Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Film vs. Digital: New Tests !!!

Thread Tools

Film vs. Digital: New Tests !!!

Posts: n/a
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Removed) (Annika1980) wrote:

>>From: Tony Whitaker (E-Mail Removed)

>>> 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.

You have to upsize everything to the same absolute size for fair
comparisons. You can not see the entire image on monitor, in all of its
glory. Full-screen viewing requires interpolation, which softens the
image. You either have to print the entire images (so that the highest
PPI is about 250-300) or sections of them to compare total images. Or,
you could upsize crops to fill the same area on the screen, which are
the same percentage of the original images, and view from a distance to
eliminate the monitor's resolution as a factor.

>I say, "If it looks better on screen, it'll probably look better printed out."

How do you view them on screen?

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply With Quote
Tony Whitaker
Posts: n/a
(E-Mail Removed) (Annika1980) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I say, "If it looks better on screen, it'll probably look better
> printed out."

I agree with that statement. I wasn't really talking about print quality.
What I meant was that if you make a big enough print, you will see the
microscopic detail on it. It's really there. It really could be printed,
although doing so would probably be difficult.

To email me, type my 1st name before my last.
Reply With Quote
Posts: n/a
>From: Tony Whitaker (E-Mail Removed)

>> I say, "If it looks better on screen, it'll probably look better
>> printed out."

>I agree with that statement.

Upon further reflection, I might not, even though I was the one who said it!

The reason is that digital images can and should be optimized before printing.

Here's an interesting article on Sharpening, written by digital guru, Bruce

In it, he discusses how you should sharpen the image differently depending on
the output (type of printer).
He notes, "The output process introduces sharpness." So an image that is
optimized for printing may look over-sharpened on screen.

In any event, it is unlikely that printing an image will show any more detail
than what you can see on screen. So comparisons of digital images on screen
has merit.

Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Junit tests, setting up tests without having to create a billion methods Java 8 02-28-2006 08:59 PM
Tests without study guides or practice tests? =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXNS?= Microsoft Certification 8 12-20-2005 04:59 AM
Constant.t fails 240 of 272 tests and recurs.t fails 1 of 25 tests on HPUX using perl 5.8.7 dayo Perl Misc 11 12-16-2005 09:09 PM
DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o) Sharp Shooter Digital Photography 10 06-22-2005 05:44 AM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM