Digicams With MF Film Quality

0 views
Skip to first unread message

One4All

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 1:51:37 PM2/24/06
to
I'm thinking of replacing my MF film camera with a digicam. But, I'm
concerned about the quality of the images I'd get, since I'd like to
produce up to 20" x 24" prints. Can anyone recommend a digicam,
preferably under $1K, that can do that? Or, do I need to buy a digital
back for my current camera, which will be in excess of $1K? I'm also
thinking of using the camera hand-held in many situations. MF film
cameras with digital backs seem pretty bulky, necessitating a tripod
for best results.

rafe b

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 2:03:36 PM2/24/06
to

"One4All" <dwe...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:1140807097.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...


Not gonna happen. Not for $1K.

I've made 16x24" prints from 10D images, but I
would not claim that they're up to MF quality.

Scans of 6x6 film @ 4000 dpi give files of
80 megapixels.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


BJ in Texas

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 2:20:20 PM2/24/06
to

I am looking for a new car less than $800

--
"If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments."


Sarah Brown

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 2:31:03 PM2/24/06
to
In article <1140807097.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,

One4All <dwe...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>I'm thinking of replacing my MF film camera with a digicam. But, I'm
>concerned about the quality of the images I'd get, since I'd like to
>produce up to 20" x 24" prints. Can anyone recommend a digicam,
>preferably under $1K, that can do that?

No, is the simple answer.

I paid a lot more than that for my 5D, and that won't compete with MF at
that print size.

Scott W

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 2:56:06 PM2/24/06
to
If you want hi-res digital photos on the cheap then one possible way to
go is stitching. This can take you past the resolution of a MF camera
and get you up to what a LF camera can do. The down side is that to do
this well it really does take a tripod and a panoramic head.

Here is a photo that is close to 100 MP, to see it full size hit
original at the bottom of the photo.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53085707/large

On the plus side you should see a notable improvement in the image
sharpness in a stitched image vs from your MF camera, when printed at
20"x 24"

Just something to think about.

Scott

John McWilliams

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 3:04:02 PM2/24/06
to
Scott W wrote:
> One4All wrote:
>
>>I'm thinking of replacing my MF film camera with a digicam. But, I'm
>>concerned about the quality of the images I'd get, since I'd like to
>>produce up to 20" x 24" prints. Can anyone recommend a digicam,
>>preferably under $1K, that can do that? Or, do I need to buy a digital
>>back for my current camera, which will be in excess of $1K? I'm also
>>thinking of using the camera hand-held in many situations. MF film
>>cameras with digital backs seem pretty bulky, necessitating a tripod
>>for best results.
>
> If you want hi-res digital photos on the cheap then one possible way to
> go is stitching. This can take you past the resolution of a MF camera
> and get you up to what a LF camera can do. The down side is that to do
> this well it really does take a tripod and a panoramic head.

No. While extremely useful, you need neither for excellent outdoor
panos. The downside is the processing time, which a pan head and tripod
will reduce somewhat, but hardly eliminate.


--
john mcwilliams

Two vultures board an airplane, each carrying two dead raccoons. The
flight attendant looks at them and says, "I'm sorry, gentlemen, only one
carrion allowed per passenger."

Scott W

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 3:11:45 PM2/24/06
to
John McWilliams wrote:
> No. While extremely useful, you need neither for excellent outdoor
> panos. The downside is the processing time, which a pan head and tripod
> will reduce somewhat, but hardly eliminate.

I have done a fair number of panoramic photos without a tripod, but it
starts to get tricky if you are stitching more then 10 to 12 photos.
The panoramic head makes it easy to take as many photos as you might
wish, depending on the needed resolution and FOV. With the angle
indexing of a panoramic head the time to take the photos is greatly
reduced.

The other aspect is that with a panoramic head it is pretty easy to
rotate the camera around the nodal point of the lens, this is not
critical if the scene is all pretty far away but if there are elements
of the scene that are close you can suffer from parallax if you don't
rotate around the lens nodal point.

Scott

aemd

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 3:15:06 PM2/24/06
to
Your best option is a high quality flat bed scanner with transparency
adapter. Even loaded with Silverfast or the software of your choice this
will cost less than $1000. You will also get images that can be technically
superior to even the finest digital imaging equipment. The downside: you
need to know a lot more about digital image processing than you appear to
know and you need a computer with a very, very fast processor (preferably
dual core) and at least 2gbs of RAM.


Scott W

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 3:53:15 PM2/24/06
to

I don't think he would need all that fast of a computer if he is
dealing with scans from a flat bed. From what I have seen there is
little to be gained by going past 2000ppi when using a flat bed
scanner, perhaps the new Epson scanner will change this but I have not
seen scans from it yet. At 2000 ppi a 6 x 7 frame will give you
something like a 23MP image. Even if you did scan at 4000ppi you would
only have an image a bit larger then 90MP. I edit photos that size
with 1 GB of ram and a non-dual core processor without problems.

The problem with scanning MF is that there is no good scanner for this
that is less then $1000. If you are dealing with 4 x 5 film then there
is so much area that a flat bed works fine. If you are dealing with
35mm that are a lot of scanners that will work fairly well. MF is just
a hard size to scan.

Scott


Scott

Tropical Treat

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 4:17:08 PM2/24/06
to

"rafe b" <ra...@foobar.com> wrote in message
news:Y6SdnQCuDpE...@speakeasy.net...
:
: "One4All" <dwe...@bresnan.net> wrote in message

I have to disagree with Rafe's opinion here. 6 megapixel images are well and
truly printable at very high quality in the area of 24"x36", all things
being equal. You have to use dedicated enlargement software but it is well
within the capability of a digicam. The thing which hinders film (grain)
does not exist in a pure digital image.

Images from "digicams" with high quality lenses like the FZ20 and FZ30
Panasonics which use Leica lenses, can be enlarged to this size with quality
as good as the best 645 cameras and films. Obviously, the image size will
need to be in the region of 12 megapixel or more to compare with larger film
sizes but the mere fact that RB67 and RZ67 MF gear is being dumped on EBay
for a song, should be an indication of where the industry is heading.

