comparison photos - Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, Canon 1DMkII, Nikon D2X with FILM

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by gnnyman, Jul 5, 2005.

  1. gnnyman

    gnnyman Guest

    I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
    with is the link:
    gnnyman, Jul 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. gnnyman

    Bill Hilton Guest

    I could not resist to do it as well - on my website

    You need to work on your website and get the thumbnails smaller ... a
    couple are over 65 KBytes, another over 165 KBytes when they should be
    2-4 KB each ... takes too long to load for those w/o cable.
    Bill Hilton, Jul 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. gnnyman

    Scott W Guest

    Neat comparison, I predict that you will get a bunch of people telling
    you how you did it wrong.

    BTW it helps to step back about 8 feet from your monitor to get an idea
    of how this might look printed.

    Do you happen to have the 20D raw file still? I would love to see what
    I could do with it.

    Scott W, Jul 5, 2005
  4. gnnyman

    chrlz Guest

    I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    Interesting, but what film scanner and scan resolution? It would be
    interesting to see if the 'grain' is real, or aliased. Fuji 100, while
    a fairly 'typical' film, would not be my first choice to test the
    resolution of a camera..
    chrlz, Jul 5, 2005
  5. Yep! The softness of the 1D2 image is fodder for the Journal of
    Irreproducable results (and it's not just the (laudable) lack of sharpening:
    the detail seems really to not be there), and the sharpening halos in the
    20D and D70s images are obscene (they're due to oversharpening before
    upsampling, a mistake I've made in my own d vs. f comparisons).

    But other than that, it's about what's expected: 8MP clearly* edges out film
    but 6MP has a harder time of it. It's interesting that the 20D does a better
    job on the top surface of the left end wall of the building than the film
    does (i.e. the far edge vs. sky transition gets lost in the film shot),
    since film is advertised as doing better at holding highlights.

    *: A lot of people claim that the 8MP vs. 6MP difference is really small,
    but (a) it's the difference between 250 ppi and almost 300 ppi at 8x12, and
    (b) it's the difference between not edging out 35mm film and clearly edging
    out 35mm film, so, IMHO, going to 8MP really is the right idea for the APS-C

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 5, 2005
  6. gnnyman

    frederick Guest

    The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.
    If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
    top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
    "comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
    The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
    with bicubic interpolation in PS. Unless they were resampled at exactly
    the same ratio, then this test is only an example of how cubic
    interpolation works at different resampling rates.
    If the OP wants to display a comparison, then the only way he can do it
    is to either display the 1:1 pixels as they came out of the camera, or
    if he wants to show such a close up view, then the resampling MUST be at
    a integer multiple of the original and IMO with no interpolation.
    It is pointless. The best may be to leave the ratio at 1:1, and resample
    (downscale) the film scan to match the size of the various ex-camera
    And if there actually is a difference between 6 and 8mp, then the OP has
    not shown it - he has shown something else entirely.
    frederick, Jul 5, 2005
  7. gnnyman

    Scott W Guest

    I have never seen this effect from upsizing a photo. I did a quick test
    resizing to 191.23% just to be an odd amount, the image was soft but
    very clean with no haloes. Could you provide an immage and resize
    amount that would produce the halo you are talking about.

    In general I think up sampling to the highest res is the only way to
    compare, otherwise you risk lossing detail in the higher res images.

    The haloes look to too much USM and with too large a radius to me.

    Scott W, Jul 5, 2005
  8. gnnyman

    frederick Guest

    You are right - my mistake. The haloes are probably from sharpening
    before resampling - just made much larger and more evident than when
    viewed at 100%. Dumb idea to either do this, or use any in-camera
    processing when making comparisons.
    I'm glad you noticed the softening when resampling at an amount not an
    integer multiple of the original.
    The test is meaningless. The OP should have realised this when the 1D
    Mk II image looked closest to the 4mp Kodak P&S camera result.
    For the comparison, whether the film scan is downsampled to match the
    size, or the digital camera sample is upsampled to match the film scan
    doesn't really matter, as the methodology is seriously flawed.

    Pixel peeping is daft. If the OP wants to compare the cameras, then the
    best and only way in my opinion is to print the images at a given size
    and compare those. When you do this, then about 50% of the criticisms
    of cameras in this forum become meaningless - as they are based on pixel
    peeping daftness. I have no interest in 4000x3000 jpgs to view on a
    computer. For every use apart from to print, an image of 1024x768 is
    plenty for me for quite a few years to come - until a monitor that is
    affordable and at least 3 times (linear) or 10 times (pixel count) is
    frederick, Jul 5, 2005
  9. gnnyman

    Mark² Guest

    The only time I've seen that effect is when up-sizing images that have
    previously been sharpened.
    Mark², Jul 5, 2005
  10. gnnyman

    Mark² Guest

    OK! I just posted this very thing in response to your first message...and
    then read this one from you.
    I made the comment that I've only seen that when up-sizing an image that was
    previously sharpened.
    Naturally, that would exaggerate the halo effect that might otherwise go
    Mark², Jul 5, 2005
  11. gnnyman

    Mark² Guest

    Most people don't shoot film slow than 100, so this may be a pretty fair

    Yes...I loved to shoot Velvia and some older 25 film that no longer
    available, but most film shooter aren't using the really slow, less grainy
    Mark², Jul 5, 2005
  12. gnnyman

    Rob Guest

    I thought that one couldn't really see differences viewing the pics on
    a web site due to limitations of our monitors and perhaps the web site
    itself? I suppose if the differences are huge maybe one could see it
    but I'm not 100% sure of that either.

    Rob, Jul 5, 2005
  13. gnnyman

    Mark² Guest

    That's only true when people post down-sampled images, as are typically
    posted on photo-sharing sites.
    When 100% crops, or identically sized enlargements are posted (such as
    these), it can be quite revealing--especially when the scanner used is top
    notch, and able to capture individual grains in film images.

    This comparison certainly has it's imperfections, but you can certainly make
    some determinations about specific films used, etc.
    Mark², Jul 5, 2005
  14. gnnyman

    Scott W Guest

    I would love to see the statistics on film use, when I was shooting
    film I was finding it harder and harder to find even 100 ISO film, most
    off what was on the shelves was ISO 400 and higher.

    The tests in many ways is very valid, it shows what one person gets
    when shooting film compared to digital, and it pretty much matches what
    I see when I shoot film.

    There are a number of people who have stated that people are giving up
    quality for convenience when they switch from film to digital, this is
    clearly not the case.

    Scott W, Jul 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.