Scanner vs digital camera
Luciano Degreef
digital camera? I am looking for some digital solution that lets me be
flexible in different environments. I personally think that the film+scanner
combination is the best approach since I can benefit from different
emulsions (B&W, color, chrome, ASA range, grain, ASA, etc.) and yet
digitally manage the picture, but I am not really sure about that since I'm
totally new to the photography world.
Thanx!
Luke Degreef
Gary Eickmeier
It's just a lot of work to scan all those negs and slides.
Gary Eickmeier
Tumbleweed
news:a8qg82$uc9v2$1...@ID-130716.news.dfncis.de...
Depends entirely how you work. What you'd miss from straight forward digital
is immediate feedback, plus you'd have a lot more cost, or less flexibiliy,i
need to use up a 36 exp slide film before doing the B&W, etc. .
--
Tumbleweed
Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)
HRosita
>Hi guys! What do you think is best, use films and scan them or just use a
>> digital camera? I am looking for some digital solution that lets me be
>> flexible in different environments. I personally think that the
>film+scanner
>> combination is the best approach since I can benefit from different
>> emulsions (B&W, color, chrome, ASA range, grain, ASA, etc.) and yet
>> digitally manage the picture, but I am not really sure about that since
>I'm
>> totally new to the photography world.
>>
Since you are new to the photography world it is hard to give you advice. The
digital camera will do almost everything the 35mm camera will do the difference
is that film has better resolution but the day to day cost is quite high.
Digital camera is "immediate feedback", you can do B&W, Color and Infra Red
without switching film and you can erase your mistakes.
Another advantage of digital is that you can manipulate the pictures without
having to scan them first, you can view them on TV, Monitor and/or projector
where you do not need as high a resolution.
The trend is toward digital and better cameras come out every 6 months.
If money is no object, I would buy a Canon d-60 and a good lens. This way if
you don't like digital you can buy a Canon 35mm and use the lens.
Rosita
(Pete Cresswell)
I've got both.
Got the digital camera first, then realized I'd like to get a lot of
old pics into digital so I bought a scanner.
Personally, I'm going back to film for some applications. Don't take
this to indicate that I'm much of a photographer - I don't even think
I qualify as a hobbyist....but I do take more than my share of pics.
The good part about digital is zero film cost. You can just go nuts
taking pics and you get instant feedback as to what works and what
does not. At family gatherings, I pass the digital camera around
and let other people take the pics. They get to play with an
interesting toy and I get a lot of photos to choose "keepers" from.
A few downsides I see in digital are:
1) Forget action photos unless you want to spend big bucks on a
professional-grade SLR back.
2) Forget about 'shoot from the hip' type photography. You have to
turn the thing on, wait for it's little system to come up, *then* you
get to take a picture (assuming, of course, that you don't need to
step through 2-3 levels of menus to get the setting(s) you want...)
3) A digital camera that takes the kind of pics I like is hardly
'disposable'. If it were lost, stolen, or dropped overboard I would
not be happy. OTOH, the most el-cheapo 35mm throwaway camera you can
buy takes pix that are probably as good or better than anything I can
come up with from my 3mp CP 950.
4) If you travel, dealing with the accumulated pictures is an issue.
There have been numerous threads in this NG on that. With film, you
just mail the exposed rolls into the processor, who develops, prints
and sends everything to your home address where it is waiting for you
when you get back. OTOH, with digital you get to see what you're
taking. Last time I went somewhere I took my CP950 and a Digital
Wallet and it worked for me.
A downside to the scanner approach is that the thing I have will
probably be irrelevant in a few years because of progress in digital
cameras. OTOH, my $800 CP 950 camera will probably be almost as
obosolete too and at least the scanner had a lot of use getting all
our old family photos together...
-----------------------
Pete Cresswell
Ted Edwards
I really like the imediacy of a digital camera. Take some shots, put
the card in the PCMCIA adapter in the laptop and have a look. Seconds
not hours or days to see results.
Ted
J. Clarke
lade...@yahoo.com says...
Really depends on what kind of photography you do. If you're mainly
shooting for web pages or the like then digital is the obvious choice.
OTOH, if you need fast lenses and high film speed digital gets expensive
fast.
If your purpose is learning photography there are two schools of
thought--one is that the immediate feedback from digital lets you learn
faster, while the other is that film requires that you think more about
what you're doing and plan more carefully, which means that you are
forced to learn. Which is best for you depends on your particular
learning style.
