FABULOUS EOS-1V vs. TOTALLY DIGITAL D60 !!!
Annika1980
Here's an image I took recently with both the Fabulous EOS-1V and the Totally
Digital D60.
http://www.pbase.com/image/31516270
Now here are actual sized crops from both the 5400dpi scan of the 35mm slide
and the digital image from the D60. I used the same tripod-mounted lens and
settings for both pics. (Super 70-200 f/2.8L @ 200mm, 1second @ f/22)
http://www.pbase.com/image/33062580/original
S Lee
spell out:
This reminds me of the infamous Luminous Landscape article a couple
of years back, but it's still interesting to see the comparisons.
--
__ A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _
__)|| | |(_)| \ "Yes, yes, it's all a rich tapestry."
William Graham
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040827003346...@mb-m21.aol.com...
>
> Here's an image I took recently with both the Fabulous EOS-1V and the
Totally
> Digital D60.
> http://www.pbase.com/image/31516270
A very neat photograph.....And it shows why Lamerick thought that by eating
the leaves, the animal grew to look like them.......
Techno Aussie
I personally have found the opposite to be the case. Of course I use a 10D
and I use it in varied ways which are different to the subject here. This
subject is stationary, for one thing and well lit for another. Both
conditions where a digital will work well. Why not crank up the ISO to 800
and use 800 ISO film? Try capturing detail then, when the subject is
travelling at 60 MPH with the sky as the backdrop? The Digital will not be
as good as a film camera. This will produce opposite results. Nice try Bret
(with one 'T'. But I think if you had a SD9 Sigma you'd do better !!!! -Not!
Ryadia
Annika1980
>Why not crank up the ISO to 800
>and use 800 ISO film? Try capturing detail then, when the subject is
>travelling at 60 MPH with the sky as the backdrop? The Digital will not be
>as good as a film camera.
You're kidding, right?
Digital really smokes film at higher ISOs.
Alan Browne
And again (as in the past), the film image is noisier with more
detail, and the digital image is cleaner with less detail.
That's about three times you've proven the point. A+ for
consistency.
Now, get back to kissing Witte's ass.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Annika1980
>http://www.pbase.com/image/33062580/original
>And again (as in the past), the film image is noisier with more
>detail, and the digital image is cleaner with less detail.
Can you be more specific about the detail that appears only in the film scan?
>Now, get back to kissing Witte's ass.
You must've missed my last post to him.
He's scared.
Alan Browne
>>From: Alan Browne alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca
>
>
>>http://www.pbase.com/image/33062580/original
>
>
>>And again (as in the past), the film image is noisier with more
>>detail, and the digital image is cleaner with less detail.
>
>
> Can you be more specific about the detail that appears only in the film scan?
Look in the dull green area in between the eyes (where we also
see you had a bit more flash going, you naughty boy), and you can
see details that are not visible at all in the digital image.
Yes it is noisy and no it is not as pretty to look at. Now if
you would unsharp mask the film image you would see more of that
detail come ... at the expense of further grain noise.
>
> >Now, get back to kissing Witte's ass.
>
> You must've missed my last post to him.
> He's scared.
I doubt it... OTOH that's still no way to get your dream
assistant job at a ball game. I agree you should toss the fee,
but otherwise shut the $*^# up and go learn something. Regarding
remotes, these often are the most stunning shots (depending on
the sport), and timing is everything. It's as much about framing
and composing as well as managing all the equipment...
Annika1980
>> He's scared.
>
>I doubt it... OTOH that's still no way to get your dream
>assistant job at a ball game. I agree you should toss the fee,
>but otherwise shut the $*^# up and go learn something.
He'll never do it. He made the offer and then backed away from it.
Techno Aussie
all of it in dance clubs. An EOS 3 consistantly outperforms the 10D in
detail capture under adverse conditions. Digitals have a problem with fast
moving subjects, poor lighting and high ISO speeds. Combine all three and
they are shocking. It's so problematical, I am seriously considering
re-purchasing Medium format gear, just to get back the quality in my poster
shots.
The digital image undergoes a hell of a lot of post processing in the
camera. This removes noise (grain to some) and artificially sharpens the
image and a D60 has no facility to totally turn off sharpening so...
Do all that to a film picture and the results are stunning, to say the
least. Your scan is about 40% film texture, 10% grain and 50% image. It's
the film texture that makes scanned images appear so grainy and it can be
removed, just like Canon do to the sensor noise.
Basically I'm saying that your comparison is flawed. Without your knowledge
the camera has processed the image to "doctor it" into a pleasing picture.
It's lost some detail in the process but because it has no "noise" in the
picture, you think it's got more detail.
The film scan is just that. Scanners don't do anything about post processing
unless you force it to. If you want to do as much post processing on the
film scan as the camera did on the digital image, you have to do yourself.
So far I have 6 applications to do this. It would be really nice if Canon or
Nikon released the code they developed to do all this in a camera. Maybe
then, film would have a lot longer life than these Japenese manufacturer's
want it to have.
Sorry, but you asked!
TA.
Annika1980
>The digital image undergoes a hell of a lot of post processing in the
>camera. This removes noise (grain to some) and artificially sharpens the
>image and a D60 has no facility to totally turn off sharpening so...
Yes it does. It's called RAW mode.
>Do all that to a film picture and the results are stunning, to say the
>least. Your scan is about 40% film texture, 10% grain and 50% image. It's
>the film texture that makes scanned images appear so grainy and it can be
>removed, just like Canon do to the sensor noise.
Film texture? Why would you want that?
Sounds like you got 50% noise to me.
If I want texture I'll print it on canvas.
Sander Vesik
So how come the slide picture is so much more aboiut head detail of
teh bug compared to teh other picture if everything is equal?
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Annika1980
>http://www.pbase.com/image/33062580/original
>>
>
>So how come the slide picture is so much more aboiut head detail of
>teh bug compared to teh other picture if everything is equal?
If you are asking why the film scan is bigger it's simply because a 5400dpi
scan will give you a larger image than a 6.3MP digital.
Sander Vesik
Doesn'tr that give you a ather meaninglesscomparison unles syou downsample?
Sander Vesik
So basicly, tocompare you need to do one of:
* enlarge the digital print
* downsample the scan
as things stand, the scan is showing almost an order of magnitude
more detail
Alan Browne
>
> Doesn'tr that give you a ather meaninglesscomparison unles syou downsample?
Up sample the D60 image to 39 MPix.... then you'll have meaningless.
Stephen H. Westin
Am I blind? I see a very fine fiber along the lower antenna in the D60
image (the lower one) that is basically blurred out in the film
scan. And the D60 image just looks way crisper to me.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Alan Browne
> Am I blind? I see a very fine fiber along the lower antenna in the D60
> image (the lower one) that is basically blurred out in the film
> scan. And the D60 image just looks way crisper to me.
Crisp is nice, but there is more detail in the film image ...
it's also noisier in the film image which makes it less pleasing
to the eye.
Annika1980
>as things stand, the scan is showing almost an order of magnitude
>more detail
Where? Don't confuse detail for grain or noise.
Stephen H. Westin
> Stephen H. Westin wrote:
>
> > Am I blind? I see a very fine fiber along the lower antenna in the D60
> > image (the lower one) that is basically blurred out in the film
> > scan. And the D60 image just looks way crisper to me.
>
> Crisp is nice, but there is more detail in the film image ... it's
> also noisier in the film image which makes it less pleasing to the
> eye.
So are you saying that you can see that filament in the film image?
Otherwise, which specific details are visible in one image, but not
the other?
I have the two on my screen right now, having downsampled the scanned
image to match scales and reduced the contrast of the scan to match
tonality approximately. I can apply Unsharp Mask (1 pixel radius,
221%) to give the scan more of the crispness of the pure digital
image, but any difference in detail still is in favor of the D60, at
least to my eye.