[filmscanners] RE: digital artifacting

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

Arthur,

> I'm not sure what is a fair comparison in terms of pixel resolution,
> since these use quite different technologies and methods of counting
> pixels, but I know how money is counted, and under $2000 (for the Sigma)
> is definitely a lot less than the $4995 (for the Kodak).

Why not simply compare image results?  Certainly the results can be
categorized for different criteria, cost being one of them.

But, one issue with simply comparing results of digital cameras done by
different people is you don’t know how the image was processed, or that
something you see may be image dependant.  A person may be fantastic at
“getting” D1x images, and another horrible with using the Kodak 14n...so the
D1x may look substantially better.  The thing to do is keep that in mind,
and is why I prefer to compare raw images that I have processed my self.
Not that I’m an expert on processing them, and will get the “best” results,
but I at least know what was done to them.

Austin

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