Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 35mm film lost the battle against digital ?

Subject: Re: [OM] 35mm film lost the battle against digital ?
From: "Tim Chakravorty" <suchismit@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 23:50:53 -0700
Wow, so much for just a quote ! :-)    I didn't even read the whole article, 
just followed the
 link from photo.net , skipped over to theconclusion and posted a couple of 
lines from there 
 that I thought would stir up a real controversy !  Apparently its working ;-)
 I will study the article later and maybe post some comments.

-Tim



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] 35mm film lost the battle against digital ?


> At 21:51 10/6/02, Tim Chakravorty wrote:
> >"...I'm afraid that film has definitively lost the battle. The 
> >(Canon)1Ds's full-frame 11MP CMOS sensor produces a 32MB file - as big as 
> >a  typical scan. But this file is sharper and more noise free than any 
> >scan I have ever seen, including drum scans. There simply isn't a contest 
> >any longer..."
> >
> >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field-5.shtml
> >
> >-Tim
> 
> Tim,
> Now that all your OM gear is worthless, you won't even be able to give it 
> away.  For a small fee, I'll be glad to haul it off for you.  All I'll 
> charge you is the postage to send it to me.  Others would likely charge 
> more, especially if there's risk of any nasty, radioactive rare earth 
> lenses that would be considered hazardous waste.  :-)
> 
> More seriously, let's do some quick math:
> Presuming the use of high resolution lenses that support 150-200 lppmm, I 
> can only conclude you've never seen very fine grained chromes projected to 
> 40x60 inch size using *high*quality* projection lenses and white matte 
> screens, or seen what can be created with them on a high quality optical 
> enlarger using fine-grained print materials.  A Pro Photo CD creates a 72MB 
> file when the highest resolution 4096 x 6144 image is extracted from 
> it.  This is a 25 Megapixel file with 24-bit color content at about 85 
> lppmm, and it is *still* coarser than the resolving power and color 
> gradation of very fine grain 35mm film.  Velvia goes to nearly twice that 
> at 160 lppmm, and Provia 100F and Kodachrome 64 are hot on its heels.
> 
> For sake of argument, consider lens and film system limiting at 120 lppmm, 
> less than all these films and lenses.  A line pair is has a two pixel 
> width.  This is 240 pixels per mm.  A frame of 35mm film limited by optics 
> to 120 lppmm contains 5760 x 8640 pixels, or about 50MP, over 4X that of 
> Canon's new wonder.  Color gradation is also greater than 24-bit which 
> would create 150MB image files (zero compression to avoid any information 
> loss).  48-bit color which is closer to film content (but still not 
> completely there) creates a 300MB file.  A single 36-exposure roll of film 
> contains well over 10GB of information content.
> 
> Bottom line:
> There is very fine grain 35mm film available with resolution at lens 
> optical limits.  Velvia is 160 lppmm and Provia 100F is 140 
> lppmm.  Kodachrome 64 is about the same as Provia 100F based on what I've 
> seen of all these films projected to large screens using very high quality 
> projection lenses.  Don't confuse this with rms diffuse granularity 
> numbers; Kodachrome has higher edge definition and a much thinner emulsion 
> that compensates for slightly coarser grain.
> 
> BTW:
> How are you going to store all these 32MB files?  I can put an entire 36 
> exposure roll of Velvia, Provia 100F or Kodachrome 64 in two archive 
> pages.  A 3-inch binder can hold at least 75-100 rolls of 35mm film in 
> slide mounts.  If a roll only contained 10GB, a total of 750GB to 1000GB of 
> information is stored in a single 3-inch binder.
> 
> My conclusion:
> Digital cameras with form factors approximating the size of a 35mm SLR have 
> a long, long way to go before it can create the information content 35mm 
> film is capable of containing.
> 
> -- John
> 
> 
> < 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 >
> 


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz