I did not say anything before when you have posted your tests CH, but
perhaps we need some standard for visual judgement. It is hard to
compare when the film image is twice as big as the digital image.
When you upsize the 10D image to the same dimensions as the film
image and when you down size the film image to the size of the 10D
image, the 10D image wins in both size comparisons, at least to my
eye. So apparently we have completely different ways of looking at an
image. I am certainly in awe of your prowess as a photographer, but I
am puzzled by this testing. It is probably just me.
Part of the problem in looking at the images is the long time period
between them and the change in the appearance of even the surfaces of
the buildings. I had a similar problem with a comparison you
presented in Italy, I believe, in which the lighting was different
enough to obscure the difference between the film and digital media,
that is the difference you pointed out could as easily been the
result of lighting differences.
Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA
On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:54 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
> Here is the test I made three years ago and most of you should have
> seen it
> more than once:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/Film-10D.htm
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|