Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Jim,
> 
> There's no logical reason the D60 could give the same "image 
quality" as a
> Hasselblad will for images 16 x 20 and above....(assuming 
well "produced"
> images, of course).  And...of course, that depends on what one 
means by
> "image quality"...but by what I consider "image quality", simply no.

Like many others, I'm not much interested in logic here (i.e., 
theory, talking about what the results supposedly _should be_ rather 
than looking at how they _actually are_).  I'm interested in what I 
can see with my eyes.  I understand that Austin thinks there's a big 
difference even when viewed with the eyes, but I think his standards 
(or his eyes) are a bit different from the rest of ours.  (I haven't 
seen enough digital vs. film comparison to decide conclusively for 
myself, though...)

> 
> The D60 has a sensor resolution of 3072 x 2048...which would mean 
2048 over
> 16", which is 128 pixels per inch to the printer...  Yes, you 
can "uprez"
> it...but that does not add more REAL detail to the image, as what's 
there is
> what's there...  

The best analysis I've seen so far of digicam vs. film resolution is 
the one done by Norman Koren (already referred to in this thread) to 
be found at:  http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

Koren concludes that the D60 has 72% of the resolution of Provia 100 
film scanned with an excellent 4000 dpi scan.  (He also says that the 
D30 has about 55% of the resolution of the Provia 100F.)

But, he goes on to say that you can't conclude that prints from the 
film will have better image quality just because they have higher 
resolution:  

"[R]emember that resolution is not the only factor that influences 
image quality. Digital cameras will have better image quality than 
film cameras with the same resolution because they have much less 
grain (noise). "

That, at least, is what he's concluded from his own extensive hands 
on tests of film and digital prints.  

How much of the gap in resolution would the D60's lower noise than 
film make up?  I don't know.  From many accounts, including Koren's, 
any actual gap in image quality is very small.

Koren goes on to say:

"The image quality of digital cameras will equal 35mm with fewer 
pixels than predicted by MTF alone because digital cameras have much 
less noise."

"Skies in digital camera images are virtually grainless. That makes a 
big difference in perceived quality. Many photographers will perceive 
images from the current generation of high-end 6 megapixel cameras-- 
the Canon EOS D60 and the Nikon D100-- to be equal to 35mm.  We are 
there now!"
 
"Digital camera images I've seen (modest as well as fine) are sharp 
right down to the pixel level. This can be difficult to achieve with 
a high resolution film scan because it requires sharpening, and 
sharpening increases grain. To minimize grain enhancement, I usually 
use unsharp mask with a threshold and mask out the sky. You can only 
sharpen a film image so much before it gets ugly. "

Koren's remarks are basically just he's worked out in trying to 
formulate a theory to fit what he's seen (that the 6MP digicams are 
nearly the equal of 35mm).  He's very carefully trying to figure out 
why digital prints somehow seeem to look better than they should.  Is 
his theory right about why this is so?  I have no idea.  

But Koren's theorizing seems much more persuasive to me than Austin's 
comments, which sound much more like he wants to convince me that the 
facts should fit his theory when -- from most accounts from people 
who have seen with their own eyes -- they don't.  (And I know Austin 
does maintain that he can see a big difference.  Maybe so, I have yet 
to see a print from one of the 6MP digicams so I'll have to wait 
before I decide conclusively for myself.)

-- Herb