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Hale Sweeny
"HRosita" <hro...@aol.comnet> wrote
> Digital camera is "immediate feedback", you can do B&W, Color and Infra
Red
> without switching film and you can erase your mistakes.
Rosita:
Being a rank amateur, I'd like to know ho to take InfraRed pictures with my
digital camera. How do I do it?
hale
Hale Sweeny
Durham, NC
ha...@mindspring.com
Andrew D
<lade...@yahoo.com> wrote:
+Hi guys! What do you think is best, use films and scan them or just use a
+digital camera? I am looking for some digital solution that lets me be
+flexible in different environments. I personally think that the film+scanner
+combination is the best approach since I can benefit from different
+emulsions (B&W, color, chrome, ASA range, grain, ASA, etc.) and yet
+digitally manage the picture, but I am not really sure about that since I'm
+totally new to the photography world.
Depends on your purpose.
I am a landscape/seascape artist (some of the time anyway) and can go
through an awful lot of film for just a few useful photos (waves have a
tendency not to co-operate with me and my camera). I can go through three
rolls of film in a couple of hours at the beach and ALL the photos have to
be processed, regardless of how good they are.
I also find that photo-prints often look nothing like the original subject
(too dark, too light, too...) though I have found that scanning the
negative (AGFA Duoscan T1200 with holder trays) can deliver a very
satisfying result.
I'm considering a digital camera for three main reasons:
1: The preview gives a fair indication of the final image (light, dark
etc...) so adjustments can be made before the picture is taken and there's
no mini-lab machine making arbitrary decisions on what part of the image
is important (slide film also solves this latter problem).
2: If something moves/changes as the sutter is pressed (like breaking
waves), the picture can be deleted there and then. Or, I can just take a
heap of variations of one subject then just delete the ones I don't want.
3: I don't have to wait while the images are processed.
The thing that's holding me back is the "price versus image quality"
factor. Here in Oz, a 2MP camera with decent optical zoom (and don't be
fooled by "digital zoom", it's a pointless feature) will set you back
around $1000 PLUS accessories (batteries, charger, media card etc...).
It's a big decision since I already have a very good SLR with a bunch of
lenses and filters and the ability to scan negs and slides and I'm not
convinced about the long-term viability or image quality of today's
digital cameras.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Bill Lawless
already have a lot invested in cameras , equipment etc. If you
are starting from scratch and can afford high end digital cameras
(4.1 meg or greater) and are willing to see them become obsolete
:-) in a hurry ( 12 months) go digital. Your camera is sort of a
down payment to the field . Expect to double the camera cost in
accessories etc.
Processing costs drop quickly in digital if you shoot a lot of
images to get a few really good end result pictures in printed
form. The future is digital, but film will be used for another
decade at least.
"Luciano Degreef" <lade...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8qg82$uc9v2$1...@ID-130716.news.dfncis.de...
> Hi guys! What do you think is best, use films and scan them or
just use a
> digital camera?
> totally new to the photography world.
>
> Thanx!
>
> Luke Degreef
>
>
>
UrbanVoyeur
things:
(1) www.luminous-landscape.com Read what he has to say & see what he has to
show.
(2) run a google search on this group looking for digital vs film and
scanner vs digital.
Otherwise, we will all just re-hash the last discussion loop, and I , for
one, will be reduced to tears.
J
"Luciano Degreef" <lade...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8qg82$uc9v2$1...@ID-130716.news.dfncis.de...
Ken Hada
pictures that are too hot in certain areas. Any way to compensate without
setting up my light system?
Ken
k...@shootthemoon.com
--
http://www.shootthemoon.com
"adversity introduces us to our true self"
Barry Pearson
news:a8qg82$uc9v2$1...@ID-130716.news.dfncis.de...
The eternal discussion here!
It depends both on what you want to use them for, and what you already have in
your possession. (Not a lot from the sound of it).
I have 10s of 1000s of slides already, so buying a scanner was inevitable when I
decided to give my wet darkroom away.
I give slide shows, so using slide film is currently a pretty good option.
I print at up to 19" x 13", and digital cameras are struggling somewhat at this
level.
They cancelled the digital camera that would have taken my current lenses.
But I monitor the development of digital cameras & projectors and their prices,
and at some point I will inevitably add at least a digital camera body, and
probably a digital projector too. And it will fit straight into a fully working
digital darkroom, so I will hit the ground running.
Everyone has a different point on the development/price graph, and the trick is
to identify what yours is, and how it differs from everyone else's who are
giving you advice. I am held back a bit by what I already have, but having a
scanner gives me the luxury of time. You need to ask yourself whether buying a
film camera would give you sufficient advantage now, or whether it would make
the (probably inevitable) change harder later.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
MarkW
"Bill Lawless" <wlaw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lm9s8.35054$l7.36...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> I believe that the film and film scanner is best now if you
> already have a lot invested in cameras , equipment etc. If you
> are starting from scratch and can afford high end digital cameras
> (4.1 meg or greater) and are willing to see them become obsolete
> :-) in a hurry ( 12 months) go digital. Your camera is sort of a
> down payment to the field . Expect to double the camera cost in
> accessories etc.
This is a common but strange argument. The digital you buy today will not stop
taking pictures as good as the day you bought it -- regardless of whether
something better comes out (and, yes, something better will come out). The fact
that digital technology is advancing rapidly while film technology is advancing
slowly or not at all shouldn't be counted as a reason to go with *film* ;)
The only case where you'll spend anything like double the camera cost is if you go
with a high-end digital SLR -- in which case the lenses you buy will still be
usable with the next generation of digital bodies from the same vendor.
I'm in the process of scanning years of old negatives with a 2700 dpi scanner (an
Acer Scanwit 2720S). The scanner can produce 9MP images compared to 3MP from my
digital camera. But I prefer the images from my digital camera. The scanner's
images are noisier and, as for detail, the scanner is revealing that the
resolution of compact 35mm cameras just ain't that great. In fact, I stopped
using the full 2700dpi -- there seems to be little or no benefit to outweight the
extra-large file sizes.
And I haven't even mentioned what a PITA negative scanning is -- loading,
unloading, scanning, repairing the inevitable dust and scratches. I'll be so glad
when the project is over and I can pack the boxes of negatives and 4x6 prints away
for good.
Mark
HRosita
>Being a rank amateur, I'd like to know ho to take InfraRed pictures with my
>digital camera. How do I do it?
Not knowing what camera you have I can only suggest you check the manual for
instructions or search Google Groups for past postings on the newsgroups.
Rosita
Boo
>Since you are new to the photography world it is hard to give you advice. The
>digital camera will do almost everything the 35mm camera will do the difference
>is that film has better resolution but the day to day cost is quite high.
>
is true that 35mm film can demonstrate high "resolution" in terms of
film grain size vs. pixellation effects, the power of 35mm color film
to actually resolve fine detail is severely limited by its inherent
construction that uses stepped layers (emulsion thickness). I'd like
very much to see a side-by-side detail blowup of identical test
targets shot with a 5 megapixel vs 35mm done with any color film.
Charlie Ih
DC. Panorama is the less mentioned advantages of DC. Another bonus of DC
is the short moive clips. Even you have only 2 MP camera, when you stitch
5 or more scenes, you can have a 5,600x1,400=7.84 MP picture (you may need
a tripod to achieve this). I did one for the Memdenhall Glacier in Alska by
free hand (I believe using 6 scenes) covering about 150 deg. The result
is quite impressive. I don't know how you can do it with a consumer
film camera. Unless you are looking very carefully and know where
are the seams, they are almost non-detectable. The broken wave
seascape is a different story. You can do pretty good with "calm"
or distant seas. Good luck and have fun.
In article <right-08040...@i161-089.nv.iinet.net.au>,
--
Charles S. Ih
302-831-8173, FAX 302-831-4316
e-mail, i...@mail.eecis.udel.edu
(Pete Cresswell)
>I'm in the process of scanning years of old negatives with a 2700 dpi scanner (an
>Acer Scanwit 2720S). The scanner can produce 9MP images compared to 3MP from my
>digital camera. But I prefer the images from my digital camera. The scanner's
>images are noisier and, as for detail, the scanner is revealing that the
>resolution of compact 35mm cameras just ain't that great. In fact, I stopped
>using the full 2700dpi -- there seems to be little or no benefit to outweight the
>extra-large file sizes.
>
>And I haven't even mentioned what a PITA negative scanning is -- loading,
>unloading, scanning, repairing the inevitable dust and scratches. I'll be so glad
>when the project is over and I can pack the boxes of negatives and 4x6 prints away
>for good.
The quality issue may reflect the scanner. I'm going throught he
same situation, but with a Nikon CP 4000. For me, there's just no
comparison between the quality of my scanned images and what my CP 950
puts out: the scanned imagesd win hands down once you start zooming
on the image.
The comment aoubt the PITA factor in repairing makes me appreciate the
4000's infrared cleaning. I tried using Nikon Scan instead of
VueScan briefly; couldn't figure out how to get Digital ICE working in
Nikon Scan and the output was pitiful: littered with dust. OTOH
under ViewScan/Infrared Cleaning the output is consistantly clean.
-----------------------
Pete Cresswell
Ed Bigelow
is not the best way to make a panorama.
Besides it is very easy to stitch images scanned from film shot to be a
panorama, so this isn't really a digital "advantage".
Taking good seascapes with high waves is more a product of waiting for the
waves to be in "similar" wave sets, and timing, and using cylindrical stitch
instead of spherical.
"Charlie Ih" <i...@duck.ee.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:a8scpa$qsp$1...@dewey.udel.edu...
Dave Martindale
>The term "resolution" when applied to film is controversial. While it
>is true that 35mm film can demonstrate high "resolution" in terms of
>film grain size vs. pixellation effects, the power of 35mm color film
>to actually resolve fine detail is severely limited by its inherent
>construction that uses stepped layers (emulsion thickness).
But the discrete pixel cells of CCD and CMOS sensors provide a very
hard upper limit on their resolution.
>I'd like
>very much to see a side-by-side detail blowup of identical test
>targets shot with a 5 megapixel vs 35mm done with any color film.
Dpreview has resolution test targets shot with each digicam they review.
If you look in photography magazines doing camera tests, you can sometimes
see lens resolution tests shot on film. Plus, film manufacturer's data
sheets either quote resolution figures, or give MTF curves which show the
highest useful resolution.
But let's just take a quick look at the numbers. Dpreview has just
reviewed the Canon D60, a 6 Mpixel camera (3072x2048 pixels). Shots of
a test chart show it resolving up to 1600 lines per picture height
(this is dpreview's judgement - I'd call it 1400 looking at the image).
At this scale, that's 3 pixels per line pair, which is pretty good for
any real digital imaging system. Some digicams only manage to resolve
about 4 pixels per line pair.
Now, these lines are "TV lines", where both white and black lines are
counted separately. You need to be careful comparing that to photographic
resolution, where "lines" always means "line pairs", counting both white
and black together. So the D60 1600 line resolution is 800 line pairs
per picture height. For 35 mm film, 33 lp/mm gives 800 line pairs per
picture height (24 mm high). Even pretty crummy lenses will resolve
33 lp/mm, with half-decent ones resolving twice that and really good
ones resolving 3 times that (100 lp/mm) or more. Most any colour negative
film will resolve 80 or 100 lp/mm at high contrast.
So in terms of actual resolution of fine detail, one of the best 6 Mpixel
digital cameras that has just been introduced is not quite as capable as
the cheapest 35 SLR with a crummy zoom lens, and nowhere close to any
35 SLR with a really good lens. A *good* 35 point&shoot camera is also
likely to have higher resolution than any 6 Mpixel digicam, though lots
of P&S cameras have crummy zoom lenses.
On the other hand, resolution is only one factor in image quality.
Contrast is very important too, and the very different MTF curves of
digital and film cameras mean a digital camera image can *look* sharper
while actually having only half the resolution of a film image.
Dave
MarkW
"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:2te3bu4p0gkru3ohq...@4ax.com...
>
> The quality issue may reflect the scanner. I'm going throught he
> same situation, but with a Nikon CP 4000. For me, there's just no
> comparison between the quality of my scanned images and what my CP 950
> puts out: the scanned imagesd win hands down once you start zooming
> on the image.
>
It may be the scanner, but it's not the case that *all* of the images appear soft.
Perfectly exposed shots in bright outdoor light do seem to 'make better use' of
the full scanner resolution -- OTOH, in those cases where detail seems below the
scanner res, if I go back to the print, I can usually also tell that, in fact, it
really wasn't tack sharp -- but that's not something you notice as easily with the
naked eye in a 4x6 print as you do when the image is zoomed and blown up on a 19"
monitor.
> The comment aoubt the PITA factor in repairing makes me appreciate the
> 4000's infrared cleaning. I tried using Nikon Scan instead of
> VueScan briefly; couldn't figure out how to get Digital ICE working in
> Nikon Scan and the output was pitiful: littered with dust. OTOH
> under ViewScan/Infrared Cleaning the output is consistantly clean.
I considered a digital ICE model briefly, but besides the cost, there was also the
speed reduction (I saw comments to the effect that scanning took 2x as long with
the digital ICE turned on). It's a slow enough process as it is ;)
Mark
(Pete Cresswell)
>I considered a digital ICE model briefly, but besides the cost, there was also the
>speed reduction (I saw comments to the effect that scanning took 2x as long with
>the digital ICE turned on). It's a slow enough process as it is ;)
I'm running 8-9 minutes per slide (when the autofeeder doesn't
jam...). Two passes, medium cleaning, no grain reduction.
If the lost time due to jams were averaged in, it would be quite a bit
more.
-----------------------
Pete Cresswell
Tom
"Boo" <Boo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ar93bucllg9v7068t...@4ax.com...
> The term "resolution" when applied to film is controversial. While it
> is true that 35mm film can demonstrate high "resolution" in terms of
> film grain size vs. pixellation effects, the power of 35mm color film
> to actually resolve fine detail is severely limited by its inherent
> construction that uses stepped layers (emulsion thickness). I'd like
> very much to see a side-by-side detail blowup of identical test
> targets shot with a 5 megapixel vs 35mm done with any color film.
>
How about side by side with a Canon D30?
Go here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
Experiment was run against Provia 100F, a film I like a lot.
Interesting?
Tom
Andrew D
<wea...@corvusdev-nospam.com> wrote:
+"Bill Lawless" <wlaw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
+news:lm9s8.35054$l7.36...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
+> I believe that the film and film scanner is best now if you
+> already have a lot invested in cameras , equipment etc. If you
+> are starting from scratch and can afford high end digital cameras
+> (4.1 meg or greater) and are willing to see them become obsolete
+> :-) in a hurry ( 12 months) go digital. Your camera is sort of a
+> down payment to the field . Expect to double the camera cost in
+> accessories etc.
+
+This is a common but strange argument. The digital you buy today will not stop
+taking pictures as good as the day you bought it -- regardless of whether
+something better comes out (and, yes, something better will come out).
The fact
+that digital technology is advancing rapidly while film technology is advancing
+slowly or not at all shouldn't be counted as a reason to go with *film* ;)
+The only case where you'll spend anything like double the camera cost is
if you go
+with a high-end digital SLR -- in which case the lenses you buy will still be
+usable with the next generation of digital bodies from the same vendor.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Compatibility and digital technology
don't often travel together. (Hands up all those Mac users with a bunch of
scsi devices and a new USB based Mac?)
Andy.
Boo
superior to Provia film. Will that put to an end to all the
controversy? --didn't think so...
On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:42:53 GMT, "Tom" <seaskate(put@here)attbi.com>
wrote:
UrbanVoyeur
http://www.pytlowany.com/ED4000_pg_4.html
Works very well for me. Though, fortunately, I recently changed labs, and
the new lab plastic mounts, so its only a problem with old slides.
J
"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:k9a4bu4gpt41r2m39...@4ax.com...
MarkW
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message news:right-
>
> +The only case where you'll spend anything like double the camera cost is
> if you go
> +with a high-end digital SLR -- in which case the lenses you buy will still be
> +usable with the next generation of digital bodies from the same vendor.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure about that. Compatibility and digital technology
> don't often travel together. (Hands up all those Mac users with a bunch of
> scsi devices and a new USB based Mac?)
>
Nothing's 100% certain, of course, but you can already share lenses between
digital and film SLRs of the same brands (albeit with a multiplier), so sharing
between generation of digital bodies seems a reasonably good bet. So I don't
think that, in this case, the analogy between computers and cameras is all that
useful.
Mark
MarkW
Ouch. I don't know exactly how long I'm spending per frame, but I know it's a lot
less than that. I've had the scanner a couple of weeks and have done 34 rolls or
about 750 total images. At 9 minutes a slide, that'd be over 100 hours, and I
haven't spent anywhere near *that* much time.
I do have a couple of computers and a keyboard controlled switchbox, so I can get
a lot of other stuff done will scanning (e.g. load the negative carrier, start
the scan, switch back to the alternate machine and repeat the process in a few
minutes).
Some of the pictures require a bit of dust clean-up. Very few have scratches,
though. Most of the film I've done so far was protected by those stick-on plastic
strips (which have done a good job but have to be peeled off before loading the
strip into the carrier). The 'Neat Image' noise reduction is done overnight with
Max Lyons' handy 'Neat Batch' so that doesn't really require more of my time.
Mark
(Pete Cresswell)
>Are you using the LS-4000 w/SF 200? if so there is a fix for the jams.
>
>http://www.pytlowany.com/ED4000_pg_4.html
>
>Works very well for me. Though, fortunately, I recently changed labs, and
>the new lab plastic mounts, so its only a problem with old slides.
I've got that one in place already - except that I used rubber cement
to hold the card in place so I could make fine adjustments while it
was hardening.
My 'jams' now appear to be in two categories:
1) On the output side as the slide is ejected it somehow hangs up
2) I'll come back to find ViewScan essentially hung and no slide at
all in the slide path. This is probably not technically a "jam",
although it might be depending on why ViewScan is in
never-neverland...
-----------------------
Pete Cresswell
Mxsmanic
opAs8.294178$Gf.27...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> So I don't think that, in this case, the
> analogy between computers and cameras is
> all that useful.
Wait and see. Manufacturers are salivating at the prospect of being able to
compel photographers to buy new camera bodies every 12-18 months, instead of
every 20-30 years. Most photographers don't have enough experience with the
computer world to realize exactly what is heading their way, and by the time
they find out, it will be too late.
Don Stauffer
of practice. It is a MEASURED quantity, based on actually photographing
bar charts or sine wave bar patterns. It is not the least
controversial. There are well defined standards and procedures for
doing it.
Actually, the same is true for digital cameras (an ISO standard exists)
but no one seems to use the standard, so it seems to me that digital
camera resolution is a far more controversial topic. Some merely give
the number of pixels as the resolution. This is not comparible to a
film resolution, which is based on actual tests (as does, for that
matter, the ISO resolution test of digital cams).
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
bj...@scn.org
> I am trying to photograph some jewelry and at times notice my 995 making
> pictures that are too hot in certain areas. Any way to compensate without
> setting up my light system?
Try low contrast mode.
Dave Martindale
>The conclusion was that the D30 result was in nearly every way
>superior to Provia film. Will that put to an end to all the
>controversy? --didn't think so...
No, because other people have come to quite different conclusions.
See RNClark's pages, for example, for the opposite opinion about film
vs. digital resolution.
All we can really conclude from the luminous-landscape pages is that
for that particular photographer, given the way he works and the cameras
and lenses and film he uses, the D30 is better than film. But the answer
applies only to that set of circumstances.
In particular, the LL test involved scanning the film on just one
film scanner, which the photographer *asserts* is very good, but without
comparison to others.
The sharpening was done by an automated action in Photoshop, and we
have no way of knowing if that was optimum for the two images, or if
it's what we'd do. (CCD and scanned film images are almost certain to
require *different* sharpening parameters, and it wouldn't be
surprising if an automated procedure works better for one type of
images than the other.
Printing was done by inkjet, and the author asserts that this is better
than wet printing.
The digital camera, of course, produced smaller images than the scanned
film. The photographer used Genuine Fractals to create more pixels for
making large prints from the digital image, which apparently works well
for his images. Will it work well for yours?
I think it's impressive that he got the results he did, but I wouldn't
assume that they applied to my photography at all. I'd shoot my own tests.
Dave
Tom
"Dave Martindale" <da...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:a8vh0o$ane$1...@lily.cs.ubc.ca...
<SNIP>
> I think it's impressive that he got the results he did, but I wouldn't
> assume that they applied to my photography at all. I'd shoot my own
tests.
>
> Dave
There's the key.
Tom
Boo
<stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>Film resolution testing is a well established art, with nearly a century
>of practice. It is a MEASURED quantity, based on actually photographing
>bar charts or sine wave bar patterns. It is not the least
>controversial. There are well defined standards and procedures for
>doing it.
>
That's all true (except for the "not the least controversial" part),
but as far as I know lens tests done in accordance with NBS test
charts are generally done with very fine-grain thin layer B&W film,
not multi-layered color stock. They are also done using green
monochromatic light, so as to provide a standard by which the
resolution numbers can be compared - otherwise it's anyone's guess,
depending on which dye layer the lens was focused on, and what type of
light illuminated the target. It seems reasonable that separate
exposures to target the specific dye layers would be needed, and if
this is the case, the actual results obtained in normal photography
would be uncertain at best. It is well known that the potential
resolution of 35mm color film is compromised by the emulsion
thickness, and if you are aware of specific standards used for testing
lenses in conjunction with color film, please share.
