Stop the digital multiplier insanity!
slide
amounts to a "free teleconverter", the latest being an article by
George Lepp in Outdoor Photographer. Are these people being paid by
Canon and Nikon to spread this myth? I ran some numbers on the new
Canon 10D.
The 10D is 6.3 Megapixel with a 1.6 multiplier effect. The actual
image size you get from the 10D should be 2049 x 3074. Factoring out
the "free 1.6 teleconverter", a full frame CCD would produce an image
size of 3280 x 4918. If I shoot film, scan at a resolution of 3280
ppi and crop out 60% of the frame, I get the same image. And I don't
need to buy a 12mm lens (which doesn't actually exist for Canon) to
replace the 20mm perspective that I like to shoot.
Here's my math:
Image size: 1.5(x^2) = 6300000 => x = 2049.
with 1.6 multiplier:
image size: 1.5(x^2) = (6300000)(1.6)^2 => x = 3279
-slide
Tony Spadaro
the lens in use. The sensor (and it's size) does not have any effect on lens
res.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"slide" <sl...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:7e176eaf.03050...@posting.google.com...
Bill Hilton
>I keep reading articles about how the digital SLR multiplier effect
>amounts to a "free teleconverter", the latest being an article by
>George Lepp in Outdoor Photographer. Are these people being paid by
>Canon and Nikon to spread this myth?
It's not a myth, you're just confused as to what they are referring to.
Anyone who has photographed with multiple formats knows that we often refer to
the angle of view of a lens in a given format by referring to the "35 mm
equivalent" because 35 mm is the most widely used system and therefore most
people will know what you mean.
For example, a 300 mm lens on a 4x5" view camera has an angle of view roughly
equivalent to 100 mm on a 35 mm, a 300 mm lens on a 6x7 cm medium format system
is roughly equivalent to 150 mm on a 35 mm, and a 300 mm lens on a 6x4.5 cm
medium format system is roughly equiv to 180 mm for 35 mm.
Once the image area gets smaller than 35 mm film the "equivalent" goes up, so
for the Canon 6 Mpix bodies a 300 gives an angle of view equiv to a 480 mm lens
on a 35 mm body.
There's no conspiracy and it's not very complicated, if you have any experience
with other systems you'd understand. It seems to be a matter of concern mostly
to people with little experience in multiple formats, who apparently think a
1.6 multiplier implies digital is somehow better, or cheating, or something.
Never could quite figure out why they got so upset.
>The 10D is 6.3 Megapixel with a 1.6 multiplier effect. The actual
>image size you get from the 10D should be 2049 x 3074.
You are comparing two different things, film and the size of a digital sensor.
They are not directly comparable and this has no real meaning. Most people
comparing the relative quality of film to digital go to a common measuring
point of the final output, like say a print, and judge quality based on that,
which makes more sense.
Bill
Annika1980
>The 10D is 6.3 Megapixel with a 1.6 multiplier effect. The actual
>image size you get from the 10D should be 2049 x 3074.
Actually 2048x3072, but close enough.
>If I shoot film, scan at a resolution of 3280
>ppi and crop out 60% of the frame, I get the same image.
No, you get a much noisier image.
Also, your math is a little off since 60% of 3280 is only 1968. Closer to
62-63%.
And if you are cropping your scan, then your effective resolution has dropped
from 3280 as well.
The point is that with the 10D and a 200mm you can fill the frame with the same
image that it would take a 320mm lens with film.
slide
> >image size you get from the 10D should be 2049 x 3074.
>
> Actually 2048x3072, but close enough.
>
> >If I shoot film, scan at a resolution of 3280
> >ppi and crop out 60% of the frame, I get the same image.
>
> No, you get a much noisier image.
> Also, your math is a little off since 60% of 3280 is only 1968. Closer to
> 62-63%.
Actually, I was talking about throwing out 60% of the image. The 1.6
digital multiplier comes from the fact that the ccd is smaller, it should be
about 15mm x 22.5mm. Compared to 24mm x 36mm of film, this is about 39 % of
the area captured by film.
>
> And if you are cropping your scan, then your effective resolution has
dropped
> from 3280 as well.
> The point is that with the 10D and a 200mm you can fill the frame with the
same
> image that it would take a 320mm lens with film.