You can probably still pick up a FZ20 at the run out price or a FZ30 will go
for about $1K. Another good buy is the Olympus E300 at run out prices. These
cameras need careful understanding of the somewhat restricted dynamic range
but they're not much worse than some transparency films. Even the higher
priced Kodaks with German lenses are up to the task. Provided you can get a
correctly exposed picture from one!

MM

Tropical Treat

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 4:19:38 PM2/24/06
to

"Sarah Brown" <sarah...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:s434d3-...@narcissus.dyndns.org...
: In article <1140807097.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,


Clearly you don't know how to enlarge a digital image then.
Start here for your enlightenment: http://www.interpolatethis.com/

MM


Scott W

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 4:38:34 PM2/24/06
to
Tropical Treat wrote:
> Clearly you don't know how to enlarge a digital image then.
> Start here for your enlightenment: http://www.interpolatethis.com/
I find it odd to be defending film over digital, but I don't care how
good the interpolation routine is there is no digital camera for less
then $1000 that can match a MF camera. This assumes a good film is
used and a good scanner or good optical print.

Scott

Tropical Treat

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 4:52:15 PM2/24/06
to

"aemd" <ae...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ePJLf.4476$fU6.1854@trnddc08...
: Your best option is a high quality flat bed scanner with transparency
:
:
This is bad advice. The idea you can drag a film into a digital arena and
still obtain pictures as good as the digital is flawed with the cost of such
an effort. This debate rages on when it should by now be dead. Film prints
using an optical enlarger, are almost beyond comparison with a digital
print. ALMOST.

This involves a messy, toxic, time consuming process in dark rooms. Scanning
a film to remove this process and imitate a digital workflow degrades the
film to a level where it is incapable of equalling a digital image unless
unbelievably expensive scanners, operated by highly experienced people are
used to scan the film.

For the rest of us. Digital cameras provide a convenient means of obtaining
very high quality pictures which can be manipulated and enlarged by
electronic means and printed in our own premises. I use a Pentium 4, 3 GHz
machine with 2 gig of RAM to process 6 to 12 megapixel images with final
file sizes as large as 460 megabytes, into prints as large as three feet by
four feet. Why would a person need a dual core computer? Because they are
new perhaps?

MM


rafe b

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 4:51:42 PM2/24/06
to

"Tropical Treat" <no...@4.group> wrote in message
news:KLKLf.15384$yK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Clearly you don't know how to enlarge a digital image then.
> Start here for your enlightenment: http://www.interpolatethis.com/


How much experience do you have working with
scans of MF film, and printing from these scans?
What scanner(s) did you use?

I'm not really inclined to argue with you, but I don't
quite share your faith in software interpolation or
German optics.

I have made 20x30" and 24x36" prints from 10D
captures. My wife thinks some of them are great,
but I tend to look at them more critically and from
a more technical perspective.

I will certainly agree that large prints from 10D
captures look far better than they ought to, based
purely on the number of pixels available.

I'm dreading the day when my Nikon MF scanner
finally craps out (it's nearly five years old as I write
this.) It's going to be a tough decision -- whether
to replace it ($1800) or just give up on MF and
move on to a full frame DSLR.

I'll still be shooting and scanning 4x5 film, in any case.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


W (winhag)

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 5:03:16 PM2/24/06
to
Your best bet is to go to a site like dpreview.com then 1. download
sample files for cameras you would consider, 2. print them and make
your own decision.

Scott W

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 5:28:15 PM2/24/06
to
Tropical Treat wrote:
> "aemd" <ae...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ePJLf.4476$fU6.1854@trnddc08...
> : Your best option is a high quality flat bed scanner with transparency
> : adapter. Even loaded with Silverfast or the software of your choice this
> : will cost less than $1000. You will also get images that can be
> technically
> : superior to even the finest digital imaging equipment. The downside: you
> : need to know a lot more about digital image processing than you appear to
> : know and you need a computer with a very, very fast processor (preferably
> : dual core) and at least 2gbs of RAM.
> :
> :
> This is bad advice. The idea you can drag a film into a digital arena and
> still obtain pictures as good as the digital is flawed with the cost of such
> an effort. This debate rages on when it should by now be dead. Film prints
> using an optical enlarger, are almost beyond comparison with a digital
> print. ALMOST.
>
> This involves a messy, toxic, time consuming process in dark rooms. Scanning
> a film to remove this process and imitate a digital workflow degrades the
> film to a level where it is incapable of equalling a digital image unless
> unbelievably expensive scanners, operated by highly experienced people are
> used to scan the film.
If we are talking about 6x7 format then even a $500 flatbed scan will
have more detail then any $1000 digital camera.


> For the rest of us. Digital cameras provide a convenient means of obtaining
> very high quality pictures which can be manipulated and enlarged by
> electronic means and printed in our own premises. I use a Pentium 4, 3 GHz
> machine with 2 gig of RAM to process 6 to 12 megapixel images with final
> file sizes as large as 460 megabytes, into prints as large as three feet by
> four feet. Why would a person need a dual core computer? Because they are
> new perhaps?

Here I agree, a dual core computer processor should not be needed.

On the other had I believe if you want a image file that is 460 MB it
would be better to start with an image that is on the order of 150MP,
but that is just me.

Scott

Sarah Brown

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 5:26:50 PM2/24/06
to
In article <KLKLf.15384$yK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,

Tropical Treat <no...@4.group> wrote:
>
>"Sarah Brown" <sarah...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
>news:s434d3-...@narcissus.dyndns.org...
>:
>: I paid a lot more than that for my 5D, and that won't compete with MF at
>: that print size.
>
>Clearly you don't know how to enlarge a digital image then.

You're very, er, direct.

>Start here for your enlightenment: http://www.interpolatethis.com/

Interpolation or not, medium format allows me to read letters on signs when
the DSLRs, even at 12 megapixels, simply run out of pixels. No amount of
interpolation will create what isn't there - real life isn't like CSI.

The amount of detail in a 6*7 transparency is really quite awesome.

