Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography

["Alan Tyson" <AlanTyson@bknowl.freeserve.co.uk>]

Ian,

Ignoramus?
Rubbish!
Take a Nobel Prize, or at least a D.Sc for having done the
experiment; tried it out!

I have a friend with a digicam who keeps finding out things
like this. He's a professional who likes to do things
properly for the paying customers, but will also do the
experiments. You and he are the folk who're really at the
sharp end of practical modern photography.

Alan T

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Boag <ianboag@partslink.co.nz>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:08 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras -
wedding/commercial photography


> Always gives you guys something to laugh about when a
ignoramus dives in. I
> have an engineering PhD as well but it's in Chem Eng from
the 70's which I
> guess makes my opinion worth as much that of the average
taxi driver.
>
> I had an Agfa 1680 for a while. 1.3 MP CCD and some fancy
interpolation
> that supposedly took it to equiv 1.9 MP. Dunno if I
believed that. The
> point was it did A4 prints that I considered fairly
acceptable, although my
> scanned neg stuff was a bit better. I have Kodak FD300 and
HP S20 film
> scanners. I know there are scanners that do APS and 35 but
that's not the
> way it happened for me. Both are 2400 dpi.
>
> Have just upgraded to a Casio 3000 (3.3 MP). Also had the
misfortune to be
> followed home by a used Epson Stylus 3000 A2 printer.
Printed some A2 stuff
> off the digicam and it just blew me away. Orright orright
it's not the same
> as one would get off an MF neg and Sprintscan 4000 (I
assume). Was pretty
> damn good though - some pixelation visible when viewed
from 10 cm (who
> views this size print at from 10 cm anyway).
>
> I know the dot arithmetic doesn't work. The digi pic is
about the equiv of
> a 1200 dpi 35mm neg scan. Blowing that out to A2 is a res
on the paper of
> about 100-odd dpi. Obviously totally unsatisfactory. I
just have to tell my
> eyes that .... :)
>
> Have now been amusing self by copying slides on a light
box using 5
> diopters of closeup lens on the front of the zoom in macro
mode. Purists
> should feel free to faint. More pretty damn good results.
>
> I would not be bothered in the least if someone sold me a
pic of this
> quality suitably printed on a matt paper perhaps under
glass and framed up
> nice.
>
>         Cheers Ian
>
>
>