Boo
--
>I think it's impressive that he got the results he did, but I wouldn't
>assume that they applied to my photography at all. I'd shoot my own tests.
>
> Dave
You may have to (good idea) - the photo magazines etc. certainly
aren't of much help here. One thing that impressed me was that at
least in this instance the D30 beat out Provia, and this is using a
100-400 zoom, certainly not the sharpest of lenses, and also with a
three megapixel camera. If one were to reshoot this scene with a D60
having twice the pixels, and with a high-res prime focus lens, I'd
wager the results would overwhelmingly favor the D60.
Don Stauffer
chart is only one of many, and is not that popular any more.
Most professional lens testing is not done with paper charts these days,
but with machines that create a sine wave pattern rather than a bar
chart. This way test is automated, and actually produces MTF curve
rather than bar chart resolution. To my knowledge most of the sine wave
patterns are white light.
Boo wrote:
>
> >
> That's all true (except for the "not the least controversial" part),
> but as far as I know lens tests done in accordance with NBS test
> charts are generally done with very fine-grain thin layer B&W film,
> not multi-layered color stock. They are also done using green
> monochromatic light, so as to provide a standard by which the
> resolution numbers can be compared - otherwise it's anyone's guess,
> depending on which dye layer the lens was focused on, and what type of
> light illuminated the target. It seems reasonable that separate
> exposures to target the specific dye layers would be needed, and if
> this is the case, the actual results obtained in normal photography
> would be uncertain at best. It is well known that the potential
> resolution of 35mm color film is compromised by the emulsion
> thickness, and if you are aware of specific standards used for testing
> lenses in conjunction with color film, please share.
--
Boo
to make an estimate of how well particular lenses perform, it may not
always be possible to find this data. An excellent database of lens
test data is available for review at:
http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
It's a bit confusing when comparing these numbers to the old lp/mm
figures, but at least they sort these things out on a sort of "figure
of merit" basis. All of these was I'm sure done in an effort to
eliminate the uncertainties associated with the "traditional" lens
test method defined by NBS SP374. Lens design can be optimized for
resolving power or contrast, and these newer testing methods consider
both.
I trust that we are talking about lens testing - I was only pointing
out the difficulty of performing such tests using "conventional"
films, and in particular color films - all of which suffer to some
degree from degradation due to diffusion and emulsion "layering."
When performing tests using the "traditional" high-contrast resolution
charts, the use of thin emulsion spectroscopic plates or films was
necessary in order to assess resolution values, particularly with
exceptional lenses. In some cases, prime 35mm lenses were found to
resolve many times better than the finest available B&W general use
films, some being diffraction limited through a considerable range.
Generally all zoom lenses were significantly worse.
Don Stauffer
which modulation falls to 2%. That should correspond quite closely with
the high contrast bar chart tests.
As an aside, of your mention of the NBS charts. Back in 70s the NBS (now
NIST) printed a set of low cost charts, along with very clear
instructions on how to do lens testing. This was popular for the
amateur photographer. Seems to me the chart set cost about five bucks.
I contacted NIST several years ago, and no one there now even remembered
the old test chart package.
Now, the cheapest test chart I could find was a copy of the Air Force
Chart, as a poster from Edmund Scientific. Although the poster was 20
bucks, I prefer the AF chart anyway, which is what I used to use at
work. I have a couple of old papers on the tests and reading the
results, which is better than the instructions that come on the poster.
Incidently, I would like to see more people actually test their
cameras. It is not hard to do, and then we can compare actual numbers
instead of fuzzier estimates of how good their cameras are. I tested m
Oly 3000 as soon as I got it. I'll have to look in my files and see if I
can find the numbers, or run the test again.
--
Boo
magnified NBS chart & e-mail it to you, it will probably hold the
resolution OK (crossed fingers). You'd have to do a print and reduce
it in an enlarger I'd suppose. At one time I was lucky enough to have
a contact in one of the leading camera stores in my city, and he
provided me all the lenses I could test. Also all my photo friends
were anxious to see how theirs stacked up, and the results were in
some cases surprising to say the least - we sure did a lot of lens &
camera buying and selling in those days.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:43:57 -0500, Don Stauffer
Don Stauffer
precious bucks for one, I am in good shape now. It is just that I
remember the good old days when NBS was the photographer's friend. :-)
--