Sarah Brown

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 5:26:50 PM2/24/06
to
In article <oJKLf.15381$yK1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,

Tropical Treat <no...@4.group> wrote:
>
>"rafe b" <ra...@foobar.com> wrote in message
>news:Y6SdnQCuDpE...@speakeasy.net...

>: I've made 16x24" prints from 10D images, but I


>: would not claim that they're up to MF quality.
>:
>: Scans of 6x6 film @ 4000 dpi give files of
>: 80 megapixels.
>:

>I have to disagree with Rafe's opinion here. 6 megapixel images are well and
>truly printable at very high quality in the area of 24"x36", all things
>being equal.

My experience concurs with Rafe, I used to have a 10D. The best prints I got
from it were outclassed by scanned 6*7 transparencies even on A4, which is
vastly smaller than the prints being discussed. At 19*13, the 10D's results
were rather embarassing when put next to the prints from 6*7.

The prints I'm getting from the 5D are not quite up to 6*7 quality at A3,
again smaller than the prints in question, but it's not too bad. By 24*36
inches though, I'd back the 6*7 every time. The digital images just don't
have the detail, especially for foliage shots, even from the 12 megapixel
5D.

One4All

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 5:48:26 PM2/24/06
to

Tropical Treat wrote:

> I use a Pentium 4, 3 GHz
> machine with 2 gig of RAM to process 6 to 12 megapixel images with final
> file sizes as large as 460 megabytes, into prints as large as three feet by
> four feet.

This is very helpful. Could you give a few more details re: your
workflow, esp. camera and processing software?

BTW, all the responses in this thread are instructive.

Tesco News

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 5:53:34 PM2/24/06
to
"One4All" <dwe...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:1140807097.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Hi.

No-one seems to have mentioned the one big disadvantage of Digital Backs for
MF. The cost.

When you phone your professional supplier supplier for a quote, please
ensure you are sitting down and have a large glass of your favourite
alcoholic beveridge close to hand.

Or if you want to give them a good laugh, ask which digital backs they have
for around your top limit of $1000.

Roy G


Scott W

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 6:01:15 PM2/24/06
to
Tropical Treat wrote:
> I have to disagree with Rafe's opinion here. 6 megapixel images are well and
> truly printable at very high quality in the area of 24"x36", all things
> being equal. You have to use dedicated enlargement software but it is well
> within the capability of a digicam. The thing which hinders film (grain)
> does not exist in a pure digital image.
>
> Images from "digicams" with high quality lenses like the FZ20 and FZ30
> Panasonics which use Leica lenses, can be enlarged to this size with quality
> as good as the best 645 cameras and films.

You think a FZ20 can compete with a MF camera using good film? Man you
must have seen some pretty bad scans if you believe this. Of course we
don't know what the OP has, he my well have a 6x7 camera. But even a
645 camera will blow the FZ20 out of the water. I am a big fan of
digital cameras and I believe they have more or less obsolete 35mm film
cameras but MF is another whole area.

Put this another way, a 645 frame has what about 3 times the area of a
35mm frame? If a 5 MP digital can compete with a 645 camera then a
1.7MP digital should be able to compete with a 35mm. If you use a
good film there is no way for 1.7 MP to compete with a 35mm film
camera.

Scott

George Kerby

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 6:40:09 PM2/24/06
to


On 2/24/06 4:53 PM, in article O7MLf.35760$Fy4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net,
"Tesco News" <ph...@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:

Absolutely correct. Not to mention the storage device for several images
tethered to the digital back.


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

David J. Littleboy

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 7:10:04 PM2/24/06
to

"Tropical Treat" <no...@4.group> wrote:
>
> I have to disagree with Rafe's opinion here. 6 megapixel images are well
> and
> truly printable at very high quality in the area of 24"x36", all things
> being equal.

Only physically prevent your viewers from getting within 6 feet of the
image.

> You have to use dedicated enlargement software but it is well
> within the capability of a digicam. The thing which hinders film (grain)
> does not exist in a pure digital image.
>
> Images from "digicams" with high quality lenses like the FZ20 and FZ30
> Panasonics which use Leica lenses, can be enlarged to this size with
> quality
> as good as the best 645 cameras and films. Obviously,

Obviously, you've never seen a decent print made from 645.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


rafe b

unread,
Feb 24, 2006, 9:28:39 PM2/24/06
to

Though I should have said so earlier, a big
factor in my response to your initial query
was your $1K limit.

For example, I think the "old" Canon 1Ds or
the current 5D come very close to matching
scanned 645 film.

And it's possible that the 1Ds Mk II comes
close to matching scanned 6x6 or 6x7 film.

But both these options are well over $1K.

The idea that Zeiss optics or software
magic will get you to your goal "on the
cheap" is wishful thinking.

Ignoring issues of convenience, or the value
of your time, MF film + scan is still quite
cost-effective, compared to digital capture.

For scanners, you could consider the Epson
4990, the upcoming Epson 700 or 750, a used
Nikon LS-8000, or a new LS-9000.

If you're serious about ditching film,
you need to up your budget, at least to
the level of a Canon 5D. So you're about
$2K short.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 1:30:12 AM2/25/06
to
>Images from "digicams" with high quality lenses like the FZ20
>and FZ30 Panasonics which use Leica lenses, can be enlarged
>to this size with quality as good as the best 645 cameras and films.

Oh good grief. A 24" x 36" from an FZ20 that matches medium format?

Isn't it obvious that 'Tropical Treat' is, of course, our dear friend
Douglas MacDonald, fresh from a quick run as 'go go dancer', and having
over 40 other identities at last count.....?

It's just laughable.

cjcampbell

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 1:57:49 AM2/25/06
to

Tropical Treat wrote:
> :
> : I paid a lot more than that for my 5D, and that won't compete with MF at
> : that print size.
>
>
> Clearly you don't know how to enlarge a digital image then.
> Start here for your enlightenment: http://www.interpolatethis.com/

Interpolation does not replace lost detail. There are many sites
demonstrating the vivid difference between MF film and even the best
DSLRs. Digital does not come close -- yet.

