Tomek Zakrzewski wrote:
> Take a look at the comparison shots of the sign and of the box. When
> looking
> at the D100 file at 100% and scanned images downsized to match the D100
> output, one can say that the resolution is almost equal but look at the
> 4000dpi full scans of film images and upsampled D100 and see the drastic
> lack of resolution. It's even more visible at 200% in PS.
>
> My other (obvious) observation is the lack of grain in digital images. It
> makes up for the non present resolution and in fact makes people believe
> the
> image quality is better than 35mm film.
Nice comparison, thanks.
I entirely agree with the above, it mirrors my feelings about EOS10D vs
Fuji Superia 100 col.neg scanned with Polaroid 4000.
It gets less clear when comparing images shot at ISO400 or higher, since
digital noise begins to be an issue rivalling film grain. I'm looking at
this now.
What I am having most trouble with is the relatively constrained dynamic
range of RAW files vs. the enormous range of colour negative film +
flexibility of scanning. Post-prod stuff that I can do easily with
film+scanning tends to posterise shadows when using 16bit TIFF from RAW. I
have yet to get to the bottom of this, but suspect Canon's conversion s/w.
And of course lack of ultrawide lenses 'cos I can't afford a 1DS:(
Regards
Tony Sleep -
Online portfolio & exhibit + film scanner info & comparisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
