«

Ok gearheads, I've done a few more tests between the Totally Digital D60 and
the Fabulous EOS-1V, this time loaded up with Fuji Astia.

My first comparisons weren't very well done so just forget them.
(You already did, didn't you?)

The new comparisons can be found here:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/testing

In doing these tests, I tried my best to equalize the Field of View for both
formats.
This meant shooting the Digital at about 100mm while I zoomed the Super 70-200
f/2.8L to about 160mm for the film shot.

I have taken my friend, Rafe's advice and have included crops from both formats
which cover 0.25" of the 35mm frame. This results in the film sample being
about twice the size of the digital sample in my tests.

You may reach your own conclusions about the results of the tests or how the
tests were conducted (still poorly, I admit).
However, it is apparent to me that the film images don't capture any
significant amount of detail more than the digital images do. They simply
produce larger files when scanned at this resolution.

The film zealots who claim that large prints cannot be made from 6MP digital
images have probably never made any large prints from 6MP digital images.
I often wonder why someone would shoot 35mm film in the first place if the goal
was to produce 30"x45" prints.

I'll try to add a few more samples to my test as I get them scanned in.

Howdy Annika

Thanks for doing this excellent work.

Quite interesting how well digital does.

I'd love a comparison that's a picture of
a group of 5 to 10 people.

Homage,

Stan

where??????????????????????



"Stanley Krute" <> wrote in message
news:qTuEb.2512$ t...
> Howdy Annika
>
> Thanks for doing this excellent work.
>
> Quite interesting how well digital does.
>
> I'd love a comparison that's a picture of
> a group of 5 to 10 people.
>
> Homage,
>
> Stan
>
>
>

Annika1980 <> wrote:
> Ok gearheads, I've done a few more tests between the Totally Digital D60 and
> the Fabulous EOS-1V, this time loaded up with Fuji Astia.

A braver man than myself if you'll take this on.

There was an interesting post shortly following this one regarding
the 1.6 factor when comparing lens focal lengths between 35mm film
and DSLRs. The poster pointed out that the real difference is that
the sensor effectively crops the 35mm frame and e.g. a 100 mm lens
is still a 100 mm lens. Effectively, the image is blown up by the
1.6 factor if you see what I mean.

Perhaps a better basis for making a comparison would be to compare
equal areas at the film plane. This would probably tend to make the
DSLR look better yet, but at least the comparison would be using
identical glass and I think that's important in any sort of camera.

The other question I have is regarding the scan of the negative. What
steps have you taken to make sure that the scanned film captures all
of the information available on the film? It seems quite possible
that the film may contain more information than the scan that you
are comparing to the digital picture. In fact, I think it would be
quite difficult to make a scan that includes all of the detail in
the negative. In other words, if you want to compare a digital image
to a negative, what good is it to digitize the negative and compare
that? (Of course, it is quite difficult to display a non-digitized
image on the Internet.

> In doing these tests, I tried my best to equalize the Field of View for both
> formats.
> This meant shooting the Digital at about 100mm while I zoomed the Super 70-200
> f/2.8L to about 160mm for the film shot.

I guess if you wish to compare what you get in an 8x10 picture, then
you need to 'equalize,' but that introduces additional variables
which make this a less direct comparison.

> I have taken my friend, Rafe's advice and have included crops from both formats
> which cover 0.25" of the 35mm frame. This results in the film sample being
> about twice the size of the digital sample in my tests.

This makes it harder to compare the images. Can the image from the
digital camera be expanded to match the scan from the picture? Would
that make sense?

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:49:10 GMT, wrote:

>Annika1980 <> wrote:
>> Ok gearheads, I've done a few more tests between the Totally Digital D60 and
>> the Fabulous EOS-1V, this time loaded up with Fuji Astia.
>
> A braver man than myself if you'll take this on.
>
> There was an interesting post shortly following this one regarding
> the 1.6 factor when comparing lens focal lengths between 35mm film
> and DSLRs. The poster pointed out that the real difference is that
> the sensor effectively crops the 35mm frame and e.g. a 100 mm lens
> is still a 100 mm lens. Effectively, the image is blown up by the
> 1.6 factor if you see what I mean.
>
> Perhaps a better basis for making a comparison would be to compare
> equal areas at the film plane.



Bingo. Great minds think alike.

<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis>


BTW, my next step is going to be to compare
scans of prints to scans of film. Stay tuned.

I no longer have my wet darkroom, but I do have
a lot of the prints and the slides/negatives that
they were made from.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
scan comparisons
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

Annika,

I did a comparison between the D100 and
Olympus 35 mm gear recently with similar results.
It caused me to swap the 35 mm for MF and I
now have the best of both worlds.

Thanks for the tips, entertainment etc. through
the year. Have a good Christmas.

Graham


"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Ok gearheads, I've done a few more tests between the Totally Digital D60
and
> the Fabulous EOS-1V, this time loaded up with Fuji Astia.
>
> My first comparisons weren't very well done so just forget them.
> (You already did, didn't you?)
>
> The new comparisons can be found here:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/testing
>
> In doing these tests, I tried my best to equalize the Field of View for
both
> formats.
> This meant shooting the Digital at about 100mm while I zoomed the Super
70-200
> f/2.8L to about 160mm for the film shot.
>
> I have taken my friend, Rafe's advice and have included crops from both
formats
> which cover 0.25" of the 35mm frame. This results in the film sample being
> about twice the size of the digital sample in my tests.
>
> You may reach your own conclusions about the results of the tests or how
the
> tests were conducted (still poorly, I admit).
> However, it is apparent to me that the film images don't capture any
> significant amount of detail more than the digital images do. They simply
> produce larger files when scanned at this resolution.
>
> The film zealots who claim that large prints cannot be made from 6MP
digital
> images have probably never made any large prints from 6MP digital images.
> I often wonder why someone would shoot 35mm film in the first place if the
goal
> was to produce 30"x45" prints.
>
> I'll try to add a few more samples to my test as I get them scanned in.
>
>
>

wrote in news:qjwEb.588740$HS4.4347511@attbi_s01:

> In other words, if you want to compare a digital image
> to a negative, what good is it to digitize the negative and compare
> that? (Of course, it is quite difficult to display a non-digitized
> image on the Internet.
>

You could take a digital photo of the film through a microscope:

http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Upressing.html

--
To email me, type my 1st name before my last.

>From: Tony Whitaker

>You could take a digital photo of the film through a microscope:

Yes, that would certainly tell you which pic looks best under a microscope.
Sadly, not too many people view pics that way.

(Annika1980) wrote in
news::

> Yes, that would certainly tell you which pic looks best under a
> microscope.

If you can see it on a monitor, you could see it on a print.

--
To email me, type my 1st name before my last.

>From: Tony Whitaker

>> Yes, that would certainly tell you which pic looks best under a
>> microscope.
>
>If you can see it on a monitor, you could see it on a print.

Tell that to these guys who claim that you have to print everything out to
properly compare formats.
I say, "If it looks better on screen, it'll probably look better printed out."