Neil Ellwood

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 2:42:38 AM2/25/06
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:20:20 +0000, BJ in Texas wrote:

> One4All <dwe...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> || I'm thinking of replacing my MF film camera with a digicam.
> || But, I'm concerned about the quality of the images I'd get,
> || since I'd like to produce up to 20" x 24" prints. Can anyone
> || recommend a digicam, preferably under $1K, that can do that?
> || Or, do I need to buy a digital back for my current camera,
> || which will be in excess of $1K? I'm also thinking of using
> || the camera hand-held in many situations. MF film cameras with
> || digital backs seem pretty bulky, necessitating a tripod for
> || best results.
>
> I am looking for a new car less than $800

Corgi sell them :-)
--
Neil
Delete 'l' to reply by email

Randy Berbaum

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 3:32:08 AM2/25/06
to
One4All <dwe...@bresnan.net> wrote:
: I'm thinking of replacing my MF film camera with a digicam. But, I'm
: concerned about the quality of the images I'd get, since I'd like to
: produce up to 20" x 24" prints. Can anyone recommend a digicam,
: preferably under $1K, that can do that? Or, do I need to buy a digital
: back for my current camera, which will be in excess of $1K? I'm also
: thinking of using the camera hand-held in many situations. MF film
: cameras with digital backs seem pretty bulky, necessitating a tripod
: for best results.

Each advance in sensor technology passes one more benchmark. I think that
most of us can agree that the current crop of Digital P&S has surpassed
the abilities of the old 110 film cameras.

Current debate (with no consensus of the answer) is if the current crop
of DSLRs can "replace" the quality of a 35mm film camera.

With each advance in resolution, color accuracy and sensitivity more and
more people find that a DSLR can replace their 35mm SLR adequate for their
uses. But not everyone is convinced.

Therefor I would not look for a direct digital replacement for Medium
format or Large format cameras yet. It is possible that the current crop
of DSLRs or replacement backs for a MF camera may be satisfactory to you,
but direct replacement is not likely. Since you are specificly looking for
some specific specs or qualifiers as to what is acceptable "quality" for
you, you should try out the various cameras (many manufacturers, models,
etc) and make your own decision.

Also be aware that many factors will affect the printed product. The
quality of the camera and lens equates fairly direct. Then you have to
recognize the abilities and limits of the software you use to edit and
correct the image. This equates to the amount and type of equipment in
your darkroom (the skill of use of the equipment/program is equal). Then
finally the print equipment (printer, ink, paper) will effect the outcome.
So to do a direct comparison between outputs of the two formats (film,
digital) you have a lot of work to do. At the end of the day, none of us
can ever tell you if and with what equipment you would feel you have found
an acceptable replacement for your former equipment.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 3:55:06 AM2/25/06
to
One4All writes:

> I'm thinking of replacing my MF film camera with a digicam. But, I'm
> concerned about the quality of the images I'd get, since I'd like to
> produce up to 20" x 24" prints. Can anyone recommend a digicam,
> preferably under $1K, that can do that?

Even at very high prices, there are no digital cameras that can do
that.

> Or, do I need to buy a digital back for my current camera, which
> will be in excess of $1K?

You'll need a digital back to even come close to MF quality. I don't
know of any digital backs for MF that cost anywhere near $1000; I
suppose you might be able to buy the manual alone for that.

> I'm also thinking of using the camera hand-held in many situations.
> MF film cameras with digital backs seem pretty bulky, necessitating
> a tripod for best results.

MF is used very widely for studio work or location work, where bulk
isn't necessarily a huge issue. Even MF film shows the effects of
this reality.

Some people maintain that MF isn't worth using if you're not using a
tripod, although I've obtained excellent results without one and I do
not agree.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 3:59:30 AM2/25/06
to
Tropical Treat writes:

> I have to disagree with Rafe's opinion here. 6 megapixel images are well and
> truly printable at very high quality in the area of 24"x36", all things
> being equal.

Of course ... but they still don't come anywhere near MF images.

> You have to use dedicated enlargement software but it is well
> within the capability of a digicam.

The type of enlargement software you use is irrelevant. You cannot
create detail where none exists. The only way to have high levels of
detail is to capture it when the picture is taken.

> The thing which hinders film (grain) does not exist in a pure digital image.

Digital has issues of its own. In any case, a lack of grain won't
help if detail is lacking as well.

For any substantial enlargement that will be viewed at close range,
you need lots and lots of detail. Beyond a certain point, only film
will deliver that detail.

> Images from "digicams" with high quality lenses like the FZ20 and FZ30
> Panasonics which use Leica lenses, can be enlarged to this size with quality
> as good as the best 645 cameras and films.

No, they cannot; it's a physical impossibility, because they lack the
necessary detail capture. Having a good lens will allow you to
capture all the detail your sensor or film can hold, but it won't
allow you to capture any more than that.

> Obviously, the image size will need to be in the region of 12

> megapixel or more to compare with larger film sizes ...

Twelve megapixels has a hard time competing even with 35mm, much less
larger formats.

> ... but the mere fact that RB67 and RZ67 MF gear is being dumped on EBay

> for a song, should be an indication of where the industry is heading.

The industry is not heading in the direction of greater quality, it is
heading in the direction of lower cost and greater convenience, which
are not the same thing.

I can see that the same misconceptions are still rampant in
photography circles. Maybe they will never go away.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 4:09:08 AM2/25/06
to
Tropical Treat writes:

> The idea you can drag a film into a digital arena and
> still obtain pictures as good as the digital is flawed with the cost of such
> an effort.

You can "drag" film into the digital realm and obtain images that are
far superior to electronic ("digital") capture. This is especially
true for larger film formats. (Some of the smallest formats yield to
electronic capture, however, although that's not true for 35mm thus
far.)

Film costs a lot more to handle, but that's the price one must pay for
better detail. In large formats, the difference in image quality is
so striking that the greater cost becomes trivial in comparison--if
image quality is what you want.

> This debate rages on when it should by now be dead. Film prints
> using an optical enlarger, are almost beyond comparison with a digital
> print. ALMOST.

Unlike film, optical enlargement is mostly dead and buried, mainly
because extremely high resolution scans can extract more information
from film than an optical enlargement, and can thus provide final
images of better quality than optical enlargement can. Optical
enlargement is better in theory, but that quickly becomes unattainable
in practice.

