Digital BW, The Print

Hi Michael,

> I hate to say it, but the H20 image was sharper, had better color
> fidelity.

I don't doubt that at all!  I believe the H20 does automatic sharpening in
the back/software, which, of course, makes comparisons tougher...  That back
isn't a full frame back, it's 3.7cm x 3.7cm, which is 13.7cm sq, and film is
36cm sq, so it's only covering a bit more than 1/3rd the area that film
covers...  Did you compensate for that and compare images covering the
"exact" same scene?

But yes, color fidelity of digital backs (and stand alone digital cameras
too) are simply amazing.  I have two Hasselblad backs, one scanning and one
one shot, and a Leaf Lumina...and I had a Dicomed long before...

> The image was amazing.  I think the file size is 48mb or
> something close to
> that.

That sounds right.  It's 4k x 4k and 8 bits/color...with three colors so 3
bytes/color x 16M pixels = 48M bytes...

> Detail in the digital image was as good if not better than the
> transparancy.

That I have found to not be true for decent film/development, I still get
more detail from film...but it has to be damn good film!  The scanning back
gives FAR better detail than the one shot, but it really only works in the
studio.

As a side note, I've always liked the 127 size (1.5" x 1.5") like the
Rolleiflex Baby Gray size...I good "new" camera format would be that size
;-)

Regards,

Austin