Digital BW, The Print

This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend a panel discussion 
on digital photography. When asked how the resolution of 35mm film 
compares to digital, Gordon Brown of Kodak/RIT fame stated that Kodak 
Kodacolor 35mm film has the equivalent of 20 megapixels of resolution.

It seems that the 100 megapixel number that was discussed here a few 
weeks ago just is not accurate.

Not that it matters ;-)

Mike

> This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend a panel discussion
> on digital photography. When asked how the resolution of 35mm film
> compares to digital, Gordon Brown of Kodak/RIT fame stated that Kodak
> Kodacolor 35mm film has the equivalent of 20 megapixels of resolution.
>
> It seems that the 100 megapixel number that was discussed here a few
> weeks ago just is not accurate.
>
> Not that it matters ;-)
>
> Mike

Hi Mike,

That's all well and good, but without knowing how Gordon arrived at what he
said, I can't tell you what exactly he was saying.  I showed the arithmetic
and premises on how I arrived at my 100M number, and I stick by it, since
it's based on sound premises and the arithmetic was correct.  Do you have
any more info 1) who Gordon Brown is, and 2) what, exactly, he was claiming?

Austin

I've read in Kodak's own literature that an ISO 25 Kodachrome slide has
12 megapixels of information in it, and anything more is unnecessary.

Jerry




mkravit wrote:

> 
> This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend a panel discussion
> on digital photography. When asked how the resolution of 35mm film
> compares to digital, Gordon Brown of Kodak/RIT fame stated that Kodak
> Kodacolor 35mm film has the equivalent of 20 megapixels of resolution.
> 
> It seems that the 100 megapixel number that was discussed here a few
> weeks ago just is not accurate.
> 
> Not that it matters ;-)
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 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/

That's interesting considering on their web page:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/storage/pcdMaster/about
PCD.shtml

Kodak claims that a 2048 x 3072 (or 6 megapixel) image captures, "all the
image data 35mm film has to offer."

Rather than comparing grain size to resolution, I think an interesting
comparison would be between the film's resolving power and the digital
resolution.  The data sheet for Fuji Velvia, for instance, says it can
resolve 80 lines/mm at a chart contrast of 1.6:1.  The measurement for this
is described in ISO 6328:2000.  Does anyone have a copy of this?  What I
don't know is if lines/mm means lp/mm.

If you assume it means exactly what it says, "lines/mm," then that
translates to 4064 pixels per inch which would mean an image of 3840 x 5760
(or 22.1 megapixels) is equivalent.  This is closer to the number thrown out
by Gordon Brown.

The only problem is if those lines are at an angle, rather than perfectly
horizontal or vertical, you'll need more resolution yet.  I think the magic
number lies somewhere between 20M and 100M pixels.

--Tom



----- Original Message -----

From: "mkravit" <michael.kravit@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:12 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.


> This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend a panel discussion
> on digital photography. When asked how the resolution of 35mm film
> compares to digital, Gordon Brown of Kodak/RIT fame stated that Kodak
> Kodacolor 35mm film has the equivalent of 20 megapixels of resolution.
>
> It seems that the 100 megapixel number that was discussed here a few
> weeks ago just is not accurate.
>
> Not that it matters ;-)
>
> Mike
>

> Rather than comparing grain size to resolution, I think an interesting
> comparison would be between the film's resolving power and the digital
> resolution.  The data sheet for Fuji Velvia, for instance, says it can
> resolve 80 lines/mm at a chart contrast of 1.6:1.  The
> measurement for this
> is described in ISO 6328:2000.  Does anyone have a copy of this?  What I
> don't know is if lines/mm means lp/mm.

Hi Thomas,

lp/mm means line PAIRS per mm.  One black line, next to one white line.  If
you have two lines of same color next to each other, then you can't see
them.  Reason for solid black next to solid white is because it's %100
contrast.

Resolution of digital imaging systems is hard to measure...since they have a
regular structure for their arrays.  The worst case is diagonally...which is
typically about 1.4x worse than on axis...and most digital imaging systems
list only the BEST they can do, not the worst!

> If you assume it means exactly what it says, "lines/mm," then that
> translates to 4064 pixels per inch which would mean an image of
> 3840 x 5760
> (or 22.1 megapixels) is equivalent.  This is closer to the number
> thrown out
> by Gordon Brown.

80 line pair/mm is actually 160 lines/mmm, which is what you used to do your
arithmetic with apparently...since 160 x 24mm = 3840.

The big issue to remember when comparing digital imaging sensors to film is
that digital imaging sensors are regular patterns, and film is not.  This is
very important when trying to compare resolutions.  Film has a LOT more
information than just comparing squared segments (as you are doing when
calculating digital equivalent based on lp/mm)...remember the diagonal issue
I mentioned above.

You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the same
amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!  So,
4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.

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.

So, even the 80lp/mm shown for Velvia, clearly shows that 22.1M sensors is
clearly not enough to give a reliable 80 lp/mm with digital.  Others will
argue that anything over 40 lp/mm is wasted...and that very much depends on
what your shooting techniques are.

If you want any of this explained any further, I'd be more than happy to.

Regards,

Austin

on 1/28/02 11:19 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
> FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the same
> amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!  So,
> 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.


Question: I assume this is only true for one shot cameras, but not the 4
shot models, a la Leaf and Sinar?

Just curious.

Todd

Todd Flashner wrote:

>  on 1/28/02 11:19 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
> > FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the same
> > amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!  So,
>
> > 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
>
>
> Question: I assume this is only true for one shot cameras, but not the 4
> shot models, a la Leaf and Sinar?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Todd

If you are referring to the 'scanning backs' yes, that is how they get around
that sensor/pixel problem.  But, as I understand it, those cameras are not as
versatile because of the time it takes to scan.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




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

on 1/29/02 12:48 AM, SKID Photography wrote:

> Todd Flashner wrote:
> 
>> on 1/28/02 11:19 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>> 
>>> You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
>>> FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the same
>>> amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!  So,
>> 
>>> 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
>> 
>> 
>> Question: I assume this is only true for one shot cameras, but not the 4
>> shot models, a la Leaf and Sinar?
>> 
>> Just curious.
>> 
>> Todd
> 
> If you are referring to the 'scanning backs' yes, that is how they get around
> that sensor/pixel problem.  But, as I understand it, those cameras are not as
> versatile because of the time it takes to scan.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider

No, I'm referring to 4 shot backs, which make 4 separate exposures per
capture, one for each color. This eliminates color interpolation. These are
for still-lifes primarily, for the obvious reason that movement between
exposures is a problem.

One difference between (among many) 4shot backs and scan backs is that scan
backs need continuous light sources, ie, tungsten, HMI, florescent, etc,
while 4 shot backs can also utilize strobe.

Todd

Todd Flashner wrote:

>  on 1/29/02 12:48 AM, SKID Photography wrote:
>
> > Todd Flashner wrote:
> >
> >> on 1/28/02 11:19 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> >>
> >>> You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
> >>> FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the same
>
> >>> amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!
> So,
> >>
> >>> 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
> >>
> >>
> >> Question: I assume this is only true for one shot cameras, but not the 4
> >> shot models, a la Leaf and Sinar?
> >>
> >> Just curious.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >
> > If you are referring to the 'scanning backs' yes, that is how they get
> around
> > that sensor/pixel problem.  But, as I understand it, those cameras are not
> as
> > versatile because of the time it takes to scan.
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
>
> No, I'm referring to 4 shot backs, which make 4 separate exposures per
> capture, one for each color. This eliminates color interpolation. These are
> for still-lifes primarily, for the obvious reason that movement between
> exposures is a problem.
>
> One difference between (among many) 4shot backs and scan backs is that scan
> backs need continuous light sources, ie, tungsten, HMI, florescent, etc,
> while 4 shot backs can also utilize strobe.
>
> Todd
>
>

I assume it's the same concept and same limitations.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC







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

>>>> 
>>>>> You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
>>>>> FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the same
>> 
>>>>> amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!
>> So,
>>>> 
>>>>> 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Question: I assume this is only true for one shot cameras, but not the 4
>>>> shot models, a la Leaf and Sinar?
>>>> 
>>>> Just curious.
>>>> 
>>>> Todd
>>> 
>>> If you are referring to the 'scanning backs' yes, that is how they get
>> around
>>> that sensor/pixel problem.  But, as I understand it, those cameras are not
>> as
>>> versatile because of the time it takes to scan.
>>> 
>>> Harvey Ferdschneider
>> 
>> No, I'm referring to 4 shot backs, which make 4 separate exposures per
>> capture, one for each color. This eliminates color interpolation. These are
>> for still-lifes primarily, for the obvious reason that movement between
>> exposures is a problem.
>> 
>> One difference between (among many) 4shot backs and scan backs is that scan
>> backs need continuous light sources, ie, tungsten, HMI, florescent, etc,
>> while 4 shot backs can also utilize strobe.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> 
> 
> I assume it's the same concept and same limitations.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider

Who's concepts and limitations of what?