> Scanning a film to remove this process and imitate a digital
> workflow degrades the film to a level where it is incapable of
> equalling a digital image unless unbelievably expensive scanners,
> operated by highly experienced people are used to scan the film.

This is incorrect. A good desktop scanner will capture an
extraordinary amount of information from a film image. And scanning
doesn't degrade film at all.

> Digital cameras provide a convenient means of obtaining
> very high quality pictures which can be manipulated and enlarged by
> electronic means and printed in our own premises.

The advantages of digital are speed and convenience, not quality.

Digital allows you to get good quality photos more easily and quickly
than you can with film. It does not allow you to get _better_ quality
than film.

> I use a Pentium 4, 3 GHz machine with 2 gig of RAM to process
> 6 to 12 megapixel images with final file sizes as large as
> 460 megabytes, into prints as large as three feet by four feet.

Twelve megapixels in three by four feet? I hope you have a velvet
rope to keep people as far from the prints as possible.

> Why would a person need a dual core computer? Because they are
> new perhaps?

The same reason a person might "need" digital cameras.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 4:12:19 AM2/25/06
to
Randy Berbaum writes:

> Current debate (with no consensus of the answer) is if the current crop
> of DSLRs can "replace" the quality of a 35mm film camera.

It's a difficult debate, since one can really only compare a specific
sensor to a specific film.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 4:12:49 AM2/25/06
to
Tropical Treat writes:

> Clearly you don't know how to enlarge a digital image then.

Enlargement does not add detail where none exists, and will not
improve image quality.

Tropical Treat

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 5:08:23 AM2/25/06
to

"rafe b" <ra...@foobar.com> wrote in message
news:xJGdnTCfi_Rz4mLe...@speakeasy.net...
:
: "Tropical Treat" <no...@4.group> wrote in message

: news:KLKLf.15384$yK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
:
: > Clearly you don't know how to enlarge a digital image then.
: > Start here for your enlightenment: http://www.interpolatethis.com/
:
:
: How much experience do you have working with
: scans of MF film, and printing from these scans?
: What scanner(s) did you use?
:
: I'm not really inclined to argue with you, but I don't
: quite share your faith in software interpolation or
: German optics.
:
-----------------
Lets agree not to argue then, shall we?
I have an opinion based on experience. Perhaps I have enlarged more images
using software interpolation than most people. My experience with MF film
goes back to 1978 when I owned a Photo lab and specialised in creating
contrast masks to print Cibachrome without blown highlights. I too have some
Nikon scanners as well as a few flatbed scanners. I also respect your
knowledge of scanning as being greater than mine. Even today, my MF
experience is using optical enlargers to print conventional photographs.
Scanning to me, is a poor cousin to conventional photographic printing.

Having said that, I own and operate a digital print centre and feed many
framing shops with enlargements from both film, customers photographs and
digital images. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/big.htm The image
behind the 5D has been enlarged to six feet wide (not in this example) using
an algorithm I developed which uses separation of image components before
processing. As you are no doubt aware, the edges of image components are
where sharpness is gained or lost, not in the fill between them.

My process converts lines to vector overlay and uses interpolation to
enlarge the fill between them before laying back the edges in a vector mask.
This process avoids most of the errors created during interpolation which
results in distortion when enlarging past about 15x times normal print size.

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/images/tanga_00502040003.jpg is a 10D
image I enlarged with Genuine Fractals 3.0. It is 24" x 36" and about 2
years old. The print image is well over 100 megabytes in size and highly
detailed. This picture is as clear and sharp as a Cibachrome (Illfochrome)
print made from a 6x7 cm transparency.

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/enlarge44hi.htm is another example of
my enlargements. This time from a 20D and a more advanced algorithm (mine).

Rafe, if you care to start correspondence on these matters, I am quite
prepared to make actual enlarged files available to you for printing
yourself. Gordon Moat got some examples a year or so ago and wrote some
information based on seeing them. http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html
under articles - printing. For all the rest, these examples are all I offer.

There is a troll floating around these groups who seems to think because I
change my screen name every few weeks I've some how committed a crime and
become disreputable. There are those too who expect actual pixel depth
examples of my work so they can dissect it. Maybe even discover something
themselves. All flak in the sky.

This is a news group. Whenever I post news, this parasite on the face of
humanity decides to rise up and defame me. Post lies about me. Threatens to
have be drawn and quartered by Australian authorities and whatever else he
can dream up at the time. This is the freedom of speech we all demand right
up until it happens to someone. Then it's all hands on deck to eradicate the
mongrels. Treat 'em like any other vermin. That's what kill files and
message rules are for.

I'll happily exchange civil discussions with anyone. Get personal and I will
too.

Douglas MacDonald,
Techno Aussie.


Tropical Treat

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 5:36:18 AM2/25/06
to

"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140850669.1...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
:
:
Total rubbish.
There are just as many sites demonstrating exactly the opposite.
Mine is one of them. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/past-mack.htm

Douglas MacDonald


Tropical Treat

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 5:42:09 AM2/25/06
to

"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:dtod6j$j5o$3...@nnrp.gol.com...
:
:
:
Why is it David, you talk down to strangers not knowing if they have
evidence to support their disagreement of your opinions or not? Sort of like
picking a fight with a stranger and discovering later it was a Pro boxer who
hit back so hard.

One day, you might discover what thousands of Photographers around the world
who are ditching their MF gear for peanuts, already know. I have no doubt
printed more 645 photographs in my career than you have ever taken in your
life.


Tropical Treat

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 5:50:56 AM2/25/06
to

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:65700257bponfell8...@4ax.com...

: Tropical Treat writes:
:
: > Clearly you don't know how to enlarge a digital image then.
:
: Enlargement does not add detail where none exists, and will not
: improve image quality.
:
: --
It is possible, you have some credibility to make the statements you have.
How about identifying yourself and telling us your credentials so we can
judge? The real danger in concealing your identity while contradicting
someone who has identified themselves is that you get judged a troll, with
no substantiation of anything.
http://www.mxsmanic.com/proof.html is hardly inspiring evidence of your
knowledge, much less any skills you might (or might not) have. Just another
candidate for the kill files of the world as far as I can see.


