11MP digital or medium format film?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Beowulf, Aug 22, 2004.

  1. In article <>, Bill Hilton
    <> writes

    I read somewhere that one should do all the processing in 14/16 bit. So
    my MF files from a Nikon 8000 are usually 430MB or so. You mention only
    200MB from a Tango (no less) scanner. Where do I go wrong? In particular
    since this is Chinese torture (no offence to our Chinese friends) I am
    using a fairly old, fairly slow PC, with a fairly restricted RAM (750MB)
    and fairly slow processor (2 or 3 years old). I know that I could
    downsample, but, presumably, I should do this just before printing, not
    at the processing stage? Thanks again.

    Another question (aren't I a curious little baby?): when you say
    "professionally done", what you probably mean is a scan done with a
    professional scanner in the Tango league. Surely, had you had a Tango
    in your room/office, you could have danced with it yourself, you
    wouldn't need somebody else to do it for you, if you can see what I
    mean?
    >
    >When we're selling large prints it's nice to have a $50 200 MB drum scan done
    >professionally.


    --

    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Aug 23, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Beowulf

    gsum Guest

    I have done a similar comparison between 6x9 Provia 100/Epson 3200
    and a Nikon D100. My results agree broadly with yours except
    at the scanner's highest optical resolution. This yields a 66mp file
    at 3200 ppi. I found that on a pixel by pixel basis, the D100
    is much better as, at that res., the scanner 'sees' only grain. Grain
    effects can be seen even at 1800ppi with Provia 100. I don't use
    Velvia as the Epson is unable to handle the saturated colours and
    I don't like over saturation.

    Whilst MF certainly provides far more information than a D100
    (and probably and 11mp Canon), I far prefer the D100's colours. They
    seem accurate and natural when compared to film's 'invisible' colours.

    Graham


    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Beowulf <> wrote:
    > >Do the 11 megapixel digital cameras approach the resolution of a medium
    > >format film camera? I have a Canon 10D digital, 6.3 megapixels, and a
    > >Canon Rebel Ti film camera. I would like the greater resolution of a
    > >medium format camera for larger finer grained prints-- but perhaps

    digital
    > >is approaching that with 11+ megapixels?

    >
    > It probably depends on your expectations, and what you mean by "medium
    > format". 645 is a whole different ballpark to 69, for example.
    >
    > Here's a datapoint that may prove useful. Last night, I was scanning a 66
    > medium format Velvia slide which I'd shot handheld with an old Yashica TLR
    > at 1/30 of a second. I was scanning this on an Epson 4870 flatbed, which
    > doesn't come close to getting all the detail out of the slide. A 1

    megapixel
    > version of the image is here:
    >
    > http://www.fastfoto.co.uk/Chris/Beer.jpg
    >
    > The initial output of the scanner is 100 million pixels. They're not "DSLR
    > quality" pixels, but that doesn't really matter for this point.
    >
    > Anyway, at the full 100 million pixel output of the scanner, two things

    are
    > apparent:
    >
    > 1) You can easilly read *all* the text on the label of the beer bottle.
    >
    > 2) The shot has camera shake (surprisingly little for the circumstances,

    but
    > TLRs are very stable for handheld work).
    >
    > The camera shake can be seen on the white-on-blue text on the bottle - the
    > letters very obviously have a slight vertical smearing to them, with

    letters
    > like "H" having two distinct crossbars instead of just one.
    >
    > Now I don't leave my scans at 100 million pixels, as that would be a huge
    > waste of disk space, so I typically downsize them. The way this image
    > behaves when downsized to different resolutions is educational:
    >
    > - At 36 megapixels (6000*6000), the image quality per pixel is similar to
    > whet I get from my 10D at 400 ISO. The text on the bottle is still
    > readable. The camera shake is still obvious.
    >
    > - At 25 megapixels (5000*5000), the image quality per pixel is similar to
    > what I get from the 10D shots I get in good light, with a good lens, on

    a
    > tripod. The smaller text is barely readable. The camera shake is there,
    > but difficult to see if you don't know where to look.
    >
    > - At 9 megapixels (3000*3000), the image quality per pixel is vastly

    better
    > than anything I've seen from a DSLR, with very sharply defined edges.