But the "frame" is smaller. To make this clearer, if I shoot film with a
200mm lens, scan at 3280 ppi, crop to the center 39% of the scan, the
resulting file has the same angle of view captured in the same number of
pixels as a 6.3 Mp digital SLR with a 1.6 digital multiplier. All the
digital SLR does is crop the area where light coming through the lens lands.
Same lens, no matter which camera you attch it to.
-slide
slide
> >amounts to a "free teleconverter", the latest being an article by
> >George Lepp in Outdoor Photographer. Are these people being paid by
> >Canon and Nikon to spread this myth?
>
> It's not a myth, you're just confused as to what they are referring to.
Here's the subtitle from the Lepp article. "Get FREE magnification from
your existing lenses without any light loss." Who's confused? Cropping an
image (by capturing a smaller area) is not magnification. I believe you and
I are essentially saying the same thing.
> You are comparing two different things, film and the size of a digital
sensor.
> They are not directly comparable and this has no real meaning. Most
people
> comparing the relative quality of film to digital go to a common measuring
> point of the final output, like say a print, and judge quality based on
that,
> which makes more sense.
If the image from the digital CCD is better than scanning film, then you
have a point. I think it would be interesting to compare prints from a
cropped 3280 ppi scan to prints from a 6.3 Mp SLR. Then scan at 4000 ppi
cropping to the same angle of view and compare the results. Hook me up
with the goods and I'll do the tests and post results. ;-)
-slide
Bill Hilton
>> sensor. They are not directly comparable
>From: "slide" sl...@backpacker.com
>
>If the image from the digital CCD is better than scanning film, then you
>have a point. I think it would be interesting to compare prints from a
>cropped 3280 ppi scan to prints from a 6.3 Mp SLR.
I know numerous professionals who've compared prints from film scanned at 4,000
dpi to prints from a 6 Mpix Canon or Nikon dSLR and they've all switched to
digital. Note that a 4,000 film scan gives you about 3,600 x 5,400 pixels (at
least that's what I get) after cropping out the slide mount, or just under 20
Mpix, yet the digital files are "smoother" and enlarge better, even though 1/3
the pixel count. I had trouble believing this myself until I actually saw it.
Now I believe it.
Even though the sensor is smaller it's apparently able to capture as much or
more *useful* information and produce better output in the form of prints,
according to most viewers.
So if you accept this (and many don't, especially those who've never tried the
test :) then you do indeed gain magnification by switching. My wife has
trouble hiking long distances in the mountains with her 500 f/4 IS lens, for
example, which weighs about 8 lbs. We're thinking of getting the Canon 10D for
her and switching to the 300 f/2.8 L IS, which would give her the equivalent 35
mm magnification of a 480 mm with an extra f/stop and about half the weight.
Roger Clark is a scientist who's done extensive testing of film vs digital and
shoots everything from 4x5 Velvia to a Canon 10D. He tells me the 10D has
higher resolution than 35 mm Velvia, to the point that lenses which work fine
with his Canon film camera aren't good enough for digital. He'll probably read
this post sooner or later and can point you to his tests.
Bill
Xelbon
I've read these "studies" and I flat out don't believe them. If they're
comparing a poor scan to a 10D image, then I believe it. but I'll compare
any professionally scanned Velvia or Provia slide to anything from the 10D.
Every time I read one of these so-called tests, I simply must assume that
either they, or I am blind.
Now, the real test should be Ilfochrome versus the digital equivilant. I've
done this test, as well, up to 11 x 14, and Ilfochrome is so much better
that it's embarassing. I've also compared some digital images with Velvia
slides viewed through a powerful (40x) loupe, and there's lots more detail
on the slide than the digital file. It must be me.
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20030508204813...@mb-m20.aol.com...
StillMan
magnified, but cropped. DOF characteristics are different from a 300 on a
35mm and a 200 on digital, even though the "free teleconverter" makes the
focal lengths appear to be the same.
I disagree with your premise that the center of a scanned 35mm frame is as
good as the image from a digital SLR. (It is better than the image from a
consumer digicam.) A few months ago, I would have agreed with you, but I
have seen the results for myself. I get a better 8x10 from my D1X (And in
many cases from my D1) than I do from 35mm film in my F100.