David J. Littleboy

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 6:11:28 AM2/25/06
to
"Tropical Treat" <no...@4.group> wrote:

> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> : "Tropical Treat" <no...@4.group> wrote:
> : >
> : > I have to disagree with Rafe's opinion here. 6 megapixel images are
> well
> : > and
> : > truly printable at very high quality in the area of 24"x36", all
> things
> : > being equal.
> :
> : Only physically prevent your viewers from getting within 6 feet of the
> : image.
> :
> : > You have to use dedicated enlargement software but it is well
> : > within the capability of a digicam. The thing which hinders film
> (grain)
> : > does not exist in a pure digital image.
> : >
> : > Images from "digicams" with high quality lenses like the FZ20 and FZ30
> : > Panasonics which use Leica lenses, can be enlarged to this size with
> : > quality
> : > as good as the best 645 cameras and films. Obviously,
> :
> : Obviously, you've never seen a decent print made from 645.
> :
> Why is it David, you talk down to strangers not knowing if they have
> evidence to support their disagreement of your opinions or not?

If someone says something ridiculous, I'll call it as being ridiculous. An
FZ20 image as good as 645? You must be joking.

> Sort of like
> picking a fight with a stranger and discovering later it was a Pro boxer
> who
> hit back so hard.

If you think 6MP is as good as 645, you aren't a pro anything.

> One day, you might discover what thousands of Photographers around the
> world
> who are ditching their MF gear for peanuts, already know.

They know that 6MP is good enough for their needs, they know that getting
the information off a 645 frame is pain and not worth the effort.

>>>>>>>>>>>
I have no doubt
printed more 645 photographs in my career than you have ever taken in your
life.
<<<<<<<<<<<

If you can't make a print from 645 that is far superior to anything 6MP can
dream of, then, as I guessed, you've never seen a decent MF print.

David J. Littleboy
dav...@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 7:11:56 AM2/25/06
to
> There are just as many sites demonstrating exactly the opposite.
>Mine is one of them.
>http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/past-mack.htm

Oh no it isn't. The same problem as usual. If that poster is 20"
high, the area in red should be close to 4.4" when displayed at actual
size. Again, Douglas has displayed it at about 3" instead.

It's a *reduction*, and of course that area was selected as it
contained nice big letters.. That little area would interpolate quite
well...


As a person who is supposedly experienced in enlarging, you would think
he would not make such 'errors'..

scott

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 7:12:45 AM2/25/06
to
> The type of enlargement software you use is irrelevant. You cannot
> create detail where none exists.

True, but it is all to easy to lose detail by simply scaling using
PaintShopPro (or worse your printer). There are dedicated pieces of
software to do a far better job.


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 7:18:11 AM2/25/06
to
>There are just as many sites demonstrating exactly the opposite.
>Mine is one of them.
>http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/past-mack.htm

PS, as if that wasn't enough - note that the image is a montage, and
the 10D image only makes up about 80% of the total height, so there's
another little 'error' to foul the results in his favour....

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 7:25:39 AM2/25/06
to
A few notes (entirely civil) - I invite anyone to check my
calculations/observations and decide for yourself.

>http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/big.htm
Note the image content in the lower poster *carefully*. You can click
on it and get to *this* image...

>http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/enlarge-example.htm
But wait - note carefully how *much* of the original poster is actually
showing in the ''Enlarged example". You will actually see that it is a
large chunk of the image, that must be at least 9" wide if it's a 36x20
(or is it 36x24? - his numbers keep changing!). It has actually been
*reduced*, not enlarged, and yet it still shows quite obvious loss of
sharpness. Look at the overall softness, the lost detail, the
completely unreadable lettering on the boats. The canvas texture
doesn't help, of course.. But beyond all that, remember this is a
*reduction*, not an enlargement! It looks about what I would expect
from a 6Mp image blown up to that size, and isn't very close to what
medium format could deliver.

>The image behind the 5D has been enlarged to six feet wide (not in this example)

At 6 feet wide, you would certainly need to be standing way back! It's
clearly already gone way too far for any sort of reasonable comparison
to MF...

>using an algorithm I developed which uses separation of image components
>before processing.

Yes, the 'algorithm' that has somehow resisted every attempt to be used
on any test image. Because, of course, if we saw the results (even as
a GIF file... (O:) we could reverse engineer it, and Douglas would lose
his fortune. (O:

>As you are no doubt aware, the edges of image components are
>where sharpness is gained or lost, not in the fill between them.

Well, I'm *not* aware of that. 'Real' sharpness, the stuff that 'real'
photographers call resolution, is 'lost' simply by not having enough of
it in the first place. Interpolation does not add real detail.
Enlarging edges by vector scaling (which has been around for years) is
simply a way of getting better *interpolation* - it does NOT add any
resolution whatsoever. No algorithm can increase resolution, and NO
genuine interpolation software vendor claims otherwise. But keep
watching CSI... (O:

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/images/tanga_00502040003.jpg
Only a couple of the left-of-centre gulls seem sharp (kit lens?), and
the specular highlights on the water look strangely 'stretched' and
give the impression of a camera steadiness issue. But that may just be
the excessive sharpening. Highlights on the gulls backs are blown,
although that's not terribly relevant.. (O:

> is a 10D image I enlarged with Genuine Fractals 3.0. It is 24" x 36"..
According to the EXIF it is not GF'd and obviously it isn't a scan of a
print. At 36" across, it would be just 85 ppi. What exactly is he
trying to show?

>The print image is well over 100 megabytes in size and highly detailed.

..so it has more detail than shown? It would need to! But where did
the 'detail', of which you post no evidence, come from? Is it real?
(Of course it isn't. And why didn't Douglas use *his* algorithm?)

>This picture is as clear and sharp as a Cibachrome (Illfochrome) print made from
>a 6x7 cm transparency.

Hmm. If the 6x7 image was as flawed as that image, I guess it would
be. One wonders what sort of 6x7 enlargements he has encountered...
They are obviously not the ones I've seen.

