OK I missed the part of sharpening both.
Here is a more analytic approach of looking at what film can resolve and
what the digital sampling equiv needs to be. Its the link I promised
earlier
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre" <am1000@videotron.ca>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:00 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
Karl,
Here's what MR wrote in his test:
"So, what I did was to apply what I considered to be the most appropriate
amount of USM to both files. As it turned out I had to apply about 1/3rd
more USM to the 6X7 scan than to the 1Ds' RAW file. This is consistent with
my previous experience with both formats."
Andre
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Schulmeisters" <karlsch@earthlink.net>
To: <am1000@videotron.ca>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:50 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
Because it isn't true. per-pixel laser printed images on traditional wet
process are better. Life expectancy is better on wet prints etc.
Why do it on the best equip? Well because the 1Ds is the best digicam
you've got out there, and the luminous landscape guy basically picked a test
that pits the best digicam with its best rendition capabilities against a
film process that isn't optimal. Fgzmple, he USMs the digicam image, but
not the scanned film -despite the edge transition limits of imaging sensors,
he picks an image that will be least likely to artifact on the digicam etc.
etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre" <am1000@videotron.ca>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:33 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
It has been said over and over that scanned film printed on an inkjet
printer is at least equal or better than traditional wet darkroon prints.
Why bring this into the equation. And why do it on the best equipment you
can find. Seems to be an admission that digital is producing better prints?
Andre
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Schulmeisters" <karlsch@earthlink.net>
To: <am1000@videotron.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:40 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
There have been quite a few less biased analysis than the crusade
luminous-landscape has been on for about 2 years. One of the better ones I
have linked at my work machine (photog doesn't YET pay all the bills :-( )
and I'll repost it later this PM. Essentially what the person did was to
shoot a highly detailed landscape on film vs digital camera, and zoom in on
particularly high details of each image and look at the results. His
conclusions are that 16mpixels in a 35mm format are equivilant to the best
grain resolution - something the 1Ds approaches but doesn't reach.
Some other ways of making comparisons:
1) take the film image, enlarge it via standard 'wet chem' methods using
the best equip you can find. - scan the result at the highest resolution
you can
2) compare the 1Ds output, similarly enlarged, to the result.
Film still wins - just don't tell Luminous Landscape.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:40 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
Andre wrote:
> This one will spark heated debate...
>
>
>
I am not a professional and have not done any tests, but heard & read about
this.
There has been a great deal of discussion going on about same article in
Pentax Discussion Mailing List.
I agree with the some of PDML members that this is comparison of Scanner v/s
Digital Camera.
I am curious to know about other ways of comparing the DSLRs and Film/slide.
I think you can compare them both
theorically and practically (means comparing the output. Example: Print).
In "practical" way of comparing, out put from DSLR and Film/Slide are
converted to some other form(Print) and then
compared. This is not a direct comparison of DSLR v/s Film/Slide. Other than
using print as for comparison,
I do not know any other (experimental)way of comparing it.
Thanks
Ramesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
