> I concur with this, I do not believe that the nature of the capture medium
> could have any effect on the bokeh, just as it cannot have any effect on
> resolving power, unless somebody proves otherwise to me.
As you'd expect, I don't agree with this. I believe the capture medium has
quite a bit of bearing on bokeh characteristics.
1. Digital sensors have their own inherent flare which is easily seen with
ultra-bright spots within the image. Film has a uniform lateral halation in
all directions (ie, blob), whereas you will get a multibladed "fan" as a
result of the physical nature of the sensor and microlenses
2. Film is "self-attenuating", in that the straight-line response section of
film is relatively short and the toe and shoulder is long. Digital has
little to no self-attenuation and the straight-line section is much longer
in comparison. This causes OOF highlights in digital to actually be brighter
than they are in a comparable film image
3. Microlenses, again... The MF digital backs are nearly always designed
without microlenses as there is a very distinct change in the images. I
could cite song and verse on this, but a google search such suffice. The MF
back makers found that it is better to correct vignetting in software than
it is to throw microlenses on the sensor
5. USM-based stepping in the penumbra. (2*:* a surrounding or adjoining
region in which something exists in a lesser degre*e). When you take a
gentle falloff and apply USM to that falloff, you can get one or more
distinct steps.
I have noticed a distinct difference in the bokeh from my 100/2.8 in film
and digital. Even when I account for the cropped format by the difference is
clear to see.* **The 100/2.8 has buttery smooth bokeh on the film images,
but has a busy, raspy look on the E-1/.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|