[filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II

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

Hi David,

> 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.

That is not necessarily true.  A scan of a negative is very similar to a
digital camera picture, if you are not resolving anywhere near
grain...but...if grain becomes a sampling artifact, then you are correct.
There is also the issue of the Bayer pattern imaging sensor and loss of
information due to the reduced color sampling, as well as edge loss.  Both
are very scene dependant.

> 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

Not so.  I can send up to 720 PPI to the printer and get noticeably better
prints.  So I dispute that claim, as I know first hand it isn't true.

> as long
> as you don't
> take a loupe to them.

OK, so you are somehow caveating this here ;-)  But I'm not sure what the
basis for your caveat is?  Anyway, I don't need a loupe to see that sending
720PPI to the printer gives me noticeably better prints.

You are also involving things here, like the printer driver, that just
because the one chosen may not take advantage of additional PPI when
dithering, that doesn't mean that a "proper" print driver that does make use
of this, won't make a better print!

> 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.)

Hum.  I disagree, and know that it's just not true.  Digital will have less
detail, because of the Bayer pattern imaging sensor.  Especially when
talking about B&W, the tonality and tonal transitions will be FAR superior
for a B&W image of that size...because it has more PPI to the printer than
250, and the difference is significantly noticeable.

You seem to be basing your claims on resolution only, and that is not the
only issue here.  First off, there is the Bayer pattern imaging sensor,
which, will lose SOME data, simply because of architecture.  It may not be
much, but the loss is real.  Second, is tonality.  I'm not arguing for or
against, but just pointing out there is more than simple X by Y resolution
that makes a print!

> And finally, it's easier to make good prints from digital originals.

What, exactly, do you mean by that?

Austin

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