>http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/enlarge44hi.htm is another example of
>my enlargements. This time from a 20D and a more advanced algorithm (mine).

That link shows a small web image and is irrelevant. If you follow the
link to the 'actual size' version, it leads to the same 'enlargement' I
referred to above, that was already shown to be a REDUCED view.
According to his own figures, that crop is actually about 9" wide on
the print, and yet it is being displayed at about 6-7" (on a typical
monitor).

That is *smaller* than the real life print, and yet it still shows
unacceptable resolution (to me, at least..). I repeat, it is not an
enlargement. Douglas has made this same 'error' (in his favour,
coincidentally) every time he has posted similar detail 'crops'. And
someone has pointed it out *every* time, but he hasn't learnt yet. See
his other post on this same thread about this page:

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/past-mack.htm

He has done it again. The 'enlargement' is a reduction... Draw your
own conclusions.

rafe b

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 7:44:58 AM2/25/06
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:59:30 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:


>Twelve megapixels has a hard time competing even with 35mm, much less
>larger formats.


Looks like TT has drawn our favorite idiot out
of the woodwork. Irrational nutcakes in
both corners now.

Mxsmaniac is probably one of three people on
the planet who doesn't agree that even the
old 1Ds blows 35mm right out of the water.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

David J. Littleboy

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 7:52:54 AM2/25/06
to
<mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That is *smaller* than the real life print, and yet it still shows
> unacceptable resolution (to me, at least..). I repeat, it is not an
> enlargement. Douglas has made this same 'error' (in his favour,
> coincidentally) every time he has posted similar detail 'crops'. And
> someone has pointed it out *every* time, but he hasn't learnt yet. See
> his other post on this same thread about this page:

Sheesh, am I slow. I though this "Tropical Treat" bloke was some new loser
on the scene, whereas he's just the same-ol same-ol Doug with his inane
claims.

rafe b

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 8:05:39 AM2/25/06
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:08:23 GMT, "Tropical Treat" <no...@4.group>
wrote:


>Scanning to me, is a poor cousin to conventional photographic printing.

<snip>

>Rafe, if you care to start correspondence on these matters, I am quite
>prepared to make actual enlarged files available to you for printing
>yourself.


Not necessary, Douglas, but thanks for the
offer.

My wet-darkroom experience is limited to BW
and some Ciba prints, in a home darkroom,
using an Omega B22XL, printing no larger
than 11x17".

I can tell you in all candor that prints
created by either film scans or the Canon
10D easily compete with, and generally
surpass those old "wet" prints.

As for film scan vs. digital capture, from
what I've seen, I'll give digital capture
a 3:1 or even a 5:1 numerical advantage
compared to film scan -- depending on the
circumstances.

Eg., I'm ready to "grant" an equivalence
betweeen 11 Mpix (from a Canon 1Ds) and 55
Mpix from Nikon-scanned 645 film @4000 dpi.

I'm also ready to grant an equivalence
between 6 Mpix (from a Canon 10D) and 20
Mpix from Nikon-scanned 35mm film, again
at 4000 dpi.

But in NO way would I grant you that same
equivalence if those 8 million pixels are
taken from from a 7.18 x 5.32 mm sensor
(as in your FZ 30) You've got to be joking.

And anyone that banks heavily on software
interpolation is either a fool or a
charlatan, in my book. Sorry, that's
just the way I see it.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 8:12:59 AM2/25/06
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:09:08 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:


>The advantages of digital are speed and convenience, not quality.
>
>Digital allows you to get good quality photos more easily and quickly
>than you can with film. It does not allow you to get _better_ quality
>than film.


If we're talking about the 35 mm and smaller
formats, you are quite wrong.

It would take extraordinary effort, equipment,
and technique to match with 35mm film what
a casual user can accomplish with a 20D and
a Canon L lens.

The proof is in the market. No new film
SLRs announce last year. Nikon and Minolta
ceasing production of all or most of their
film SLR lines; Canon curtailing theirs.

How much more proof do you need?


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Scott W

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 9:37:50 AM2/25/06
to
Tropical Treat wrote:
> http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/enlarge44hi.htm is another
example of
> my enlargements. This time from a 20D and a more advanced algorithm (mine).

> Douglas MacDonald,
> Techno Aussie.

I thought you made a big deal a few weeks back of giving up on digital
photography and going back to film, what happened?

Scott

Sarah Brown

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 10:30:05 AM2/25/06
to
In article <85k002tb4j7535a2d...@4ax.com>,

If the question is entirely one of extinction resolution, you can probably
still get a higher number from a 35mm transparency than from, say, a 12
megapixel 5D. That's an entirely different statement to "Twelve megapixels
has a hard time competing even with 35mm", though - extinction resolution
has very little to say about image quality, and there there the >10
megapixel DSLRs are more favourably compared with 645 than 35mm, IME.

rafe b

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 11:11:36 AM2/25/06
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:30:05 GMT, Sarah Brown
<sarah...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:


>If the question is entirely one of extinction resolution, you can probably
>still get a higher number from a 35mm transparency than from, say, a 12
>megapixel 5D. That's an entirely different statement to "Twelve megapixels
>has a hard time competing even with 35mm", though - extinction resolution
>has very little to say about image quality, and there there the >10
>megapixel DSLRs are more favourably compared with 645 than 35mm, IME.


Some (most?) of us who've worked with both
film scans and digital capture would agree.

Yes, ultimately, one can make out more detail
in the scanned film, but much of it will be
buried in noise.

I think Roger Clark nails it as well as anyone
with his notion of "Apparent Image Quality."

<http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 11:21:21 AM2/25/06
to
mark.t...@gmail.com wrote:

> No algorithm can increase resolution, and NO
> genuine interpolation software vendor claims otherwise.

This is not quite correct. You can increase resolution at the
expense of noise and some artifacts. It helps to have a model
of the point spread function, and then use one of numerous
algorithms like Adaptive Richardson-Lucy on a single image to
improve resolution. With multiple images,
each slightly offset, one also can combine them and improve
resolution (called super resolution and was done on the
Mars lander images).

