[filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II

["David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com>]

From: <focus@adnc.com>

>>>>>>>>
I do, however stand behind the part about the Pentax having to resolve less
than 30 lp/mm to get
outresolved by the Canon (and um, it should be 30 not 29 as in the original
post--I should have
divided 2700 by 24, not 25.2, but it's not really significant). Something's
gotta be wrong.
<<<<<<<<

Three things are wrong: digital pixels look better than scanned pixels in
one-on-one comparisons, i.e. comparing images with the same number of
pixels, and even in lp/mm comparisons, it just takes more pixles and lp/mm
in film to get the same apparent sharpness.

The second thing that's wrong is that printing 1Ds images at 250 dpi (11x16)
results in prints that are about as good as prints get, as long as you don't
take a loupe to them. In other words, there's no way for _any_ technology to
make a print that any third party will see as better that an 11x16 from the
1Ds. (So there's no way for MF to win.)

And finally, it's easier to make good prints from digital originals. I
suspect, MR simply messed up the downsampling/sharpening/processing required
to get the detail onto the print.

It's clear that he was getting more detail in the MF scans, but he wasn't
getting that detail onto the print. My conclusion would be that MR's
photoshop technique is poor, but he concluded that MF has less resolution.

It's like the three laws of thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break
even, and you can't get out of the game.

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan


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