Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II



Interestingly, in this month's Shutterbug Jay Abend does a 1ds vs. film 
comparison on a
live job (to be used as a 2-page spread), and finds that though he admits that 
the  film
has better resolution, he liked the proof off the digicam file better. This 
test is under
very different conditions than luminous landscape--in a studio, stopped down 
well into
diffraction-limited territory.

To me this means inadequate adjustment of the film file--if you like the file 
with less
resolution better, unless it's an instance where a soft-focus filter would have 
been
appropriate (and it wasn't), the only really important issue left is tonality 
and color
rendition. If your raw scan doesn't have blown out highlights or shadows any 
deficiency in
color /tonal content falls on the shoulders of the operator, not film itself.

Andre wrote:

> Karl,
>
> Here's what MR wrote in his test:
>
> "So, what I did was to apply what I considered to be the most appropriate
> amount of USM to both files. As it turned out I had to apply about 1/3rd
> more USM to the 6X7 scan than to the 1Ds' RAW file. This is consistent with
> my previous experience with both formats."
>
> Andre
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Schulmeisters" <karlsch@earthlink.net>
> To: <am1000@videotron.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:50 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
>
> Because it isn't true.  per-pixel laser printed images on traditional wet
> process are better. Life expectancy is better on wet prints etc.
>
> Why do it on the best equip?  Well because the 1Ds is the best digicam
> you've got out there, and the luminous landscape guy basically picked a test
> that pits the best digicam with its best rendition capabilities against a
> film process that isn't optimal.   Fgzmple, he USMs the digicam image, but
> not the scanned film -despite the edge transition limits of imaging sensors,
> he picks an image that will be least likely to artifact on the digicam etc.
> etc.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andre" <am1000@videotron.ca>
> To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:33 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
>
> It has been said over and over that scanned film printed on an inkjet
> printer is at least equal or better than traditional wet darkroon prints.
>
> Why bring this into the equation. And why do it on the best equipment you
> can find. Seems to be an admission that digital is producing better prints?
> Andre
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Schulmeisters" <karlsch@earthlink.net>
> To: <am1000@videotron.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:40 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
>
> There have been quite a few less biased analysis than the crusade
> luminous-landscape has been on for about 2 years. One of the better ones I
> have linked at my work machine (photog doesn't YET pay all the bills :-( )
> and I'll repost it later this PM.  Essentially what the person did was to
> shoot a highly detailed landscape on film vs digital camera, and zoom in on
> particularly high details of each image and look at the results.  His
> conclusions are that 16mpixels in a 35mm format are equivilant to the best
> grain resolution - something the 1Ds approaches but doesn't reach.
>
> Some other ways of making comparisons:
>
> 1) take the film image,  enlarge it via standard 'wet chem' methods using
> the best equip you can find.  - scan the result at the highest resolution
> you can
> 2) compare the 1Ds output, similarly enlarged, to the result.
>
> Film still wins - just don't tell Luminous Landscape.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com>
> To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:40 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
>
> Andre wrote:
>
> > This one will spark heated debate...
> >
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
> >
>
> I am not a professional and have not done any tests, but heard & read about
> this.
> There has been a great deal of discussion going on about same article in
> Pentax Discussion Mailing List.
> I agree with the some of PDML members that this is comparison of Scanner v/s
> Digital Camera.
>
> I am curious to know about other ways of comparing the DSLRs and Film/slide.
> I think you can compare them both
> theorically and practically (means comparing the output. Example: Print).
>
> In "practical" way of comparing, out put from DSLR and Film/Slide are
> converted to some other form(Print) and then
> compared. This is not a direct comparison of DSLR v/s Film/Slide. Other than
> using print as for comparison,
> I do not know any other (experimental)way of comparing it.
>
> Thanks
> Ramesh
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.