
fact I expect more) If you want to talk medium format, the latest
6mp cameras are giving them a run for their money already.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting a lot from the 12+ MP cameras but I have to disagree
about 6MP cameras. For me they are almost up to 35mm quality.

Rick
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ajs2 said:
If your only comparing GRAIN only then yes your right! If you
compare that colour and dynamic range the your wrong.
Click to expand...
It's a common misconception that dynamic range and color are better with film. That view doesn't hold up to real world experience. Professional digital has surpassed film in both areas - consumer digital lags far behind.
ajs2107922 said:
The best solution to to comare the entire range of qualities and it
a lot closer.
Click to expand...
In 1995 we swiched to six megapixel professional digital to replace nearly all our 35mm color film work. We have some of the most discriminating customers around when it comes to color correctness and overall quality (photography of gallery fine art) and they have never been happier since the switch. Pro digital has changed a great deal since 1995 and has only improved.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71
 
Masterdeath said:
I think 6MP kill 35mm.. I shot a image using 100ISO 35mm and a
Nikon 5000 5mp cam at iso 100.. The Nikon 5000 looked ALOT better
then the 35mm... NO GRAIN!! thats the difference... not compared to
645.. different story.. at least at 5mp
Click to expand...
I'm a stock photographer (not RF) by profession and I would dearly like to get into digital capture and I tried the D1x, the S2, and 760 to see if they could produce the 40+MB files I needed to send to my agency.

I found they could interpolate up to that size very well with good sharpness, but so would the noise and artifacting. Things that may not be noticed in a large inkjet print might be unacceptable for other uses. Scanned 35mm has the grain alright, but what it doesn't have is pattern noise which is a real killer for me.
Rick
 
If the 14N has color that is as good as the Nikon D1x and D60 (hmm) and the extra resolution then I am going to happy... Well as long as the AF is not too bad! I think on pro cams the color is better... why? because unlike film you get some procession done to the image instantly.. and it is much easier with better instant feedback to correct color errors...

with film you have to use all kinds of filter and test and do a final print to see the finla results... Time consuming and expensive... Rememer the S2 is really only a 9mp camera when you think about it.. it has upsizing allready and so is the Nikon.. have you ever read how they even get that cam to 5+ mp.. the CCD has very odds number of pixels each way... the 14N and Canon ds are true pixel for pixel... alone with the D60 at 6mp..
Rick Boden said:
Masterdeath said:
I think 6MP kill 35mm.. I shot a image using 100ISO 35mm and a
Nikon 5000 5mp cam at iso 100.. The Nikon 5000 looked ALOT better
then the 35mm... NO GRAIN!! thats the difference... not compared to
645.. different story.. at least at 5mp
Click to expand...
I'm a stock photographer (not RF) by profession and I would dearly
like to get into digital capture and I tried the D1x, the S2, and
760 to see if they could produce the 40+MB files I needed to send
to my agency.
I found they could interpolate up to that size very well with good
sharpness, but so would the noise and artifacting. Things that may
not be noticed in a large inkjet print might be unacceptable for
other uses. Scanned 35mm has the grain alright, but what it
doesn't have is pattern noise which is a real killer for me.
Rick
Click to expand...
 
Masterdeath said:
with film you have to use all kinds of filter and test and do a
final print to see the finla results... Time consuming and
expensive... Rememer the S2 is really only a 9mp camera when you
think about it.. it has upsizing allready and so is the Nikon..
have you ever read how they even get that cam to 5+ mp.. the CCD
has very odds number of pixels each way... the 14N and Canon ds
are true pixel for pixel... alone with the D60 at 6mp..
Rick Boden said:
Masterdeath said:
I think 6MP kill 35mm.. I shot a image using 100ISO 35mm and a
Nikon 5000 5mp cam at iso 100.. The Nikon 5000 looked ALOT better
then the 35mm... NO GRAIN!! thats the difference... not compared to
645.. different story.. at least at 5mp
Click to expand...
I'm a stock photographer (not RF) by profession and I would dearly
like to get into digital capture and I tried the D1x, the S2, and
760 to see if they could produce the 40+MB files I needed to send
to my agency.
I found they could interpolate up to that size very well with good
sharpness, but so would the noise and artifacting. Things that may
not be noticed in a large inkjet print might be unacceptable for
other uses. Scanned 35mm has the grain alright, but what it
doesn't have is pattern noise which is a real killer for me.
Rick
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hi all . I just went and shot a Tiger for a major printing company here in Phoenix, they have a new 2 million dollar press here that uses a 6 color press. Very Cool . They wanted a shot of a tiger to show the difference between 4 and 6 color presses. I shot with a DCS 760 and they printed the piece 12 in square. I am simple amazed at the quality of this 6mp camera to go to print that large without anything done to the file. I think dig is here to stay
Guy
--
GUY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top