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: film and scanning vs digital photography



I suspect the "generations" effect is why it takes less resolution in a
DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at
16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally
exceeds 30MPixels.

I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the
claim that you really don't get the full stated resolution with a film
scanner.

Laurie@advancenet.net wrote:
> To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in
> effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital
> electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to
> convert the analog capture on film into an electronic digital capture.  The
> first generation capture equivalent for film is when you transmit the image
> data from the lens to the film; scanning it into digital form later is a
> second generation capture.
>
> We are not talking about sensor size which has more to do with multiplier
> effects on the effective lens sizes of the lenses being used and possibly on
> the resolutions that are possible.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>> This whole thing about judging photographic quality by the equipment
>> does
>> seem to me like a snooty conservatism on the part of Getty
>
> Of course there can be some of this in play as well; but it probably has
> more to do with Getty knowing the demands of their clients and wanting to
> play it safe by insisting on equipment and processes that they are familiar
> with and know will produce that quality rather than taking the risk of
> having to spend time sorting through submissions which come from sources,
> equipment, and processes that they are not familiar with and cannot be sure
> are up to their needs.  Sometimes better equipment does produce better and
> more reliable results on a more consistent basis. Would you readily accept a
> prescription from an unknown drugstore that bore an unfamiliar brand name on
> it and was prescribed by a doctor who had a degree from a medical school
> that you never heard of and whose license to practice medicine was of
> uncertain origins?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Berry Ives
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:02 AM
>> To: laurie@advancenet.net
>> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>>
>> Laurie,
>>
>> What does it mean that:
>>
>> "The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture"
>>
>> The film sensor of the D200 is substantially smaller than a 35mm film
>> image,
>> so I guess that is not what it means.  So what is the basis for saying
>> this?
>>
>> This whole thing about judging photographic quality by the equipment
>> does
>> seem to me like a snooty conservatism on the part of Getty.  They can
>> do
>> what they like, of course.
>>
>> Just a question,
>> Berry
>>
>>
>> On 7/1/07 7:00 PM, "Laurie@advancenet.net" <laurie@advancenet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The D200
>>> and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------
>> 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.