This article should be read by everybody

Started Dec 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
K E Hoffman
K E Hoffman Veteran Member • Posts: 5,103
Re: Why standardize on substandard resolution

Draek wrote:

K E Hoffman wrote:

If you used COSTCO to process your prints of Kodak MAX 800 maybe... Some of us aspire to more

Nope, I meant scanned Portra 160; consumer-end ISO400+ film could be beaten by a $80 digital with one metaphorical hand behind its back --- particularly in terms of color quality.

Face it: anyone who aspired for more with film shot medium format or larger. For good reasons.

This one is really good... and here we get to a key truth... When we get into the warzone of ISO above 1600 Digital with all the fighting over noise is better than film.. But we have not replaced all of films ability yet..

Funny, Luminous-Landscape themselves disagreed back when the Canon D60 (note: not the much later 60D, the early 6 Mpx camera) was first released.

Image quality is every bit as good as that from high-quality film scans, and this is now the case at just about any print size you'd care to make.


And they were wrong.. much above 13x19 6MP starts to get soft and there was plenty of indications that Good Film was closer to 15 MP..   BTW I didn't even bother to drop in the Ken Rockwell article talking about Film being way higher than that.. Its an out liar version.

Oh, and your first source appears to have been comparing processed JPEGs in the case of the digital camera, which might explain the apparent difference. You do not pixel-peep JPEGs. Ever.

That one's a tad more interesting. Let's disregard resolution since whoever did the comparison seems to have picked a rather informal test, with enough focusing and movement inaccuracies to hide any difference inherent to the mediums, and focus solely on DR. Does 35mm film hold more DR than digital sensors? surprisingly, the answer is "depends on how you define 'DR'". Read this fine article on DxO's methods, for instance, which has a section dealing with that specifically:

But long story short: film holds detail over a longer range, but digital holds usable detail over a longer range. Extreme shadows and extreme highlights on film are barely good enough to provide a gentle roll-off.

Digital is better at higher ISO.. but I still think scaling to 8MP so you can lower the bar to match lower resolution cameras is silly.. DXO number IMHO have always been suspect.  but we love numbers especially when they let is ignore our eyes.

A57 is a different generation of sensor with a different filter scheme too. It would be silly to make this an exampled in the discussion just check out the A77 to A57 shots I posted earlier today from the DPR studio shot.. where the a57 has a 1-2 ISO stop advantage at the top of the scale.

DxO states differently --- in fact, they rate the A77 slightly higher --- and they conduct tests over normalized RAW files instead of whatever the camera says its nominal ISO is.

And we are back to DXO cooking and scaling RAW and in a process that has no transparencey but if you want to ignore your own eyes for proprietary number fine.. side by shots at TOP ISO so show a clear differences.

-- hide signature --

K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<

-- hide signature --

K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<

 K E Hoffman's gear list:K E Hoffman's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Nikon 1 J1 Sony a6500 Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow