After all this is a very valid issue, it defines the useful economic if not
recreation enhancing life of our beloved OM's.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Chakravorty" <suchismit@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] 35mm film lost the battle against digital ?
> 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|