Moose,
At 4:03 PM +0000 1/21/02, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:43:12 -0800
>From: dreammoose <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Why bigger images are better
>
>Joe, I'm with you right up until the last paragraph. I expected to hear
>some more detail about pixel/grain size and dynamic range and the
>characteristics of a digital imaging devices that would be required. to
>meet various imaging needs. Everything you say is true until you seem to
>write off a whole technology based on a really poor example of it.
I didn't have the energy to chase these details down, especially for film, but
the science supports and explains the common experience, and this is much
discussed by Ansel Adams.
I have seen side-by-side comparisons of the same scene photographed using the
same kind of film, with the image size varying. It makes a real difference,
and this difference isn't subtle.
>Your example doesn't persuade me for the simple reason that I have many
>beautiful, '3-D' looking 8x10" 'prints' on my wall from 2.1 mp digital
>camera images. People don't tend to ask what kind of pictures or prints
>they are. Rather, they react to the subjects in an immediate way that
>transcends details of the particular medium. They are from the tiniest
>of 2.1 mp cameras with a pipsqueak flash (and some are even cropped),
>but gorgeous nonetheless. Eyes and water sparkle, faces look 'real',
>flowers are beautiful, etc. etc. An Epson 1280 helps, but can't print
>what isn't there.
One needs a head-to-head comparison to really tell. If you feel like an
experiment, try taking photos of the same scene with both OM camera (using ASA
200 film) and digicam, and comparing the prints side by side.
What I don't know is the number of bits per pixel for the various digicams
being discussed. I wouldn't be shocked if that 2.1 megapixel P&S has only
eight bits per pixel (one color to a pixel). Memory is so expensive! Your
2.1 mpix camera probably has more bits per pixel. This matters, as it's pretty
clear that 8 bits/pixel isn't enough for quality photos -- the fidelity of tone
and hue isn't sufficient for the eye to deduce 3D smoothly, so the photo looks
flat. The cartoonish part was largely caused by exceeding the limited color
gamut of the $100 inkjet printer.
Professional digicams (such as Leaf, $20K and up) use 12 bits or more per pixel
per color when taking the photo. This is reduced somewhat after various
corrections have been applied, allowing the numerical noise caused by the
correction math to be discarded with the truncated bits.
>Film doesn't get judged as a medium based on disposible cameras (some of
>which are pretty good) and 1-hour processing.
My point was that that little 2.1-mpix P&S was no bargain.
That said, the folks at my work were happy with those lousy digital prints.
They didn't know what they were missing, so I kept my mouth closed and just
nodded my head sagely, and didn't suggest that a $10 disposable camera would
have been far better. I did suggest redoing the inkjet prints so they would be
the same as seen on screen, but I don't think they understood what I was
saying. Oh well. They're happy.
>Love my OMs, but tell the truth.
Whoa! I did tell the truth. We are debating interpretation, not truth.
Joe Gwinn
>Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
> >A few weeks ago, there was a discussion of the relative merits of film
> >versus digital, with the metric of goodness being how large an enlargement
> >each format would support, and it appears that visual sharpness was the
> >issue.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >At my company XMAS party, somebody was using a 2.1-megapixel point&shoot
> >with a built-in pipsqueak flash. The photos were terrible -- looked flat
> >and cartoonish, especially faces. Part of this was due to the photo
> >exceeding the gamut (color range) of the inkjet color printer, but the
> >photos weren't that great on the screen either. They would have been far
> >better off with a film camera, even a $10 disposable camera.
> >
[snip]
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|