Digital BW, The Print

Yes, there have been many articles in many magazines that have stated
that digital already far surpasses film in the high end equipment. There
were samples of 4x5 digital and film comparisons, and the digital won
hands down. Much sharper, much more detail than Velvia. However, not
many on this list could afford the equipment that could do this.

Jerry

rusto1968 wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> There is also another issue...called sampling. In the digital world,
> you need to sample at slightly more than 2x the smallest thing you
> want to RELIABLY detect. So, in order to RELIABLY detect 160lines/mm
> (only on axis, off axis is 1.4x), you need to sample at 320
> lines/mm...in both axes (X and Y), therefore giving you 4x your
> initial estimation of 22.1 M pixels, and this doesn't take into
> account the Bayer pattern (four sensor cells for one color pixels
> worth of information). Again, showing that more like 100M is in
> reality what is needed to equivalent top 35mm film.
> 
> Have you ever read this:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
> 
> And, I'll preface this by saying: I am absolutely no expert in the
> field, and most of what I "know" is from what I read on forums like
> this. I pick what makes sense to me (or things/theorys I can
> comprehend) and go from there. So I make my statement with no malice
> or disrespect.
> 
> >From what I see -it (digital) tops it (film) already. Ineresting, out
> of that 100m that film (according to you) holds, how much of that info
> will translate into the print, after it's gone through the lens -
> through the enlarger (another lense), and then onto the paper -
> yet another factor that will affect the resolution ? And what lense is
> going to be able to resolve such a resolution? And again, just who in
> the consumer market has the equipment/skill to extract all that info
> as well. (as fine a grain as you can make film, you still  have grain)
> Please forgive me, i've been studying a lot lately - and am learing
> there is quite a lot more to resolution that just numbers. I've seen
> prints from the D30 at 20x30 that would not have appeard as good if
> they were shot on 35mm.
> 
> http://www.nyphotographics.com/dpreview/CRW_2292.jpg
> 
> yes, you CAN go that big with 35, but it Wont be as clean.
> To me, it seems numbers and equations dont answer everything
> logically. I read so many different explanations of film is better,
> digital is better... but when I see a decent print from a decent
> digital camera - numbers dont seem to matter too much.
> again, not to offend, just my view.
> Take Care,
> jerry
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/