    It
    > looks like an over sharpened DSLR image, minus the sharpening

    artifacts,
    > or an SD10 type image, minus the aliasing. In short, "per pixel" at 9
    > megapixels, this is vastly better than anything I've ever seen any DSLR

    do.
    >
    > *HOWEVER*, in that same 9 megapixel image, you can't read any of the
    > smaller text on the bottle - each letter is only a few pixels wide.

    Also,
    > the camera shake is all but undetectable.
    >
    > With a proper film scanner, rather than a flatbed pretending to be one,
    > there is probably more detail to be recovered from medium format slides,
    > *and* this is a handheld shot, on a 1970s camera, with its Tessar-type

    lens
    > focused closely and wide-open (a situation where this lens type is not

    known
    > to shine). It is, however, shot on very high resolution slide film, namely
    > Velvia 50, and results from print film may be a bit softer.
    >
    > Having said all that, the conclusion I can draw from this is that using

    this
    > combination of film, camera and scanner, and looking purely from a detail
    > point of view, 66 medium format makes 11 DSLR megapixels look to be
    > something of a poor relation. A 1Ds might have delivered an image where

    the
    > smaller text on the bottle was just about readable, but it would be a

    close
    > thing. The slide, on the other hand, has lots of detail left at that

    point.
    >
    > However, if you're comparing to 645 medium format, shot on print film, and
    > you consider other things such as grain and shadow noise, the 1Ds probably
    > looks a bit more competitive.
     
    gsum, Aug 23, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Beowulf

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: 11MP digital or medium format film?
    >From: "gsum"
    >Date: 8/23/2004 7:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <4129f725$>
    >
    >I have done a similar comparison between 6x9 Provia 100/Epson 3200
    >and a Nikon D100. My results agree broadly with yours except
    >at the scanner's highest optical resolution. This yields a 66mp file
    >at 3200 ppi. I found that on a pixel by pixel basis, the D100
    >is much better as, at that res., the scanner 'sees' only grain. Grain
    >effects can be seen even at 1800ppi with Provia 100. I don't use
    >Velvia as the Epson is unable to handle the saturated colours and
    >I don't like over saturation.
    >
    >Whilst MF certainly provides far more information than a D100
    >(and probably and 11mp Canon), I far prefer the D100's colours. They
    >seem accurate and natural when compared to film's 'invisible' colours.
    >
    >Graham
    >
    >
    >"Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >> Beowulf <> wrote:
    >> >Do the 11 megapixel digital cameras approach the resolution of a medium
    >> >format film camera? I have a Canon 10D digital, 6.3 megapixels, and a
    >> >Canon Rebel Ti film camera. I would like the greater resolution of a
    >> >medium format camera for larger finer grained prints-- but perhaps

    >digital
    >> >is approaching that with 11+ megapixels?

    >>
    >> It probably depends on your expectations, and what you mean by "medium
    >> format". 645 is a whole different ballpark to 69, for example.
    >>
    >> Here's a datapoint that may prove useful. Last night, I was scanning a 66
    >> medium format Velvia slide which I'd shot handheld with an old Yashica TLR
    >> at 1/30 of a second. I was scanning this on an Epson 4870 flatbed, which
    >> doesn't come close to getting all the detail out of the slide. A 1

    >megapixel
    >> version of the image is here:
    >>
    >> http://www.fastfoto.co.uk/Chris/Beer.jpg
    >>
    >> The initial output of the scanner is 100 million pixels. They're not "DSLR
    >> quality" pixels, but that doesn't really matter for this point.
    >>
    >> Anyway, at the full 100 million pixel output of the scanner, two things

    >are
    >> apparent:
    >>
    >> 1) You can easilly read *all* the text on the label of the beer bottle.
    >>
    >> 2) The shot has camera shake (surprisingly little for the circumstances,

    >but
    >> TLRs are very stable for handheld work).
    >>
    >> The camera shake can be seen on the white-on-blue text on the bottle - the
    >> letters very obviously have a slight vertical smearing to them, with

    >letters
    >> like "H" having two distinct crossbars instead of just one.
    >>
    >> Now I don't leave my scans at 100 million pixels, as that would be a huge
    >> waste of disk space, so I typically downsize them. The way this image
    >> behaves when downsized to different resolutions is educational:
    >>
    >> - At 36 megapixels (6000*6000), the image quality per pixel is similar to
    >> whet I get from my 10D at 400 ISO. The text on the bottle is still
    >> readable. The camera shake is still obvious.
    >>
    >> - At 25 megapixels (5000*5000), the image quality per pixel is similar to
    >> what I get from the 10D shots I get in good light, with a good lens, on

    >a
    >> tripod. The smaller text is barely readable. The camera shake is there,
    >> but difficult to see if you don't know where to look.
    >>
    >> - At 9 megapixels (3000*3000), the image quality per pixel is vastly

    >better
    >> than anything I've seen from a DSLR, with very sharply defined edges.

    >It
    >> looks like an over sharpened DSLR image, minus the sharpening

    >artifacts,
    >> or an SD10 type image, minus the aliasing. In short, "per pixel" at 9
    >> megapixels, this is vastly better than anything I've ever seen any DSLR

    >do.
    >>
    >> *HOWEVER*, in that same 9 megapixel image, you can't read any of the
    >> smaller text on the bottle - each letter is only a few pixels wide.

    >Also,
    >> the camera shake is all but undetectable.
    >>
    >> With a proper film scanner, rather than a flatbed pretending to be one,
    >> there is probably more detail to be recovered from medium format slides,
    >> *and* this is a handheld shot, on a 1970s camera, with its Tessar-type

    >lens
    >> focused closely and wide-open (a situation where this lens type is not

    >known
    >> to shine). It is, however, shot on very high resolution slide film, namely
    >> Velvia 50, and results from print film may be a bit softer.
    >>
    >> Having said all that, the conclusion I can draw from this is that using

    >this
    >> combination of film, camera and scanner, and looking purely from a detail
    >> point of view, 66 medium format makes 11 DSLR megapixels look to be
    >> something of a poor relation. A 1Ds might have delivered an image where

    >the
    >> smaller text on the bottle was just about readable, but it would be a

    >close
    >> thing. The slide, on the other hand, has lots of detail left at that

    >point.
    >>
    >> However, if you're comparing to 645 medium format, shot on print film, and
    >> you consider other things such as grain and shadow noise, the 1Ds probably
    >> looks a bit more competitive.

    >


    I think as time goes on our films choices will be fewer and fewer. In the end
    there will be one film on a take-it- or-leave-it basis. (sigh)




    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Aug 23, 2004
    #23
  4. Beowulf

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: nobody nowhere

    >I read somewhere that one should do all the processing in 14/16 bit.


    Definitely a good idea for the global corrections.

    > So my MF files from a Nikon 8000 are usually 430MB or so. You
    > mention only 200MB from a Tango (no less) scanner. Where do I go wrong?


    The scan operator does the basic global corrections (set end points, remove
    color casts, etc) with the scanner software in 16 bit LAB mode, then once he's
    done he writes out an 8 bit/channel 200 MB file. If you insist on a 16 bit
    file it will be 400 MB but you have to pay more. So you're scanning at about
    the same rez as they are with MF.

    Why 200 MB? At one lab I use 200 MB costs $50 and then it's 75 cents for each
    extra MB, or $125 for 300 MB for example. While looking up stuff for this
    reply I just noticed that WCI only charges $80 for a 16 bit 400 MB scan so
    maybe I should look around a bit more :)

    >when you say
    >"professionally done", what you probably mean is a scan done with a
    >professional scanner in the Tango league.


    Yes.

    >Surely, had you had a Tango
    >in your room/office, you could have danced with it yourself, you
    >wouldn't need somebody else to do it for you, if you can see what I
    >mean?


    I think they cost around $30,000 new (maybe somewhat less now, I don't know)
    and it's not that easy to learn how to use them with the wet mounting and the
    specialized software. It's not like scanning with the Nikon 8000 :) The only
    individual I know who has one as his personal home scanner is Bill Atkinson.

