Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?

Reply
Thread Tools

Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?

 
 
Toralf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004
Hi.

I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital
cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with
35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of
them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the
numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are
usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as
35mm, which is not the way you do proper research.

To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes
high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed
when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of
pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation"
leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high
resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric
precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot.

Be that as it may, some of the questions I'd like to have answered are
these:

1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? I think I read
somewhere that a colour negative is at least 3000dpi. Is that correct?
How about black&white? (Yeah I know, a film doesn't have pixels in
exactly the same sense as a digital image, but it *is* made up of
discrete elements after all.)

2. What about the print? 300dpi?

3. I know that the most common sensors are made up of individual
elements for the read, green and blue channels, arranged in a special
pattern, whose data is somehow interpolated into RGB pixels. But what
exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean in that context? Does it mean that
the sensor has (just) 6 million elements, or that data from a higher
number (like 18 or 24 million) is combined into 6 million RGB pixels?

The same question more bluntly put: When Canon/Nikon/Pentax is talking
about 6MP, is that just a big a lie as the one about 10MP on Sigma
cameras? (I'm hoping not, as I think the Sigma/Foveon way of counting
really takes the cake.)

4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation
be quantified and/or measured against e.g. the error introduced by
scanning a negative with a film-scanner? And how does it compare with
pixel interpolation in the scanning sense?

5. And how about those other parameters I mentioned briefly above - like
different kinds of geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc.?
Can those be compared with the ones of plain old film?

6. And the chromic aberration effects? How serious are they these days?
And are the full-frame sensors that are actually found in some high-end
cameras now, in any way comparable to film in that respect?

Well, maybe some people will say I have a somewhat critical or
conservative attitude towards digital cameras, but I actually think you
ought to be a bit sceptical when something "new and wonderful" comes a
long; new technology is too often introduced for technology's own sake, IMO.

- Toralf
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Herzstein
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004
Toralf wrote:
> I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital
> cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with
> 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of
> them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the
> numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are
> usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as
> 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research.
>
> To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes
> high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed
> when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of
> pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation"
> leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high
> resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric
> precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot.
>.....


Why not convince yourself (one way or the other) by comparing
side-by-side prints (or whatever final output you like) of 35mm
prints/scans and 6MP DSLR. I viewed some 20" X 30" prints from a 6PM
digital, bought one, sold my film bodies and haven't regreted it. YMMV

-Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nitzsche
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004
OK, I'll take a shot at it...

It used to be "Film is cheap,' now it's "Cameras are cheap."

> 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway?

- For practical purposes, it's infinite.

> 2. What about the print? 300dpi

- Unless you're printing posters, it's not relevant.

> 3. exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean

- 6.3 megapixels is 6,291,456 sensors.

> 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned

interpolation be measured
- Film will almost always be better, but it's what the outside eyes see
that matters.

> 5. geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc.

- That's a lens issues, not sensor/film issues

> 6. And the chromic aberration effects?

- As far as I know, all digicams are prone to purple fringing, which is
something you don't see on any cheap slr.

My two cents worth.


