Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 6/16/2003 7:06:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> 2) Since color digicams receive only one color per pixel, and then
> interpolate, B&W conversions of these images are lower in resolution and
> higher in noise than would be true original B&W image captures.
> 

Not true for Scanbacks, Foveon I, Foveon II, or the Sigma SD-9 with the 
Foveon X3 chip, which does a darn good and sharp B&W, but not like Tech Pan 
(nothing else does that ).

Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 6/16/2003 7:06:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> You will certainly save on film and processing costs.  But there are other
> disadvantages (such as a reduction in image quality) that also should be
> considered.  And the initial investment is substantial, particularly if you
> want the best possible image quality (so as to approach film as closely as
> possible).
> 
> 

Also not true.  The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film than any other single shot 
digicam and it's only $1,200 street price with great post process software, a 
lifetime supply of "film" and and a free soft Polaroid with every shot.

Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 6/16/2003 7:06:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> I have found from actual experience that I can
> get a better 8x10 print from a 645 neg scanned on my 1600dpi flatbed
> than I can from a 35mm neg scanned on a friend's 4000dpi Nikon film
> scanner.  At 4x5 or 5x7 it's a toss up, but by 8x10 the difference
> becomes apparent.  I can't explain this in numbers, but the difference
> is clear.  I can only assume there is more information on the larger
> neg and that scanning the smaller neg at a higher resolution doesn't
> make up the difference (it probably just gets more of what _is_
> there).
> 

I agree with this. So what's differeent between this and traditional optical 
printing? The same rules apply. This is why more square inches of film makes 
up for all the other aspects of film photography (MTF, lenses, coverage, etc.). 
You don't use 35mm for lanscapes or 8x10 for snapshots.

Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Oh Claude,

> The Sigma SD-9 acts more like film ...

You obviously haven't used one, or your film simply is really substandard.
The SD-9 suffers from severe color balance problems, and low light
saturation.  I don't know of any films that have those problems...

Austin

Hello Claude,

>>I have found from actual experience that I can get a better 
>>8x10 print from a 645 neg scanned on my 1600dpi flatbed
>>than I can from a 35mm neg scanned on a friend's 4000dpi 
>>Nikon film scanner.  At 4x5 or 5x7 it's a toss up, but by 
>>8x10 the difference becomes apparent.  I can't explain this in
>>numbers, but the difference is clear.  I can only assume there 
>>is more information on the larger neg and that scanning the 
>>smaller neg at a higher resolution doesn't make up the 
>difference (it probably just gets more of what _is_ there).

>I agree with this. So what's differeent between this and 
>traditional optical printing? The same rules apply. 

Nothing.  I thought it was so obvious it didn't need to be stated.   

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm