Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

re: Kodak exiting the film business

The British Journal of Photography said the news would concern the
industry.

"The resolution is still a thousand times higher than most digital
cameras can offer so long as a good scanner is used.

Re: Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>re: Kodak exiting the film business
>
>The British Journal of Photography said the news would concern the
>industry.
>
>"The resolution is still a thousand times higher than most digital
>cameras can offer so long as a good scanner is used.


What have they been smoking?

I have never had much time for the BJP, but that statement has taken
my respect down a further two or three notches.

Re: Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ogvf38duumo3p6t9htpu41l4i3r4ufdfvd@4ax.com...
> RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>>re: Kodak exiting the film business
>>
>>The British Journal of Photography said the news would concern the
>>industry.
>>
>>"The resolution is still a thousand times higher than most digital
>>cameras can offer so long as a good scanner is used.
>
> What have they been smoking?
>
> I have never had much time for the BJP, but that statement has taken
> my respect down a further two or three notches.


Obvously a decade or so behind the times. I know lots of people like that,
and arguing with an ideology set in stone is pointless :-(

Trevor.

Re: Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

In article <4N6dnXFvca6aj6XNnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@posted.localnet> , Ric
Trexell <rictrexell@vbe.com> wrote:

> I think if you are using a 8X10 camera, then film has the upper edge.

nope.

8x10 film only wins because it's huge. comparing 8x10 film to 35mm size
digital is ludicrous, just as 8x10 film to 35mm film would be.

compare like versus like, i.e., 8x10 film & an 8x10 scanning back.

> By
> good scanner, they are probably talking about a $5000 drum scanner. Perhaps
> even a 4X5 would beat a digital. The new Nikon 800 is suppose to be equal
> to a medium format. So there is not at this point a camera that will meet
> the resolution of an 8X10. That is not saying a digital back on a large
> format camera wouldn't do it,

it will.

> but they could be right depending on what they
> are comparing it to. Digital does not have the range of film.

digital has much more range than film.

> I think it
> can only show something like 40 shades of black and white while film can
> record over a hundred.

nonsense.

> However, the paper it is printed on can only record
> about 40 shades of gray, so you are not gaining much. Serious black and
> white photographers laugh at digital, so there must be a reason.

ignorance is the only reason.

Re: Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:

> When it comes to prints however most computer printers (except Kodak's
> lucious dye sublimation system)

Canon -> Selphy

> rely on dithering and so the colour
> resolution achieved on the page may not be the same as on photo-paper.

However, the printers have incredible dot resolutions.
2400x9600 dpi is not unusual.
Good printers often also use 8+ or 10+ colours[1] and several
dot sizes. Usually up to 3 colours can share any given dot,
depending on the paper. And even full groups of 256 dots are
usually close enough for 300 ppi real resolution ...

Many photo papers are deveolped with 300 or 400 ppi.


> OTOH even in the best process printed images the resolution is quite low and
> the dots can be easily seen with a low magnification lens.

Yep, the loupe can see the dots, which does not mean that the
continous tone photographic paper has more resolution --- it
merely degrades far more gracefully under magnification.

-Wolfgang

[1] almost always with a diluted magenta and cyan, and sometimes
with one or several diluted grays --- and then some less
important colours that "merely" stretch the colourspace
(often a red, green and/or blue).

Re: Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

Ric Trexell <rictrexell@vbe.com> wrote:

> Savageduck: I wasn't talking about f/stops, but by shades I meant that if
> you took a picture of 100 swabs of paint (used as an example) the first one
> consisting of 100 parts white, then the next having 99 parts white and 1
> part black, and repeated this until at the end of the board you had 100
> parts black, the digital would see about 40 different shades of gray where
> as film would see more.

Interesting, but it doesn't match my experiences at all. Oh,
I could imagine situations where a JPEG would be rendered like
that and where the film would be able to render more, but that
would be pure incompetence on the part of the photographer.
Overexposure comes to mind.

> For someone like me with what I call shade
> blindness, that is in tests my former employer gave me of 20 different
> shades of red-blue, I would only see about 15 it doesn't really matter.

Which may be the reason you believe there are only 40 shades of
gray in digital.

-Wolfgang

Re: Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe.com> wrote in message
news:4N6dnXFvca6aj6XNnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@posted.local net...
> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c0f715ee-ce7d-40ac-8a62-c233839fec3c@x3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> re: Kodak exiting the film business
>>
>> The British Journal of Photography said the news would concern the
>> industry.
>>
>> "The resolution is still a thousand times higher than most digital
>> cameras can offer so long as a good scanner is used.
> ************************************************** *************
> I think if you are using a 8X10 camera, then film has the upper edge.

Might beat a Nikon D800, but there is also larger format digital these days.


>By good scanner, they are probably talking about a $5000 drum scanner.
>Perhaps even a 4X5 would beat a digital.

You need to specify what digital you are comparing to and why?


>The new Nikon 800 is suppose to be equal to a medium format. So there is
>not at this point a camera that will meet the resolution of an 8X10.

Comparing 35mm to 8x10 is rather stupid.


>That is not saying a digital back on a large format camera wouldn't do it,
>but they could be right depending on what they are comparing it to.

Even stupider of them to compare apples with oranges if that's the case.


>Digital does not have the range of film. I think it can only show
>something like 40 shades of black and white while film can record over a
>hundred. However, the paper it is printed on can only record about 40
>shades of gray, so you are not gaining much. Serious black and white
>photographers laugh at digital, so there must be a reason.

Exactly, the reason is the printer not the camera. Even then the range of
printers and papers are now getting much better for digital, and the
selection of papers for wet processing *far* worse :-(
But serious B&W photographers are by definition wanting old ways of doing
things, that's the reason! :-)

Trevor.

Re: Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Yep. I really don't know where the threshold is for the eye - I don't
> even know if my iMac displays 8 or 6 bits per color. At 6 bits it would
> be a mere 262,144 separate colours and I doubt many could see the
> difference between any two at one level of difference - and less so
> randomly dispersed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_Rate_Control

-Wolfgang

Re: Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

On Aug 26, 11:41*am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:

> Well, not necessarily. In real life, 4x5 and 8x10 shooters shoot at f/32 and
> f/45 a lot, at which point the resolution on the film isn't as good as 6x7
> shot at f/8.
>
> In landscape work, the large format users go after scenes with incredible
> amounts of detail; in the landscape magazines here, the LF work jumps off
> the page at one. But the resolution on the page isn't adequate for even
> digital.
>
> -- David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

I think the comparisons should be limited at most to medium format
film because if it's resolution you want, a collage of digital shots
fused together can be any resolution. From a practical standpoint,
medium format film is about the limit for varied photography, unless
there are still people shooting sports with Speedgraphics.

Re: Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face
 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:Z_ydnc-2ya0w3qfNnZ2dnVY3go2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> FWIW, I find 6x7 (56 x 70 mm) film scanned on a Nikon 9000 very close to
> what I see from the 21MP 5DII. With a good lens at f/8, the 5DII is
> friggin amazing. It's competing with over four times the area of film

My experience too, and the D800 is even better, and then there is medium
format digital!


>> Comparing 35mm to 8x10 is rather stupid.

> Well, not necessarily. In real life, 4x5 and 8x10 shooters shoot at f/32
> and f/45 a lot, at which point the resolution on the film isn't as good as
> 6x7 shot at f/8.

That would support my claim it is stupid to compare. However I dispute your
claim that the resolution of an 8"x10" film shot with a high quality large
format lens at f32 is less than 6x7cm film at f8. *IF* you tried to use the
same lens perhaps! Otherwise you're dreaming.
Remember you need a longer lens for larger formats at the same angle of
view, and the aperture does not cause the same diffraction effects until it
is correspondingly smaller.


> In landscape work, the large format users go after scenes with incredible
> amounts of detail; in the landscape magazines here, the LF work jumps off
> the page at one. But the resolution on the page isn't adequate for even
> digital.

Agreed, there is no benefit of using LF for small size prints like
magazines. The situation changes somewhat if you try to do a large mural
using a 35mm camera!
(you might do pano and stitch these days of course)
You certainly don't see many pictures being taken on 8x10" any more, it's
pretty hard to justify the cost of film for no real benefit. And the cost of
LF digital backs is rather prohibitive atm!

Trevor.