> Hi.
>
> I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital
> cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with
> 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of
> them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the
> numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are
> usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as
> 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research.
>
> To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes
> high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed
> when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of
> pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation"
> leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high
> resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric
> precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot.
>
> Be that as it may, some of the questions I'd like to have answered are
> these:
>
> 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? I think I read
> somewhere that a colour negative is at least 3000dpi. Is that correct?
> How about black&white? (Yeah I know, a film doesn't have pixels in
> exactly the same sense as a digital image, but it *is* made up of
> discrete elements after all.)
>
> 2. What about the print? 300dpi?
>
> 3. I know that the most common sensors are made up of individual
> elements for the read, green and blue channels, arranged in a special
> pattern, whose data is somehow interpolated into RGB pixels. But what
> exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean in that context? Does it mean that
> the sensor has (just) 6 million elements, or that data from a higher
> number (like 18 or 24 million) is combined into 6 million RGB pixels?
>
> The same question more bluntly put: When Canon/Nikon/Pentax is talking
> about 6MP, is that just a big a lie as the one about 10MP on Sigma
> cameras? (I'm hoping not, as I think the Sigma/Foveon way of counting
> really takes the cake.)
>
> 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation
> be quantified and/or measured against e.g. the error introduced by
> scanning a negative with a film-scanner? And how does it compare with
> pixel interpolation in the scanning sense?
>
> 5. And how about those other parameters I mentioned briefly above - like
> different kinds of geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc.?
> Can those be compared with the ones of plain old film?
>
> 6. And the chromic aberration effects? How serious are they these days?
> And are the full-frame sensors that are actually found in some high-end
> cameras now, in any way comparable to film in that respect?
>
> Well, maybe some people will say I have a somewhat critical or
> conservative attitude towards digital cameras, but I actually think you
> ought to be a bit sceptical when something "new and wonderful" comes a
> long; new technology is too often introduced for technology's own sake,
> IMO.
>
> - Toralf

 
Reply With Quote
 
MXP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004
All the tests I have seen where 35mm film is compared to a modern DSLR
(6-11MP)...the DSLR pictures shows more detail and less noise than a fine
grained film like Provia 100F. It is quite fustrating that 6MP can beat
35mm.
I know many scanners can do 4000 dpi but if most of the information is
noise?

I still use film and it will be quite interresting to see a test where e.g.
Provia 100F
shows more detail than an e.g. D1X/D70 or 1Ds/300D.

When I see my slides projected it seems strange that a 6MP DSLR can do
better....

Max


"Toralf" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i en meddelelse
news:cdp6co$rm3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi.
>
> I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital
> cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with
> 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of
> them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the
> numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are
> usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as
> 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research.
>
> To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes
> high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed
> when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of
> pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation"
> leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high
> resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric
> precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot.
>
> Be that as it may, some of the questions I'd like to have answered are
> these:
>
> 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? I think I read
> somewhere that a colour negative is at least 3000dpi. Is that correct?
> How about black&white? (Yeah I know, a film doesn't have pixels in
> exactly the same sense as a digital image, but it *is* made up of
> discrete elements after all.)
>
> 2. What about the print? 300dpi?
>
> 3. I know that the most common sensors are made up of individual
> elements for the read, green and blue channels, arranged in a special
> pattern, whose data is somehow interpolated into RGB pixels. But what
> exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean in that context? Does it mean that
> the sensor has (just) 6 million elements, or that data from a higher
> number (like 18 or 24 million) is combined into 6 million RGB pixels?
>
> The same question more bluntly put: When Canon/Nikon/Pentax is talking
> about 6MP, is that just a big a lie as the one about 10MP on Sigma
> cameras? (I'm hoping not, as I think the Sigma/Foveon way of counting
> really takes the cake.)
>
> 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation
> be quantified and/or measured against e.g. the error introduced by
> scanning a negative with a film-scanner? And how does it compare with
> pixel interpolation in the scanning sense?
>
> 5. And how about those other parameters I mentioned briefly above - like
> different kinds of geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc.?
> Can those be compared with the ones of plain old film?
>
> 6. And the chromic aberration effects? How serious are they these days?
> And are the full-frame sensors that are actually found in some high-end
> cameras now, in any way comparable to film in that respect?
>
> Well, maybe some people will say I have a somewhat critical or
> conservative attitude towards digital cameras, but I actually think you
> ought to be a bit sceptical when something "new and wonderful" comes a
> long; new technology is too often introduced for technology's own sake,

IMO.
>
> - Toralf



 
Reply With Quote
 
BeamGuy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004
A 2MP DSLR often does better than a 35mm camera because the depth
of field is so much greater for the tiny focal length lens. Another thing you
might ask is how many pixels are you actually using in your eye? If you only
have 2MP in the area that the photo is in your visual range it no longer matters
if there are 2 or 200MP.

And unless you take your film to a professional photo lab the processing lab
will likely print it out of focus anyway.

The net result is I find even my 5 year old 2MP camera delivers sharper pictures
than my pile of 35mm equipment does.


"MXP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:41003402$0$227$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> All the tests I have seen where 35mm film is compared to a modern DSLR
> (6-11MP)...the DSLR pictures shows more detail and less noise than a fine
> grained film like Provia 100F. It is quite fustrating that 6MP can beat
> 35mm.
> I know many scanners can do 4000 dpi but if most of the information is
> noise?
>
> I still use film and it will be quite interresting to see a test where e.g.
> Provia 100F
> shows more detail than an e.g. D1X/D70 or 1Ds/300D.
>
> When I see my slides projected it seems strange that a 6MP DSLR can do
> better....
>
> Max
>
>
> "Toralf" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:cdp6co$rm3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Hi.
> >
> > I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital
> > cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with
> > 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of
> > them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the
> > numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are
> > usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as
> > 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research.
> >
> > To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes
> > high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed
> > when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of
> > pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation"
> > leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high
> > resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric
> > precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot.
> >
> > Be that as it may, some of the questions I'd like to have answered are
> > these:
> >
> > 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? I think I read
> > somewhere that a colour negative is at least 3000dpi. Is that correct?
> > How about black&white? (Yeah I know, a film doesn't have pixels in
> > exactly the same sense as a digital image, but it *is* made up of
> > discrete elements after all.)
> >
> > 2. What about the print? 300dpi?
> >
> > 3. I know that the most common sensors are made up of individual
> > elements for the read, green and blue channels, arranged in a special
> > pattern, whose data is somehow interpolated into RGB pixels. But what
> > exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean in that context? Does it mean that
> > the sensor has (just) 6 million elements, or that data from a higher
> > number (like 18 or 24 million) is combined into 6 million RGB pixels?
> >
> > The same question more bluntly put: When Canon/Nikon/Pentax is talking
> > about 6MP, is that just a big a lie as the one about 10MP on Sigma
> > cameras? (I'm hoping not, as I think the Sigma/Foveon way of counting
> > really takes the cake.)
> >
> > 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation
> > be quantified and/or measured against e.g. the error introduced by
> > scanning a negative with a film-scanner? And how does it compare with
> > pixel interpolation in the scanning sense?
> >
> > 5. And how about those other parameters I mentioned briefly above - like
> > different kinds of geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc.?
> > Can those be compared with the ones of plain old film?
> >
> > 6. And the chromic aberration effects? How serious are they these days?
> > And are the full-frame sensors that are actually found in some high-end
> > cameras now, in any way comparable to film in that respect?
> >
> > Well, maybe some people will say I have a somewhat critical or
> > conservative attitude towards digital cameras, but I actually think you
> > ought to be a bit sceptical when something "new and wonderful" comes a
> > long; new technology is too often introduced for technology's own sake,

> IMO.
> >
> > - Toralf

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen H. Westin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004
Toralf <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Hi.
>
> I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital
> cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares
> with 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but
> few of them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to
> see the numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they
> refer to are usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras
> are as good as 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research.
>
> To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes
> high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly
> impressed when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about
> *billions* of pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word
> "interpolation" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I
> know that high resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like
> geometric precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot.
>
> Be that as it may, some of the questions I'd like to have answered are
> these:
>
> 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway?


It's hard to say, as the resolution limit is different from that of a
digital sensor. Rather than a hard limit, you get less information and
more blur and noise as you increase resolution in scanning a piece of
film.

> I think I read
> somewhere that a colour negative is at least 3000dpi. Is that
> correct?