Here is my article on Adaptive Richardson-Lucy:

Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1

On a high signal-to-noise digital camera image one can gain
up to about a factor of 2 in resolution, and by stacking
multiple images, a factor of 3 is possible, e.g.

Saturn with a Telephoto Lens
http://www.clarkvision.com/astro/saturn.03.02.2004

This ability forms part of my Apparent Image Quality index:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
(scroll down to Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) a little over half
way down the page). The AIQ is relevant to the MF versus Mpix
discussion.

Roger

mick

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 11:35:37 AM2/25/06
to
I've been resesarching this issue and finally bought a Panasonic FZ30
(8mp) for $490 at Beachcamera.com (after researching retailers at
resellerratings.com & product reviews at dpreviews.com and elsewhere).
It arrived in 4 business days. One thing that finally put me over from
film was an article comparing digital to 6x7; it was very informative.
It at Luminous-landscape.com and is titled "The Ultimate Shoot-out."
(If the following links don't work, go to luminous-landscape and look
under "refiews" for The Ultimate Shootout. Be prepared to have all your
preconceptions seriously tested.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
or: http://tinyurl.com/6t5k

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 12:37:16 PM2/25/06
to
Tropical Treat writes:

> One day, you might discover what thousands of Photographers around the world
> who are ditching their MF gear for peanuts, already know.

... which is that speed and convenience are more important to many
photographers (and their clients) than quality. If you don't need the
absolute best quality, there's no reason to shoot film.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 12:37:59 PM2/25/06
to
scott writes:

> True, but it is all to easy to lose detail by simply scaling using
> PaintShopPro (or worse your printer). There are dedicated pieces of
> software to do a far better job.

It's extremely unlikely that you'll lose any significant detail by
upscaling an image.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 12:38:53 PM2/25/06
to
rafe b writes:

> Yes, ultimately, one can make out more detail
> in the scanned film, but much of it will be
> buried in noise.

If you can make it out, it's not buried.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 12:41:21 PM2/25/06
to
Tropical Treat writes:

> http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/images/tanga_00502040003.jpg is a 10D
> image I enlarged with Genuine Fractals 3.0. It is 24" x 36" and about 2
> years old. The print image is well over 100 megabytes in size and highly
> detailed. This picture is as clear and sharp as a Cibachrome (Illfochrome)
> print made from a 6x7 cm transparency.

How many pixels did the original digital image have?

> Rafe, if you care to start correspondence on these matters, I am quite
> prepared to make actual enlarged files available to you for printing
> yourself. Gordon Moat got some examples a year or so ago and wrote some
> information based on seeing them. http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html
> under articles - printing. For all the rest, these examples are all I offer.

It's an unavoidable mathematical certainty that you cannot create
detail where none already exists. No matter how complex or wonderful
your interpolation might be, it cannot produce enlargements from
images containing x pixels that contain as much detail as images
containing x+y pixels. It's a mathematical impossibility.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 12:43:48 PM2/25/06
to
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) writes:

> This is not quite correct. You can increase resolution at the
> expense of noise and some artifacts.

Let's be more specific, then: you cannot create detail from the
original scene that was not captured originally when the scene was
photographed.

> With multiple images,
> each slightly offset, one also can combine them and improve
> resolution (called super resolution and was done on the
> Mars lander images).

Multiple images provide more captured detail. No mystery there.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 12:45:35 PM2/25/06
to
Tropical Treat writes:

> It is possible, you have some credibility to make the statements you have.
> How about identifying yourself and telling us your credentials so we can
> judge?

Never rely on credentials; do your own research. I'm confident that
you will discover that I'm right (since I have already done the
research myself).

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 12:47:53 PM2/25/06
to
rafe b writes:

> If we're talking about the 35 mm and smaller
> formats, you are quite wrong.

I'm talking about photography in general, but I don't exclude 35mm.

> It would take extraordinary effort, equipment,
> and technique to match with 35mm film what
> a casual user can accomplish with a 20D and
> a Canon L lens.

I don't think so. Film is more trouble, but it has more headroom as
well.

> The proof is in the market. No new film
> SLRs announce last year. Nikon and Minolta
> ceasing production of all or most of their
> film SLR lines; Canon curtailing theirs.

The market has nothing to do with this. This is the same market that
chose VHS over Betamax and encouraged Intel to abandon a new and
better microprocessor architecture for an inferior existing
architecture just so that it could hike clock speeds.

Market share and success is not necessarily correlated with technical
excellence, because most people aren't shopping for technical
excellence.

Mxsmanic

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 12:48:31 PM2/25/06
to
mick writes:

> One thing that finally put me over from
> film was an article comparing digital to 6x7; it was very informative.
> It at Luminous-landscape.com and is titled "The Ultimate Shoot-out."

Ah, Luminous Landscape claims another victim.

Bill Funk

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 1:50:47 PM2/25/06
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:48:31 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>mick writes:
>
>> One thing that finally put me over from
>> film was an article comparing digital to 6x7; it was very informative.
>> It at Luminous-landscape.com and is titled "The Ultimate Shoot-out."
>
>Ah, Luminous Landscape claims another victim.

For those of us who are more end-result oriented, as opposed to being
into theoretical discussions, can you give some sort of explanation as
to what you mean?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 2:18:06 PM2/25/06
to
Mxsmanic wrote:

> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) writes:
>
>>This is not quite correct. You can increase resolution at the
>>expense of noise and some artifacts.
>
> Let's be more specific, then: you cannot create detail from the
> original scene that was not captured originally when the scene was
> photographed.

In a sense, yes. But the detail is "hidden" in the point
spread function. Knowing (or reasonably guessing) at the
point spread function, you can recover some of that previously
"hidden" detail. But in that recovery, you amplify noise.
So the trick is to record enough signal to noise in order to
have some to spare for the deconvolution process.

Roger

Skip M

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 2:26:41 PM2/25/06
to
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:dtpjvb$1nt$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
Yup, thus my non participation in this thread. Dougie drew people in with
what seemed to be a sincere but inane question. His immediate reply that
any digital of mediocre quality equals MF film clued me in. He's off on
that interpolation software trail, again.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


Skip M

unread,
Feb 25, 2006, 2:29:54 PM2/25/06