I do miss my wide angle lenses, that's why I still carry my F100.
--
"slide" <sl...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:7e176eaf.03050...@posting.google.com...
slide
and
> shoots everything from 4x5 Velvia to a Canon 10D. He tells me the 10D has
> higher resolution than 35 mm Velvia, to the point that lenses which work
fine
> with his Canon film camera aren't good enough for digital.
Wait a minute. He has lenses that are good enough for film but not good
enough for digital? Has does he determine this? The quality of the digital
file versus the quality of film? :-)
I just took a look at Roger's website. I had actually seen it before when I
was briefly thinking about a medium format camera. Perhaps he has more info
on his website somewhere that I didn't see, but I found these 2 quotes on
his site:
"Digital cameras have a long way to go to match even the low end of 35 mm
film + scanner resolution"
"From these tests, it is my opinion that digital cameras will match
Fujichrome Velvi 35mm film when they reach more than about 10 megapixels. "
Check out http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#digicamres2
Anyway, the point of my post wasn't really to debate film vs. digital, just
to point out that the whole "free teleconverter" thing is nonsense. I have
a really hard time believing that images from a 10D with the 300mm f/2.8
lens will match film with a 500mm f/4, but I'm willing to be proved wrong (I
don't want to lug an 8lb lens in the mountains either.)
-slide
Simon Watkins
> Anyway, the point of my post wasn't really to debate film vs. digital,
just
> to point out that the whole "free teleconverter" thing is nonsense. I
have
> a really hard time believing that images from a 10D with the 300mm f/2.8
> lens will match film with a 500mm f/4, but I'm willing to be proved wrong
(I
> don't want to lug an 8lb lens in the mountains either.)
Nip over to www.dpreview.com and in the Canon SLR forum ask for some full
size samples from that lens, and see if it meets your requirements once
you've printed out said sample.
Simon
Alan Browne
...since the imaging area is smaller (35mm is 36x24mm and a Canon D10 is
22.7 x 15.1) you get a narrower field of view...same as adding a ca.
1.6X teleconverter.
The number of pixels has nothing to do with the "multiplier" but does go
(of course) to resolution.
Clear?
Cheers,
Alan
slide
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3EBC23CB...@videotron.ca...
> Bzzztttt. Wrong. But thanks for playing.
>
> ...since the imaging area is smaller (35mm is 36x24mm and a Canon D10 is
> 22.7 x 15.1) you get a narrower field of view...same as adding a ca.
> 1.6X teleconverter.
>
> The number of pixels has nothing to do with the "multiplier" but does go
> (of course) to resolution.
That's just the problem. Resolution has *everything* to do with it.
A smaller angle of view at lower resolution = cropping.
A smaller angle of view at same resolution = magnification.
Teleconverter implies (at least to me) magnification.
If I could load 35mm film in a medium format camera, is that the same as
adding a teleconverter? I'm capturing a smaller angle of view with the same
lens. According to your argument, and that of everyone who says a smaller
ccd = magnification, it is.
Now what I'm really waiting to hear is when someone says they don't want to
upgrade from a 6 Mp camera with a 15x22 ccd to a 16 Mp camera with a full
frame ccd because they'll lose the 1.6 magnification factor. That's when I
start selling my adapter to allow MF cameras to take 35mm film.
> Bzzztttt. Wrong. But thanks for playing.
No, thank you.
-slide
Alan Justice
into it. I don't plan on going digital any time soon, so I've decided to
get a "free 1.4x multiplier effect" from my film: Whenever I get my slides
back, I unmount them and take a scissors to them to crop to 71% of the
original size. Voila! A free multiplier! I'm thinking of taking the daring
step of giving myself a free 5x multiplier effect.
--
- Alan Justice
alanjustice earthlink net
@. .
"slide" <sl...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:7e176eaf.03050...@posting.google.com...
Alan Browne
slide wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:3EBC23CB...@videotron.ca...
>
>>...since the imaging area is smaller (35mm is 36x24mm and a Canon D10 is
>> 22.7 x 15.1) you get a narrower field of view...same as adding a ca.
>>1.6X teleconverter.
>>
>>The number of pixels has nothing to do with the "multiplier" but does go
>>(of course) to resolution.