    Here is more info if you want to check prices or see some of the services
    typically offered:

    http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/wciscans.htm

    or

    http://www.calypsoinc.com/ and on the 'digital services' link click 'scanning'
    There are cheaper places than these guys that still do a good job (like Nancy
    Scans) but these two are the favorites of many pros doing nature and wildlife.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 23, 2004
    #24
  5. Thank you Bill.


    In article <>, Bill Hilton
    <> writes
    >>From: nobody nowhere

    >
    >>I read somewhere that one should do all the processing in 14/16 bit.

    >
    >Definitely a good idea for the global corrections.
    >
    >> So my MF files from a Nikon 8000 are usually 430MB or so. You
    >> mention only 200MB from a Tango (no less) scanner. Where do I go wrong?

    >
    >The scan operator does the basic global corrections (set end points, remove
    >color casts, etc) with the scanner software in 16 bit LAB mode, then once he's
    >done he writes out an 8 bit/channel 200 MB file. If you insist on a 16 bit
    >file it will be 400 MB but you have to pay more. So you're scanning at about
    >the same rez as they are with MF.
    >
    >Why 200 MB? At one lab I use 200 MB costs $50 and then it's 75 cents for each
    >extra MB, or $125 for 300 MB for example. While looking up stuff for this
    >reply I just noticed that WCI only charges $80 for a 16 bit 400 MB scan so
    >maybe I should look around a bit more :)
    >
    >>when you say
    >>"professionally done", what you probably mean is a scan done with a
    >>professional scanner in the Tango league.

    >
    >Yes.
    >
    >>Surely, had you had a Tango
    >>in your room/office, you could have danced with it yourself, you
    >>wouldn't need somebody else to do it for you, if you can see what I
    >>mean?

    >
    >I think they cost around $30,000 new (maybe somewhat less now, I don't know)
    >and it's not that easy to learn how to use them with the wet mounting and the
    >specialized software. It's not like scanning with the Nikon 8000 :) The only
    >individual I know who has one as his personal home scanner is Bill Atkinson.
    >
    >Here is more info if you want to check prices or see some of the services
    >typically offered:
    >
    >http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/wciscans.htm
    >
    >or
    >
    >http://www.calypsoinc.com/ and on the 'digital services' link click 'scanning'
    > There are cheaper places than these guys that still do a good job (like Nancy
    >Scans) but these two are the favorites of many pros doing nature and wildlife.
    >
    >Bill


    --

    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Aug 23, 2004
    #25
  6. Beowulf

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Bart van der Wolf <> wrote:
    >That image is hardly representative of what film has to offer.
    >
    >The image suffers from camera shake. The zoom lens may have added it's
    >own limitations. Had the image been good, then 4000 ppi isn't enough
    >to resolve all detail.
    >
    >A small (6.35x6.35mm, or 4.7% of the ful frame area) crop from a 5400
    >ppi scan (un-retouched, no grain reduction, no sharpening) shows a
    >much more detailed image, and that one was handheld:
    ><http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/SE5400-Wbd-Crop.jpg> for the
    >crop, and
    ><http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/SE5400-Wbd-Overview.jpg> for the
    >overview.


    That image looks indeed better, but I have other 53 scans of slides from
    my brother, and they all are so unsharp. Many were taken during the day
    with strong sunlight, so exposure times must have been short enough to
    rule out camera shake.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 23, 2004
    #26
  7. Beowulf

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Allan Wind <> wrote:
    >On 2004-08-22, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> Well... see here for what you get from a Minolta DSLR with a Tamron 28-
    >> 200 lens:
    >>
    >> http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

    >
    >Do you have a larger resolution of this scan online, perhaps the
    >unprocessed version? I was expecting better results with a slide
    >scanner.


    That's the 4000 dpi scan of the slide (a 4000 dpi scan of a slide gives
    you an image with approx 5400 x 3600 pixels).
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Aug 23, 2004
    #27
  8. Beowulf

    dylan Guest

    From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
    35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.

    Don't believe Preddy (aka Verne or Orville Wright) and his Sigma/Foveon is
    as good as medium format.

    "Beowulf" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Do the 11 megapixel digital cameras approach the resolution of a medium
    > format film camera? I have a Canon 10D digital, 6.3 megapixels, and a
    > Canon Rebel Ti film camera. I would like the greater resolution of a
    > medium format camera for larger finer grained prints-- but perhaps digital
    > is approaching that with 11+ megapixels?
    > ~Beowulf
    >
    > --
    > "It said it needed Windows98 or better installed, so I installed Linux."
    >
     
    dylan, Aug 27, 2004
    #28
  9. "dylan" <> wrote:

    > From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
    > 35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.


    How about some references/pointer? The stuff I've seen has 35mm not being
    anywhere close to the 1Ds. (Although I do think that 645 at its best still
    edges out 11MP.)

    As I've said before, I _really_ like 11MP for A4 prints.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 27, 2004
    #29
  10. Beowulf

    dylan Guest

    Can't find the actual test I saw in a photo magazine, possibly professional
    photograher or bjp, as I moved recently and disposed of them, but they
    tested a EOS1Ds vs Film and the EOS1Ds came out slightly better in certain
    aspects.

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:cgmu0m$suh$...
    >
    > "dylan" <> wrote:
    >
    > > From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
    > > 35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.

    >
    > How about some references/pointer? The stuff I've seen has 35mm not being
    > anywhere close to the 1Ds. (Although I do think that 645 at its best still
    > edges out 11MP.)
    >
    > As I've said before, I _really_ like 11MP for A4 prints.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    >
     
    dylan, Aug 27, 2004
    #30
  11. "dylan" <> wrote in news:GDCXc.33$:

    > From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
    > 35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.


    High quality 11MP digital is much smoother than 35 mm film and it
    is in the same league as medium format. You can get more resolution
    out of film though. But it is very hard to compare.

    The film consists of random grains and the digital consists of a
    regular grid. A regular grid has problems with aliasing. A random
    pattern has problems with uneven resolution.

    If you want to resolve a thin power line, then a digital camera
    have problems. The pixels are larger than the lines width, so
    if you use a suitable anti alais filter, the line will be very
    blurry. And if you remove the anti alais filter, then the line will
    look mighty weird. Sharp, but weird.

    If you want to resolve the same line with film you are in a much
    better position. The line consists of lots of
    random very small dots, much smaller than the pixels above. The
    randomness of the dots will make the line position somewhat
    uncertain. But it will fool the eye and also resolution tests.
    Over the lengths of the line it will look rather sharp and straight.
    It is just like an artist do when drawing long lines - in small
    rather shaky parts - looking straigh when you see the entire line.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 27, 2004
    #31
  12. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:cgmu0m$suh$...
    >
    > "dylan" <> wrote:
    >
    >> From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
    >> 35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.

    >
    > How about some references/pointer? The stuff I've seen has 35mm not being
    > anywhere close to the 1Ds. (Although I do think that 645 at its best still
    > edges out 11MP.)
    >
    > As I've said before, I _really_ like 11MP for A4 prints.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >


    Search the information for professionals area of Kodak's Web site. And read
    what is there about their ~11 Mp camera.
     
    Marvin Margoshes, Aug 27, 2004
    #32
  13. Beowulf

    zuuum Guest

    Let's not forget, we are not just looking for resolution, but also dynamic
    range (shadow and highlight detail) of MED-FORMAT films vs digicam.
     
    zuuum, Aug 27, 2004
    #33
  14. Beowulf

    Mark M Guest

    "Roland Karlsson" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9552C35F5CB6klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > "dylan" <> wrote in

    news:GDCXc.33$:
    >
    > > From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
    > > 35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.



    > If you want to resolve a thin power line, then a digital camera
    > have problems. The pixels are larger than the lines width, so
    > if you use a suitable anti alais filter, the line will be very
    > blurry. And if you remove the anti alais filter, then the line will
    > look mighty weird. Sharp, but weird.


    -Which is precisely the problem you see in those awful SD9/SD10 images
    George used to link to. With its lack of anti alias filter, any line near
    0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees was made to look artificially
    straight...or..."weird" and fake.

    (Figure this into the other "issues" of that camera and you've got a real
    clinker.)
     
    Mark M, Aug 28, 2004
    #34
  15. Beowulf

    Guest

    In message <Y0YXc.110069$Lj.91728@fed1read03>,
    "Mark M" <> wrote:

    >-Which is precisely the problem you see in those awful SD9/SD10 images
    >George used to link to. With its lack of anti alias filter, any line near
    >0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees was made to look artificially
    >straight...or..."weird" and fake.


    Those are the most obvious flaws, but really, unless the lens was soft,
    or out-of-focus, the images are aliased at every pixel. Textures look
    false anywhere the image is sharply in focus.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 28, 2004
    #35
  16. Beowulf

    Mark M Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <Y0YXc.110069$Lj.91728@fed1read03>,
    > "Mark M" <> wrote:
    >
    > >-Which is precisely the problem you see in those awful SD9/SD10 images
    > >George used to link to. With its lack of anti alias filter, any line

    near
    > >0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees was made to look artificially
    > >straight...or..."weird" and fake.

    >
    > Those are the most obvious flaws, but really, unless the lens was soft,
    > or out-of-focus, the images are aliased at every pixel. Textures look
    > false anywhere the image is sharply in focus.


    Yes.
    I used to comment on how George's images looked like they had "fake" rocks
    or fake looking tree trunks for this very reason. They took on a sort of
    plastic-looking quality.
     
    Mark M, Aug 28, 2004
    #36
  17. "Mark M" <> wrote in
    news:VK4Yc.110177$Lj.19479@fed1read03:

    > I used to comment on how George's images looked like they had "fake"
    > rocks or fake looking tree trunks for this very reason. They took on
    > a sort of plastic-looking quality.


    Yepp - water - rock - foliage - everything looks like
    some kind of strange texture. Sharp and nice and some
    like it - but it looks weird too me.

    Now - I remember a picture of a landscape. In this
    landscape there was a row of telephone or power line
    poles. Those poles were much smaller than could be
    resolved. But - on the SD9 picture you could see them.
    Or rather you could see that something was there and
    your brain could reconstruct what it was. It looked
    rather impressive and gave a super sharp feeling. I
    must say that it added to the picture. But - on the
    other hand - the surface of the mountain looked weird.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 28, 2004
    #37
  18. Roland Karlsson <> wrote in message news:<Xns9552C35F5CB6klotjohan@130.133.1.4>...
    > "dylan" <> wrote in news:GDCXc.33$:
    >
    > > From the tests I've seen 11MP is as good as, if not slightly better than
    > > 35mm (start debate here), but not equivalent to Medium Format.

    >
    > High quality 11MP digital is much smoother than 35 mm film and it
    > is in the same league as medium format.


    I agree with that, but there are no 11MP Bayers camera due to doubling
    green by reducing red and blue, their highly inefficient 2D design
    leaves no choice--4 slots for 3 primaries. Even the 14n/c is only
    3.3MP optical before digital interpolation, that is less than the
    10.3MP SD10.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Aug 29, 2004
    #38
  19. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> wrote:

    > I agree with that, but there are no 11MP Bayers camera due to doubling
    > green by reducing red and blue, their highly inefficient 2D design
    > leaves no choice--4 slots for 3 primaries. Even the 14n/c is only
    > 3.3MP optical before digital interpolation, that is less than the
    > 10.3MP SD10.


    *cough* bullshit *cough*
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 29, 2004
    #39
  20. (Georgette Preddy) wrote in
    news::

    > I agree with that, but there are no 11MP Bayers camera due to doubling
    > green by reducing red and blue, their highly inefficient 2D design
    > leaves no choice--4 slots for 3 primaries. Even the 14n/c is only
    > 3.3MP optical before digital interpolation, that is less than the
    > 10.3MP SD10.
    >


    How nice of you to tell us. Unfortunately, for you, no one
    believes in your math.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 29, 2004
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    530
    Mxsmanic
    May 23, 2004
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    436
    Guest
    May 23, 2004
  3. spassig

    Epson Perfection 2400 - scanning medium format film?

    spassig, Oct 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    766
    Gene Palmiter
    Oct 13, 2004
  4. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,221
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    735
    Alfred Molon
    Sep 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page