Forget about this ancient article, I have seen this long ago. I have also
seen luminous-landscape article mentioned the 3MP 30D file already better
than 35mm RDP III image in resolving details. People can be wrong not
everything on the net is reliable.
Now I have my own 4000dpi scanner, my own E-1 file and my own 21MP files. I
have two usable eyes, I don't need to consult anyone.
You just mentioned your E-1 file already beat your own Ektachrome E100
slides with such careful test (use the OM50/2 and divide the scan into 64
cells!), are you sure you need a digital camera with higher MP? :-)
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Irisarri"
Dear C.H.Ling,
I found this article very interesting.
I wanted to see if this perception I had about contrast of digital
images was true or false.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#digi2camres2
I still think a 5Mp camera without bayern pattern can beat 35mm film.
The main problem is color interpolation.
An Olympus E-4 with 10Mp with no color interpolation will be plenty
enough for our purposes.
David Irisarri
C.H.Ling escribió:
> Sorry, I think I need a new monitor, I don't see what you mean, the film
> image is very fine and details to my eyes at 100% (actual pixel) veiw.
> There
> is simply not enough pixels on the 5MP image, even a true 5MP (RGB) image
> will not resolve the details as seen on the film image.
>
> If you don't see what I mean, just look at the poster to read the small
> characters.
>
> BTW, I don't see any problem to work with film images. After scanning over
> 10K images, I found I started to love negatives more.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Irisarri"
>
> Dear C.H. Ling,
>
> This is exactly what I mean. Nice example, even concentrating on the
> center the image is so blurred and it lacks of so much deail that you´ll
> need a PS unsharp mask of 200 and radius of 2.0 to sharpen the image.
> This is the main problem of 35 film images. The second one blows away
> the first one.
>
> There is no point seeing a higher number of pixels with more blurred
> detail.
>
> If bayer pattern in the second image could be removed, 5Mp would be
> plenty enough to blow away 35mm images in clarity and definition.
>
> Now try to select something inside the 35mm image with the PS magic hand
> tool, due to the lack of contrast detail, etc... it´s almost impossible.
> Digital SLR images have contrast, detail and it´s much easier to work
> with them. Believe me that it was a nightmare to retouch 35mm images
> some years ago.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
> .H.Ling escribió:
>
>> I can't agree with you, E-1's resolution is far from 35mm film can
>> provide.
>> Here are two shots I took in 2004 (sorry, some might have seen them in
>> previous discussion ).
>>
>> OM4Ti 21/2 at F5.6
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/P_06.jpg (3.3MB)
>>
>> E1 with 11-22 at F4 1/800s
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/P8193517.jpg (1.2MB)
>>
>> Please just concentrate on the center resolution, as my 21/2 seems to
>> have
>> some problem on the edges. Check especially the lamps inside the shop.
>> The film shot are clearly MUCH better.
>>
>> I'm enjoying my OM-5D II's 21MP quality, just love the fine details in
>> the
>> images.... may be I will try to make a Velvia 50 comparison again:
>>
>> OM-5D II, 35-70/3.6 at F5.6
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_0845_F.jpg (6.5MB)
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
