I have similarly printed Casio QV3000 pics so called "super A3" (13x19) on
an Epson 1270 and don't see many normal prints to match. In general if you
are close to your subject the best digital images can be very close to the
best 35mm can produce. Lack of film grain gives it an advantage and many
people overlook most digital artefacts. But digital can be prone to fall
over ungracefully, in particular watch out for smallish details at around
30m against a bright background.
See my review of the QV3000
Enjoy the camera I certainly use mine far more than my film cameras which
are restricted to "serious" work.
Steve
----- 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
>
>
>
