Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > FF sensors: is 80MP needed?

Reply
Thread Tools

FF sensors: is 80MP needed?

 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006

"Matt Clara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> I haven't used 10 mp, so I don't know, but I suspect it would lack in one
> way, and that's the same way the 6-8 mp cameras do: upon enlargement they
> begin to break down rather quickly.


Perhaps you are upsampling in a poor way?

This is exactly the opposite result of just about everyone else; lots of
people are very happy with their insane enlargements from digital (much more
so than from film). I suspect that your lab may be messing up your digital
enlargements.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Greg \_\
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006
In article <eh194h$din$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Matt Clara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't used 10 mp, so I don't know, but I suspect it would lack in one
> > way, and that's the same way the 6-8 mp cameras do: upon enlargement they
> > begin to break down rather quickly.

>
> Perhaps you are upsampling in a poor way?
>
> This is exactly the opposite result of just about everyone else; lots of
> people are very happy with their insane enlargements from digital (much more
> so than from film). I suspect that your lab may be messing up your digital
> enlargements.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


Then again; maybe Matt has a tad more critical eye than you common folk.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006

"Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Matt Clara" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> > I haven't used 10 mp, so I don't know, but I suspect it would lack in
>> > one
>> > way, and that's the same way the 6-8 mp cameras do: upon enlargement
>> > they
>> > begin to break down rather quickly.

>>
>> Perhaps you are upsampling in a poor way?
>>
>> This is exactly the opposite result of just about everyone else; lots of
>> people are very happy with their insane enlargements from digital (much
>> more
>> so than from film). I suspect that your lab may be messing up your
>> digital
>> enlargements.

>
> Then again; maybe Matt has a tad more critical eye than you common folk.


No: Matt claims Matt gets better enlargements from 35mm, whereas everyone
else finds the digital to hold up better. Same eyes doing the comparisons in
both cases. Besides, we're talking about really really ugly prints that
you'd have to be blind not to see the problems with if you walk up for a
closer look.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006
David,
Do you have an Epson R1800 in Tokyo?
Or do I have you confused with someone else?



 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006

"frederick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> David,
> Do you have an Epson R1800 in Tokyo?


I have the R800 and the 2400 (although here they are called the PX-G900 and
the PX-5000, respectively).

> Or do I have you confused with someone else?


Probably not. Not a lot of Davids in Tokyo that do MF and 5D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006
Matt Clara wrote:

> I should have mentioned that I have shot 35mm right
> along side digital, plus I used to shoot nothing but 35mm, and 35mm blows up
> better.
> As for your inability to
> see that 35mm beats digital in most forms today, I suggest you simply don't
> have the experience there, or you would. And I'm not talking about scans of
> 35mm--you don't have to scan it to get the job done, see.


I agree with you but with a condition: it depends on how one
enlarges the digital image. I shot 35mm, 4x5 and digital along
side each other for a while before concluding which route
I would go. My first decision was whether or not to go scanned
film or stick with traditional enlarging. I did multiple tests,
and this one shows my experience (a comparison of cibachrome
prints of the same image, printed traditionally versus
a drum scanned film + lightjet print) (be sure to step
back 10 to 15 feet from your monitor):

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...advantage.html

Besides better control of color and contrast, I could
precisely dodge and burn, further making better prints
with digital, plus sharper prints that could be enlarged
more.

With 6-mpixel DSLR, my experience was that it was not up to
drum scanned Velvia (50). Neither was 8 mpixel DSLRs, until
I learned to improve resolution:

Image Restoration
Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...e-restoration1

I routinely upsample and run the Richardson-Lucy algorithm
and get close to double the pixels, turning an 8-megapixel
DSLR image into 32 megapixels. You can do this with
digital because of the higher signal-to-noise ratio of
digital. You can't do this with film very well because
of the noise from grain. So with 8-megapixel DSLR images,
I get much sharper 16x24 inch prints than I ever did from
35mm film printed traditionally or from drum scanned images.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "frederick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> David,
>> Do you have an Epson R1800 in Tokyo?

>
> I have the R800 and the 2400 (although here they are called the PX-G900 and
> the PX-5000, respectively).
>
>> Or do I have you confused with someone else?