It's in the ballpark. The data sheet I have for Provia 100F shows an
MTF of 35% or so at 50 cycles/mm. That corresponds. to 100 samples/mm,
which is 2540 dpi. You presumably know what MTF means, but for others
who may be reading, that says that if you image a sine-wave grating
onto this film at a frequency of 50 cycles per millimeter, you will
get about 35% of the contrast back from the film. But then what comes
out of the lens will be reduced in contrast from what was in the
envirnoment, so it's on the ragged edge of what you might really hope
to reproduce. The MTF for Ektachrome 100 Pro is right at 30% at 50
c/mm. Kodachrome 64 is about the same, and Kodachrome 25 is about 35%.

> How about black&white?


Well, the data sheet on Kodak Technical Pan, which is an extreme upper
bound, has MTF at 50% at 180 c/mm or so. That's for ISO 25, developed
in Technidol. That's Kodak Tech Pub P-255, available at
<http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.21.22.16&lc=en>.
For Plus-X, at ISO 125, Tech Pub F-4018 (at
<http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.21.20.16&lc=en>)
rates it at 50 lp/mm at 1.6:1 contrast, 125 at 1000:1 (which you
aren't likely to reach it practice).

So I think we can say that scanning film at more than, say, 360
samples/mm (about 9,000 samples/inch) is pretty much useless. In most
circumstances, 100 samples/mm or 2,540 /inch is plenty. So we're in
the region of 9MP for a normal 24x36mm 35mm film frame.

> (Yeah I know, a film doesn't have
> pixels in exactly the same sense as a digital image, but it *is*
> made up of discrete elements after all.)


But they aren't spaced on a regular grid, so things look a lot different.

> 2. What about the print? 300dpi?


Well, there are lots of variables involved there. One of the little
secrets that the "film-only" zealots don't seem to mention is that to
view the film, it must either be scanned, projected, or printed. I
have heard the claim that scanning digitally loses quality, but so do
the other two processes. How good are the optics in your enlarger or
slide projector? How perfectly is either one focused? I really don't
know what sort of degredation is involved, but it seems that it might
be on the same order as through the camera optics, or worse. And lens
MTF's usually aren't quoted beyond 40 cycles/mm! Check the Zeiss or
Canon Web sites if you don't believe me.

> 3. I know that the most common sensors are made up of individual
> elements for the red, green and blue channels, arranged in a
> special pattern, whose data is somehow interpolated into RGB
> pixels. But what exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean in that
> context? Does it mean that the sensor has (just) 6 million
> elements, or that data from a higher number (like 18 or 24 million)
> is combined into 6 million RGB pixels?


The former. Except for the Foveon sensor in the Sigma SD9/SD10, which
has about 3.5 million sites, each of which detects all three channels.

> The same question more bluntly put: When Canon/Nikon/Pentax is talking
> about 6MP, is that just a big a lie as the one about 10MP on Sigma
> cameras? (I'm hoping not, as I think the Sigma/Foveon way of counting
> really takes the cake.)
>
> 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned
> interpolation be quantified and/or measured against e.g. the error
> introduced by scanning a negative with a film-scanner? And how does
> it compare with pixel interpolation in the scanning sense?


Not really. The reality is that sensing all channels at each location
is a Good Thing, other factors being equal, but the color filter array
isn't as bad as you might think. First of all, the three color
channels aren't completely uncorrelated, so the information from a red
sensel can be used to help estimate the red and green values at that
point. Second, images have some sort of spatial structure, and modern
demosaicing algorithms try to detect that to deduce missing
values. Finally, the sampling rate is higher for the green channel, to
which the human visual system is most sensitive, both in luminance and
resolution.

> 5. And how about those other parameters I mentioned briefly above -
> like different kinds of geometric distortions, noise, flat field
> bias etc.? Can those be compared with the ones of plain old film?


Yup. Lots of them are only being noticed now with digital sensors
behind the same lenses that people have used for years with film.
I suspect that it's a matter of display more than anything else;
the magnification on screen at a 1:1 pixel magnification is huge
for most cameras, and people can use the little eyedropper to see
just how much the illumination falls off in the corner of the frame.