>
>
> That's just the problem. Resolution has *everything* to do with it.
> A smaller angle of view at lower resolution = cropping.
> A smaller angle of view at same resolution = magnification.
> Teleconverter implies (at least to me) magnification.
Yes, it is magnification.
Now, ask yourself, would I want that number of pixels over a wider angle
(yielding less resolution)? And your answer would be "hell no."
>
> If I could load 35mm film in a medium format camera, is that the same as
> adding a teleconverter? I'm capturing a smaller angle of view with the same
> lens. According to your argument, and that of everyone who says a smaller
> ccd = magnification, it is.
Essentially so.
>
> Now what I'm really waiting to hear is when someone says they don't want to
> upgrade from a 6 Mp camera with a 15x22 ccd to a 16 Mp camera with a full
> frame ccd because they'll lose the 1.6 magnification factor. That's when I
> start selling my adapter to allow MF cameras to take 35mm film.
What Canon have done is economically introduced a DSLR that they can
make a million copies of at reasonable cost and quality.
Instead of worrying about how it compares to 35mm directly, or what it
does or doesn't do with your lenses, just decide:
-Is the spec presented right for me?
If the answer is no, then keep on waiting, if the answer is yes, go out
and buy one.
Personally, I hope when Minolta get off their asses and release a DSLR
that it will be 10Mpix+ and 36x24 (or close enough). But if they come
out with a 21 x 15 sensor, I will look at it seriously for WHAT IT IS,
not HOW IT COMPARES.
If you need an anchor point, just think of printing. With a D10 you are
looking at very decent prints around
10" x 6.5" (@300 dpi), or 15" x 10" (@200) or 23 x 15 (@135).
Cheers,
Alan
Annika1980
>I was upset with Lepp's article for the same reason. And many people buy
>into it. I don't plan on going digital any time soon, so I've decided to
>get a "free 1.4x multiplier effect" from my film: Whenever I get my slides
>back, I unmount them and take a scissors to them to crop to 71% of the
>original size. Voila! A free multiplier!
Now if you can just stretch the cropped image to fill the slide mount you'll
have something.
Annika1980
>Here's the subtitle from the Lepp article. "Get FREE magnification from
>your existing lenses without any light loss." Who's confused? Cropping an
>image (by capturing a smaller area) is not magnification.
If you then blow up the cropped area to fill the same sized frame, it is.
If I take a 4x6 pic, crop away 30% of it and then print what's left at 4x6, I'd
call that magnification.
Jim Davis
wrote/replied to:
>The 10D is 6.3 Megapixel with a 1.6 multiplier effect. The actual
>image size you get from the 10D should be 2049 x 3074. Factoring out
>the "free 1.6 teleconverter", a full frame CCD would produce an image
>size of 3280 x 4918. If I shoot film, scan at a resolution of 3280
>ppi and crop out 60% of the frame, I get the same image.
Go ahead, crop your best slide scan.
Then put it up side by side with the 10d.
I am amazed what I get cropping half the image of the 10d.
Jim Davis
Nature Photography
http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
Jim Davis
wrote/replied to:
>Here's the subtitle from the Lepp article. "Get FREE magnification from
>your existing lenses without any light loss." Who's confused? Cropping an
>image (by capturing a smaller area) is not magnification. I believe you and
>I are essentially saying the same thing.
It's true. I shot some herons on a nest of babies with film. Best I
could do was barely make out the outline of the babies. Then I got the
10d, with the same lens I was able to take stunning closeups of those
babies. 800mm went to 1280mm. That's a huge difference. Add on the
ability to shoot at 1600 with excellent results means I now get shots
I could only wish for before.
Jim Davis
wrote/replied to:
>o if you accept this (and many don't, especially those who've never tried the
>test :) then you do indeed gain magnification by switching. My wife has
>trouble hiking long distances in the mountains with her 500 f/4 IS lens, for
>example, which weighs about 8 lbs. We're thinking of getting the Canon 10D for
>her and switching to the 300 f/2.8 L IS, which would give her the equivalent 35
>mm magnification of a 480 mm with an extra f/stop and about half the weight.
