Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Which is the better between digital camera and traditional camera?

Reply
Thread Tools

Which is the better between digital camera and traditional camera?

 
 
Kamol Panitpongsakorn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-09-2004
It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
photography.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-09-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed) > on 8 Apr 2004 18:13:46
-0700, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Kamol Panitpongsakorn) wrote:

>It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
>we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
>large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
>we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
>such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
>photography.


Only you can decide that for you.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DonB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-09-2004
There is no answer. Horses for courses. You may need both.
DonB
On 8 Apr 2004 18:13:46 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Kamol
Panitpongsakorn) wrote:

>It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
>we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
>large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
>we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
>such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
>photography.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-09-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (Kamol Panitpongsakorn) wrote:

>It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
>we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
>large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
>we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
>such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
>photography.


Both. The film provides far more detail. You can zoom in with a
digicam on a slide or neg, or even super 8 film strip, and get detail
throughout that tiny image. But you can shoot it with a 4-5MP digicam,
and print at 20x24 from that digitized image, easily. You just need
clean sharpening that doesn't add too many bright jaggies that might
be exaggerated in the final print.

 
Reply With Quote
 
stan@temple.edu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-09-2004
Kamol Panitpongsakorn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
> we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
> large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
> we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
> such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
> photography.


You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart Scale
to enlarge the image.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <c568oq$75a$(E-Mail Removed)> on 9 Apr 2004 13:34:18 GMT,
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Kamol Panitpongsakorn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> It seem that digital camera can reduce cost for developing process but
>> we can't get the good quality picture. For example, we can't print a
>> large paper if your camera provide just only 3.2 MegaPixels. However,
>> we can use film (traditional camera) in order to print a large paper
>> such as 20"*24". So,which is the best camera for the users and
>> photography.

>
>You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
>is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart Scale
>to enlarge the image.


No matter what you do, 3.2 MP will be "soft" at that size.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
zbzbzb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2004
>>You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
>>is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart

>Scale
>>to enlarge the image.

>
>No matter what you do, 3.2 MP will be "soft" at that size.
>


Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2004
(E-Mail Removed)bzbzb (zbzbzb) wrote:

>>>You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
>>>is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart

>>Scale
>>>to enlarge the image.


>>No matter what you do, 3.2 MP will be "soft" at that size.


>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.


You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.
Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?

20-24 isn't so big. But without sharpening, I agree - I think it would
be a little soft. But that's okay. It would be the next step up,
though, to get the shots of Art Wolfe, for example. It might even
require different equipment - dare I even say it on this ng . . film.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:09:17
-0700, Mark Johnson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) (zbzbzb) wrote:
>
>>>>You can print a 20"x24" digital image, even 3.2 Megapixels. The trick
>>>>is to use one of the interpolation packages such as Extensis' pxl Smart
>>>Scale
>>>>to enlarge the image.

>
>>>No matter what you do, 3.2 MP will be "soft" at that size.

>
>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.

>
>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.


Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good.

>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?


No tool can add real detail that isn't there.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2004
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>Even 6 megapixel would look terrible at that size.

>>
>>You can sharpen it to appear clean at a certain viewing distance.

>
>Indeed from 10 meters away it's looks very good.
>
>>Isn't that exactly the supposed selling point of Nik Sharpener?

>
>No tool can add real detail that isn't there.


I think he was referring to sharpness, and perceived clean, sharp
edges, not detail that just isn't present in a smaller frame. You'd
have to airbrush and creatively 'enhance' to put something there that
isn't in the photo.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

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
Build a Better Blair (like Build a Better Bush, only better) Kenny Computer Support 0 05-06-2005 04:50 AM
turning traditional cameras into digital cameras Dan Jacobson Digital Photography 9 10-31-2004 04:37 PM
Digital Versus Traditional Cameras Glenn Jacobs Digital Photography 5 10-08-2004 02:52 PM
Which is the better between digital camera and traditional camera? Kamol Panitpongsakorn Digital Photography 0 04-09-2004 01:25 AM
Night shots are better with digital camera- No film vs camera debate zxcvar Digital Photography 4 09-01-2003 06:38 PM



Advertisments