>
> Probably not. Not a lot of Davids in Tokyo that do MF and 5D.
>

Thanks - Tokyo's a big place though - and you never know...
For the PX-G cartridges and K3 cartridges, is the Epson Japan
recommended price of ~ 1102 yen a good price, or is it possible to get
discounted cartridges on line etc?
Epson prices in some countries are more than double Japanese prices for
the same cartridges. The cartridges are region zone chipped - but a
simple workaround may be possible.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006

"frederick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>

> Thanks - Tokyo's a big place though - and you never know...
> For the PX-G cartridges and K3 cartridges, is the Epson Japan recommended
> price of ~ 1102 yen a good price, or is it possible to get discounted
> cartridges on line etc?


I've not gone to the effort to look for discounted cartriges online; 1102 is
what I'm paying. Note that the gloss optimizer is 556 Yen, but all the
others are 1102. (There are minor savings to be had by buying a whole set,
but there's no sticker on the box at hand.)

> Epson prices in some countries are more than double Japanese prices for
> the same cartridges.


Ouch! That's painful.

> The cartridges are region zone chipped - but a simple workaround may be
> possible.


Best of luck.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:02:23 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>I routinely upsample and run the Richardson-Lucy algorithm
>and get close to double the pixels, turning an 8-megapixel
>DSLR image into 32 megapixels. You can do this with
>digital because of the higher signal-to-noise ratio of
>digital. You can't do this with film very well because
>of the noise from grain. So with 8-megapixel DSLR images,
>I get much sharper 16x24 inch prints than I ever did from
>35mm film printed traditionally or from drum scanned images.



I'll agree with your conclusion if not the logic.

Not sold yet on the alleged merits/benefits of R-L
over any other sharpening method, or magically
"doubling" pixel counts by any means. I'm
really surprised that you and Bart keep trying
to sell us that Hocus-Pocus.

Not sold on the (major) adavantages of drum
scanning over an LS-8000, having compared
both very carefully.

OTOH, I'm constantly amazed at how captures
from a 10D can look really good at 16x24".
Really kind of uncanny.

I'm just back from Taos and Santa Fe. At Taos
I saw an exhibition of prints... 20x30", printed on
Somerset Velvet... and taken with a Nikon D70.

A bit oversharpened for my tastes, but they were
quite impressive nevertheless.

Oh, and I saw a nice Paul Strand collection at
the Georgia O'Keefe museum in Santa Fe.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2006
Raphael Bustin wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:02:23 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I routinely upsample and run the Richardson-Lucy algorithm
>>and get close to double the pixels, turning an 8-megapixel
>>DSLR image into 32 megapixels. You can do this with
>>digital because of the higher signal-to-noise ratio of
>>digital. You can't do this with film very well because
>>of the noise from grain. So with 8-megapixel DSLR images,
>>I get much sharper 16x24 inch prints than I ever did from
>>35mm film printed traditionally or from drum scanned images.

>
> I'll agree with your conclusion if not the logic.
>
> Not sold yet on the alleged merits/benefits of R-L
> over any other sharpening method, or magically
> "doubling" pixel counts by any means. I'm
> really surprised that you and Bart keep trying
> to sell us that Hocus-Pocus.


Its not hocus pocus. It is grounded on solid
math.

> Not sold on the (major) adavantages of drum
> scanning over an LS-8000, having compared
> both very carefully.


I agree. I didn't mean to imply drum scans are
a major advantage. While I believe a drum scan
is the top, but the difference is not that great from
new consumer scanners, and at this point I'll only
have a drum scan of a super 4x5. But then I
haven't shot a 4x5 this year, because, as you know,
I've been doing digital mosaics.

> OTOH, I'm constantly amazed at how captures
> from a 10D can look really good at 16x24".
> Really kind of uncanny.
>
> I'm just back from Taos and Santa Fe. At Taos
> I saw an exhibition of prints... 20x30", printed on
> Somerset Velvet... and taken with a Nikon D70.
>
> A bit oversharpened for my tastes, but they were
> quite impressive nevertheless.
>
> Oh, and I saw a nice Paul Strand collection at
> the Georgia O'Keefe museum in Santa Fe.


Cool. Wish I was there. I'm stuck in meetings.

Roger
 
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




Advertisments