At 01:50 10/7/02, you wrote:
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
Tim,
A lot of this is what the pixelheads would like everyone to believe. You
have to peel the onion to find out what their assumptions are. On this I
believe CH Ling and I agree: they're often unstated and require reverse
engineering to determine how they get their numbers. All too often it's
based on a very top end digital with world-class lens(es) compared to the
capability of a low end consumer color negative film and low end consumer
zoom lens.
For practical application, resolution must be considered for the system
which is a combination of at least lens and film. Film *does* make an
enormous difference. Kodak Gold 100 (now called "Bright Sun") is a
horridly coarse-grained film. It's grainier than Supra 400 or Portra
400NC, and nearly as coarse as Supra 800 or Portra 800. It falls about
mid-way between ISO 400 and ISO 800 professional color negative films.
If the "final image" is extended to prints from negatives, then enlarger
optics and print materials must also be included. In this case, one can
stop at comparison of film and digital file, as this is the baseline from
which a print could be made.
-- 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 >
|