On mySimon: Timberland Euro Hiker
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 23 of 65:
Next »
« Previous
Digression -- Equivalency film vs digital
Your mileage may vary, but the fact is that my digital camera has opened the door to new levels of quality I was never able to achieve with film, not even Kodachrome 25, except in the unusual case of using a Celestron C5 telescope (mirrors have no chromatic abberation). My Nikon D-200 is considerably superior to my old Olympus OM-1 and K64.

Keep in mind I use a subjective metric "quality" rather than a difficult to define metric "resolution". Resolution is important, but we are already "diffraction limited" at 10 megapixels on an APS-C size sensor. You can slice it up as fine as you like but there will be no increase in actual image detail, and it has to do with the wavelength of light interacting with the edges of the aperture. To exceed this you must go with a larger sensor and there is absolutely no reason for your pixels to be smaller than the "circle of confusion" (no lens ever made can focus a point-source of light onto a point on the film or sensor). I suppose if you made a cluster of pixels (RGB or RGBG) the same size as the circle of confusion you could eliminate the anti-moire' diffusion screen.

No technical reason, that is; if you slice your sensor into 40 million pixels you might be able to sell more of them, but not to me happy

Digital images, being continuous tone, I consider superior where wetter water is wanted:

Example: http://www.orneveien.org/nikon-d200/big/088.htm

The film look of National Geographic is achieved with a suitable "S" curve applied to a digital image to increase its mid-range contrast and color saturation. Using "curves" in The Gimp, Aobe Photoshop or Corel Photo Paint achieves this outcome.


Posted by: mggordon   Posted on: 03/09/09 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

I agree  nucrash | 03/06/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  No More Microsoft Software Ever! | 03/06/09
I agree, but am not optimistic  voyager529 | 03/06/09
How little you know about "good old" 35mm film  Unix Pimp | 03/06/09
My point exactly.  No More Microsoft Software Ever! | 03/06/09
You're right, I've never shot "real photos" on 35mm  voyager529 | 03/06/09
How little you know about film.  Bruizer | 03/09/09
slide film  jpouchet | 03/09/09
Who said anything about negative print film?  Bruizer | 03/09/09
Digital here to stay  mggordon | 03/09/09
My first instinct was right then.  Bruizer | 03/09/09
Kodachrome R.I.P.  raelalt | 07/07/09
never heard of Kodachrome? (nt)  What the ...! | 03/09/09
Show me where to get K24?  Bruizer | 03/09/09
Fujichrome 50D  Geotopia | 05/07/09
E-6 Process  Geotopia | 05/07/09
I was talking about 12 MP APS-C sensors  Unix Pimp | 03/10/09
No you weren't  Bruizer | 03/10/09
who said 12 MP for pros?  kevinrs1 | 04/11/09
Exactly  Etch44 | 05/07/09
Film vs Digital  Prostock | 04/09/09
There's more to quality than resolution  tbcass | 03/09/09
Digression -- Equivalency film vs digital  mggordon | 03/09/09
Just an aside...  readwryt@... | 05/07/09
But remember how you chose a camera  PhilippeV | 04/09/09
re: How little you know about "good old" 35mm film  molumen | 05/07/09
There is another option...  MSFTWorshipper | 03/06/09
You make no sense.  tbcass | 03/09/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  electricpower | 03/06/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  nospam@... | 03/06/09
35mm film  dev-null | 07/07/09
I prefer very high quality more than megapixels.  Grayson Peddie | 03/08/09
Greater dynamic range vs. more MP  mmoran@... | 03/09/09
Greater dynamic range: technology exists  pkcyll | 03/09/09
What kind of rig do you currently use?  mmoran@... | 03/09/09
The weakness is display, not taking  mggordon | 03/09/09
re: Greater dynamic range vs. more MP  trm1945 | 04/09/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  derekgore | 03/09/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  PeterMG | 03/09/09
its on the user, not on the rig  adelacuesta | 03/09/09
The only problem: FUD sells...  goyta | 03/09/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  kapauldo | 03/09/09
Re: 12 Megapixels Enough? For most, yes; but ....  dcwest | 03/09/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  luv2run@... | 03/09/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  dougsdigs | 03/09/09
Addressed yes, solved no.  mggordon | 03/09/09
Look at CPUs  TriadX1 | 03/09/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  rdhalsteatzd | 03/09/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  levine@... | 03/10/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  ewelch | 04/09/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  elizasuttn | 04/09/09
Most!  gbentley@... | 04/13/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  dennis@... | 05/07/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  dategu | 05/07/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  phatkat | 05/07/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  tigerkat1@... | 05/08/09
Sorry Olympus 12 megapixels is NOT enough  kday | 05/10/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is NOT enough  crawlers | 05/19/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  crawlers | 05/27/09
Finally someone in the camera industry admits the nonsense...  aharry@... | 07/07/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  rajashekhar.rao@... | 07/07/09
Compare with music  macgroover | 07/07/09
RE: Olympus: 12 megapixels is enough  rttedrow@... | 07/07/09
Does the camera take the picture?  rushingturtle | 07/07/09
faveon sensors  crawlers | 08/19/09

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement