karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: "David Dyer-Bennet" > > : karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > : > The 35mm shooters have definately been tempted to digital for the very > : > reason 35mm existed in the first place - convenience, but there was > always > : > a gap between convenience and quality.. that gaps just getting a bit > wider > : > ;-) > : > : Nope, narrower. That's why it's so exciting! > > > 4000 dpi scan of 4x5 offers a 16000x20000 pixel image, that's, 320Mp > > 8x10 is 1.2Tp Scanned film pixels are much less valuable (contain less information) than digital-original pixels, though, so trying this direct comparison is meaningless. > 4x5 scanning backs take around 30 minutes to grab a shot. > > the ccd's of most cameras only have sensors covering 25-50% of the surface, > the rest of the image is 'guessed' by the camera software Film only has grains covering a small percentage of the surface, the rest of the image is simply lost. > colours too are guessed by the camera. Using a process that turns out to be remarkably close to the one used in the human eye and brain, and hence producing photos that look *great* to human eyes. > What has happened with UV and IR photography in the digital world? > not necessarily for pictorial use but for tech and forensic? > Photography isn't just limited to the pictorial world. There's something of a renaissance in IR photography going on precisely *because* of the rise of digital. > Geologists, medical photographers and other tech photographers are > finding it hard to extract valid information about what colours are > actually recorded digitally. the results depend on the camera and > the monitor or printer used at the time the image was stored and > again when viewed. how valid, how reliable can this be? This can be a problem using consumer cameras for scientific and technical work, sure. They shouldn't send their film to Proex, either. > colours are guessed quite well now, but where are the 3 sensor > cameras for us still photogaphers? thats where the real quality > lies, that's what the cine camera market get, yet the still cameras > are stuck with one sensor. Can't get decent resolution with three sensors. It works for video because video resolution is so low. > more and more variables are being introduced into a discipline that > always sought to limit the number of variables to maintain > consistency. > > just another karl-rant, but I use both digi and film, one for > convenience, one for reliability and quality. I get much better reliability and quality and, above all, consistency, from digital. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