>
>Roger Clark is a scientist who's done extensive testing of film vs digital and
>shoots everything from 4x5 Velvia to a Canon 10D. He tells me the 10D has
>higher resolution than 35 mm Velvia, to the point that lenses which work fine
>with his Canon film camera aren't good enough for digital. He'll probably read
>this post sooner or later and can point you to his tests.
>
>Bill
I shot alot of birds with 35mm film. I've never seen such crisp eyes
on birds as I'm getting now with the 10d. I've never seen such feather
detail either. And I'm more than happy with the colours I'm getting,
with a real minimum of adjustment. As far as I'm concerned, film is
dead.
Jim Davis
wrote/replied to:
>I've read these "studies" and I flat out don't believe them. If they're
>comparing a poor scan to a 10D image, then I believe it. but I'll compare
>any professionally scanned Velvia or Provia slide to anything from the 10D.
>Every time I read one of these so-called tests, I simply must assume that
>either they, or I am blind.
Well, if I could have an expensive drum scanner and a lab at home,
film might still hold some interest to me. But I'd still have to buy
film, still have to finish a roll, still have to tweak and adjust,
still have to spend hours cranking out scans.
Sometimes I just take a couple shots and as soon as I get home I pop
it into the computer and enjoy.
Mike Lipphardt
> It's true. I shot some herons on a nest of babies with film. Best I
> could do was barely make out the outline of the babies. Then I got the
> 10d, with the same lens I was able to take stunning closeups of those
> babies. 800mm went to 1280mm. That's a huge difference. Add on the
> ability to shoot at 1600 with excellent results means I now get shots
> I could only wish for before.
Actually, couldn't you have done the same thing with your 800mm and film
camera, if you crop your image at printing time? Your digital is just
cropping in the camera.
Now, the excellent 1600 is interesting, although I'd love to see a print
from it before judging. I wonder if it's better than the new Fuji Press
1600? Less grain but at the expense of noise maybe?
Mike
David J. Littleboy
"Mike Lipphardt" <mlipp...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> "Jim Davis" <spam...@someisp.jp> wrote in message >
> > It's true. I shot some herons on a nest of babies with film. Best I
> > could do was barely make out the outline of the babies. Then I got the
> > 10d, with the same lens I was able to take stunning closeups of those
> > babies. 800mm went to 1280mm. That's a huge difference. Add on the
> > ability to shoot at 1600 with excellent results means I now get shots
> > I could only wish for before.
>
> Actually, couldn't you have done the same thing with your 800mm and film
> camera, if you crop your image at printing time? Your digital is just
> cropping in the camera.
It doesn't work that way. 6MP dSLR isn't quite as good as full-frame Provia,
but it's a lot better than 22x15mm Provia. A lot better.
> Now, the excellent 1600 is interesting, although I'd love to see a print
> from it before judging. I wonder if it's better than the new Fuji Press
> 1600? Less grain but at the expense of noise maybe?
You can download images from the 10D gallery at www.dpreview.com and print
them on your inkjet. IMPWO (PW=probably wrong), they're much better than any
ISO 400 film I've found, but there are people who argue with that.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Mike Lipphardt
news:b9qqa8$uo8$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Mike Lipphardt" <mlipp...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > Now, the excellent 1600 is interesting, although I'd love to see a print
> > from it before judging. I wonder if it's better than the new Fuji Press
> > 1600? Less grain but at the expense of noise maybe?
>
> You can download images from the 10D gallery at www.dpreview.com and print
> them on your inkjet. IMPWO (PW=probably wrong), they're much better than
any
> ISO 400 film I've found, but there are people who argue with that.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any 1600 shots up there, and certainly
not any shot in available darkness. The channel noise examples are
interesting, but don't really allow me to predict real-world performance.
I'd much rather see a pic with a lot of dark area.
Mike
David J. Littleboy
"Mike Lipphardt" <mlipp...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any 1600 shots up there, and
certainly
> not any shot in available darkness. The channel noise examples are
> interesting, but don't really allow me to predict real-world performance.
> I'd much rather see a pic with a lot of dark area.
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos10d_samples1/
Images 19 and 20 claim to be ISO 1600, image 18 is 3200. Image 18 is pretty
grody, but I find 19 and 20 impressive.
Mike Lipphardt
Oops. You're right. Not bad at all!
Mike
Bill Tuthill
>
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> Images 19 and 20 claim to be ISO 1600, image 18 is 3200.
>> Image 18 is pretty grody, but I find 19 and 20 impressive.
>
There is no doubt that the Canon 10D is better at ISO 1600
than most films are at 800.
The real question is whether Agfa (and undoubtedly other
manufacturers who didn't put out a press release about it)
will manage to improve performance of ultra-high speed films
by the time film is totally dead.
I'm betting on digital over duelling press releases.
Wes J
making a professional digital camera because as of yet it hasn't come out
with a full-frame sensor? You're saying your smaller format Canon is
producing film-beating images, so would you like Canon to take Nikon's lead
and produce a smaller format specific wide angle lens also? Also from what
I've read, you need the resolution of the Kodak 14n to beat 400ASA film,
certainly not Velvia.news:n4j1cvsana8haptth...@4ax.com...
Gregg
light spectrum !
"Jim Davis" <spam...@someisp.jp> wrote in message
news:6si1cvkgvl7lihgc9...@4ax.com...
pioe[rmv]
> Roger Clark is a scientist who's done extensive testing of film vs digital and
> shoots everything from 4x5 Velvia to a Canon 10D. He tells me the 10D has
> higher resolution than 35 mm Velvia, to the point that lenses which work fine
> with his Canon film camera aren't good enough for digital. He'll probably read
> this post sooner or later and can point you to his tests.
In my opinion, this is so contrary to the facts as to border on the
perverse.
How do you explain my results? On a day in the beginning of May, I put
up my Canon D60 and my Nikon FM2 side by side. I loaded the FM2 with
Superia 200 print film. Print film has greater resolution than slide
film, hence that choice.
The D60 was set to 200 ISO.
Both cameras used prime lenses, the Nikon had a 50mm 2.0 AI lens, the
Canon had a 35mm 2.0.
The images whose names start with CRW_ are taken with the digital,
those whose names begin with "untitled" are from the FM2/Superia 200,
with the film scanned by a Nikon LS-40 film scanner. The results speak
for themselves:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/
Now, what are your conclusions? To me, it is obvious that those
touting the superiority of digital either do not take landscape
pictures at infinity (which is what I very often do) or they look at
color rendition and not detail. In fact I am consternated by listening
to photographers who ridicule people like myself who believe that
every photograph ought to be examined with a loupe in order to
determine quality. Small wonder then, that this kind of photographers
claim that digital is superior.
But I ask: What solution gives the better detail in the final image?
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
Bill Tuthill
> Sure, but why stop there?
> I say it's about time we expanded the visible light spectrum !
Done.
It's called squant, a color between green and red. Although this is
a humorous website, there is actually a physiological basis for squant.
http://www.negativland.com/squant/
Women, especially those who give birth to colorblind male children,
can sometimes see it.
Jim Davis
wrote/replied to:
>So Jim, what do you say to all those Nikon bashers who say Nikon isn't
>making a professional digital camera because as of yet it hasn't come out
>with a full-frame sensor? You're saying your smaller format Canon is
>producing film-beating images, so would you like Canon to take Nikon's lead
>and produce a smaller format specific wide angle lens also? Also from what
>I've read, you need the resolution of the Kodak 14n to beat 400ASA film,
>certainly not Velvia.
I just take two shots and stitch them together! It's great.
As to beating film, that depends on if you have a drum scanner or not.
I personally like not scanning at all and having no grain problems.
Also, my colour is almost always bang on and needs very little work.
Don't believe everything you read :-)
Jim Davis
<mlipp...@ameritech.net> wrote/replied to:
I used to have to crop my film images quite often, unfortunately when
you're cropping fast film you end up with garbage.
but, the big thing is I'd still have to buy film, finish the roll, go
to the lab, pick up the film, scan the film etc etc etc.
Jim Davis
<mlipp...@ameritech.net> wrote/replied to:
>Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any 1600 shots up there, and certainly
>not any shot in available darkness. The channel noise examples are
>interesting, but don't really allow me to predict real-world performance.
>I'd much rather see a pic with a lot of dark area.
>
>Mike
I have done much shooting at 1600. It does show a slight, almost film
grain which can be removed with programs such as Neatimage, but
without anything done at all I can get really nice 8 by 10s with NO
sign of grain. It's that fine.