All these arguments remind me of the religious tirades about vinyl records versus compact discs when they first came out. A lot of "mine's bigger than yours". Yes, *the best made record* on the *best made turntable* could possibly sound better then the then-available compact disc technology, but that was enough for some folks. There was a lot of "better rendition", "rounder sound", etc. Words that sounded a lot like an oenophile. The same is true of photography. Is film better than digital? Possibly, but now you need the best film technology money can (or can't) buy to "beat" common digital technology. Can you do it? Sure. But even that, just like the vinyl wars, won't last forever. And really, the media isn't the message anyway, right? Andrew .On Thu, June 13, 2013 3:10 pm, Randy Little wrote: > vs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirkut > http://www.adammonk.com/fuji-gx617-review/ > > > Or that silly little camera Jan has. Images for noblex > camera<https://www.google.com/search?q=noblex+camera&safe=off&client=safar > i&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1920&bih=1064&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=rUG6UfnECLW > 24APv-YDYBQ&ved=0CF0QsAQ> > OR > THE BEST OF THEM ALL. Its a holga on a stick will a pull string YES. > http://shop.lomography.com/us/cameras/spinner-360 or this other cheapy > camera http://shop.lomography.com/us/cameras/horizon-perfekt > > Camera on a stick is AWESOME. > > > Digital is very close and in some places very better in other its just > not. Noblex ONE SHOT. no fix it in post and its not in jpg format like my > NEX 7 (which I LOVE) and its way higher res when put in a linotype hell > scanner then the same framing of a d800 > > > Randy S. Little > http://www.rslittle.com <http://reel.rslittle.com> > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:57 PM, James Schenken <jds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > >> Well, the D800e gives a 36 megapixel image, which at 8 bytes per pixel >> in raw yield a little over 250 megabyte file right out of the camera. >> >> So take 4 frames with the camera set to vertical and paste them >> together and you get a 144 megapixel image whose time to take all >> exposures can be less than one second. The image will have a 3X8 aspect >> ratio and require about one gigabyte to store, about 4 times the size >> from the scanner. >> >> If that's not wide enough for panoramic need, add 1, 2, or three more >> frames wide. >> >> The rig to do this is pretty simple. The camera rotates about the >> nodal point of the lens and the frames fit nicely together. >> >> Even a D3x can do almost as well. >> Canon, Pentax, etc. can do it as well. >> >> >> James >> >> >> >> Luke 23:24 >> >> >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> Digital is a long way from catching up to medium format 100 speed >> Velveeta >> or Ektachrome. Wit h film I get practicality, I don?t have to plug into >> a Sony Vaio to shoot and I never get a corrupted file or a digital >> wallet which loses all its files. I have a bank vault with negatives in >> it and I have a Creo which has scanned thousands of images. What?s not >> to like? I have a workflow which works for me and the prints I am >> currently making are 54x182?. Can your Nikon D anything do that? >> >> >> >> Art Faul >> >> >> >
