Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
>
>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>
>>> jimkramer wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Joel" <Joel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:6fldu3lkuci82h12jhv6f5i61jaeach9nt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>> "jimkramer" <Newsreader1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If quality of image is not a consideration go strictly digital.
>>>>>>> It is
>>>>>>> more convenient and less costly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless the OP is shooting MF, a 6MP DSLR is going to produce equal
>>>>>> or better
>>>>>> images then most commonly available (consumer) 35mm films. Where
>>>>>> this is
>>>>>> not the case is very fine grained slow silver B&W print films and
the
>>>>>> better, i.e. more expensive, slide films. At 10-12 MP It's pretty
>>>>>> much a
>>>>>> dead heat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't pay much attention to the name to remember the name(s), but
>>>>> I read
>>>>> someone here comparing film to 30MP digital camera. Of course I
>>>>> have no
>>>>> idea where s/he get the idea but it's pretty interesting to find
>>>>> someone has
>>>>> more knowledge than suppose to <bg>
>>>>>
>>>> For the very finest grain slowest B&W film with the very best lens
>>>> maybe you could scratch out 30 MP of real image data on a drum
>>>> scanner. But after spending all that for the image I'd wonder why
>>>> it wasn't done in medium or large format.> The real issues with
>>>> people who claim to be able to get large MP out of film is that they
>>>> have special equipment and the very finest of emulsions to work
>>>> with. The average consumer grade film is basically garbage to
>>>> generate 4x6" prints. A 1MP camera will make an acceptable 4x6
>>>> print and a 3MP will make a great 4x6 print.> Roger N. Clark posted
>>>> some nice comparisons between digital and film "MegaPixels"
>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
>>>> and
>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
>>>> And of course you need to consider the people that think you should
>>>> only compare prints. Prints made with the finest optical system
>>>> mind you. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> The differences is like that between LPs and CDs, oils and inks, film
>>> and tape.
>>
>>
>> Since we are talking about images,I prefer to compare film vs. digital
>> to oil paint vs. watercolors.
>
> Your point?
I use the analogy with folks who obsess about whether film
is better or digital is better. I hope that answers your
question.
|