> 6. And the chromic aberration effects? How serious are they these
> days? And are the full-frame sensors that are actually found in
> some high-end cameras now, in any way comparable to film in that
> respect?


Chromatic aberration is basically in the lens. Doesn't matter
what sensor is behind it.

> Well, maybe some people will say I have a somewhat critical or
> conservative attitude towards digital cameras, but I actually think
> you ought to be a bit sceptical when something "new and wonderful"
> comes a long; new technology is too often introduced for technology's
> own sake, IMO.


Oh, sure. But there are a number of photographers who are putting away
their 4.5x6 film cameras because they see better quality out of the
Kodak DCS 14 MP cameras. In a functional way, the best digitals are
pretty good, though their limitations are different from those of film
cameras.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen H. Westin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004
nitzsche <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> OK, I'll take a shot at it...
>
> It used to be "Film is cheap,' now it's "Cameras are cheap."
>
> > 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway?

> - For practical purposes, it's infinite.


Not in this universe. For practical purposes, it's somewhere between
30-75 cycles/mm, most of the time.

<snip>

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen H. Westin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004
"BeamGuy" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> A 2MP DSLR often does better than a 35mm camera because the depth
> of field is so much greater for the tiny focal length lens. Another thing you
> might ask is how many pixels are you actually using in your eye?


Well, at 40 cycles per degree, and perhaps a 140-degree horizontal
field of view, it's over 10,000 pixels across. We don't have any
display that can approach it.

<snip>

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Weaver
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004

"Toralf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cdp6co$rm3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi.
>
> I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital
> cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with
> 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of
> them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the
> numbers, please),


I don't think there are any numbers that are going to satisfy you. First of
all, there are the variables of the film, the scanner, and the subject (are
you talking about a picture of a high-contrast B&W test target using slow,
fine grain film with a prime lens and scanned with a high-end drum scanner?
If so, that's going to yield idealized results that don't match the
practical experiences of photographers comparing film to digital). And then
there's the judgement call with respect to grain-- when you've reached a
scanning resolution where additional detail can still be extracted but the
grain of the film is obvious and objectionable--do you still count that as
useful resolution? And if not, who decides at what point the grain is
obtrusive enough that addtional resolution is of no value?

Mark



 
Reply With Quote
 
Zebedee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2004
I spent ages working out all the details. I came to the conclusion that if
you measured the area of a perfect print from a 35mm negative or 35mm slide
in inches and then divided the dimensions by 150 you'd be able to work out
the vertical/horizontal pixels of the image. Then simply multiply the two
together to get megapixels. That's the theory anyway.

In practice, how big is the biggest print you normally make? If your normal
biggest print is 10x8 then 3 megapixels is all you ever need (two at a
pinch).

But the biggest limitation is your printer. How many of us can afford an A3
or greater printer or even the ink to make A3 prints?

How many A4 prints can you hang on your wall?

I decided to settle on 3 megapixels. It's adequate for my needs and as with
slides, I ensure my photos are perfect before I squeeze the button. I claim
3 megapixels is the perfect equivalent of 35mm for most purposes. 6mp just
eats up storage space for no visible advantage.

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)



 
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
501 PIX "deny any any" "allow any any" Any Anybody? Networking Student Cisco 4 11-16-2006 10:40 PM
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams Richard Lee Digital Photography 16 08-23-2004 06:04 PM
call any usa REAL telephone number from the internet at pulver freeworld for .06 per minute - have your own real fone # for $10 month!! ucallvoip@yahoo.com VOIP 0 06-09-2004 01:41 AM
Bigger image size and lower quality vs. Smaller image size and higher quality Desmond Digital Photography 5 09-27-2003 04:08 AM
THE Difference Between Good Quality and Poor Quality Pictures! N.E.1. Digital Photography 4 09-23-2003 02:43 AM



Advertisments