Todd

Todd Flashner wrote:

>
>
> >>>>
> >>>>> You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
>
> >>>>> FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the
> same
> >>
> >>>>> amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!
> >> So,
> >>>>
> >>>>> 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Question: I assume this is only true for one shot cameras, but not the 4
> >>>> shot models, a la Leaf and Sinar?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just curious.
> >>>>
> >>>> Todd
> >>>
> >>> If you are referring to the 'scanning backs' yes, that is how they get
> >> around
> >>> that sensor/pixel problem.  But, as I understand it, those cameras are not
>
> >> as
> >>> versatile because of the time it takes to scan.
> >>>
> >>> Harvey Ferdschneider
> >>
> >> No, I'm referring to 4 shot backs, which make 4 separate exposures per
> >> capture, one for each color. This eliminates color interpolation. These are
>
> >> for still-lifes primarily, for the obvious reason that movement between
> >> exposures is a problem.
> >>
> >> One difference between (among many) 4shot backs and scan backs is that scan
>
> >> backs need continuous light sources, ie, tungsten, HMI, florescent, etc,
> >> while 4 shot backs can also utilize strobe.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I assume it's the same concept and same limitations.
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
>
> Who's concepts and limitations of what?
>
> Todd

The concept of increasing the real pixel count by doing 4 exposures (one with
each of the RGGB filters).  And limitations, in that one cannot do 'live'
subjects, as they move (including most landscapes) and would not ''register' in
the sequential exposures.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

>>>>>>> You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
>> 
>>>>>>> FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the
>> same
>>>> 
>>>>>>> amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!
>>>> So,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Question: I assume this is only true for one shot cameras, but not the 4
>>>>>> shot models, a la Leaf and Sinar?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just curious.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Todd
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you are referring to the 'scanning backs' yes, that is how they get
>>>> around
>>>>> that sensor/pixel problem.  But, as I understand it, those cameras are not
>> 
>>>> as
>>>>> versatile because of the time it takes to scan.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Harvey Ferdschneider
>>>> 
>>>> No, I'm referring to 4 shot backs, which make 4 separate exposures per
>>>> capture, one for each color. This eliminates color interpolation. These are
>> 
>>>> for still-lifes primarily, for the obvious reason that movement between
>>>> exposures is a problem.
>>>> 
>>>> One difference between (among many) 4shot backs and scan backs is that scan
>> 
>>>> backs need continuous light sources, ie, tungsten, HMI, florescent, etc,
>>>> while 4 shot backs can also utilize strobe.
>>>> 
>>>> Todd
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I assume it's the same concept and same limitations.
>>> 
>>> Harvey Ferdschneider
>> 
>> Who's concepts and limitations of what?
>> 
>> Todd
> 
> The concept of increasing the real pixel count by doing 4 exposures (one with
> each of the RGGB filters).  And limitations, in that one cannot do 'live'
> subjects, as they move (including most landscapes) and would not ''register'
> in
> the sequential exposures.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider

Okay. See what I'm wondering is with 4 shot backs whether the pixel count
really increases, or if the pixel information is just more accurate, ie
captured not interpolated? If pixel count doesn't increase, wouldn't it also
hold true that with the one shot backs, when used for grayscale images, the
pixel count doesn't quarter.

IOW, pixel count (resolution) is independent from color info. You and Austin
have maintained that a 6 megapix camera would only give you one quarter of
that many pixels in grayscale mode (correct me if I'm wrong). I am
questioning that. I'm suggesting that that *IS* the resolution of those
cameras, and the file sizes get larger from there as the color information
gets added on top of that. IOW, a 6 megapix camera may yield an 18MB RGB
TIFF. You don't get 18MB of resolution, but you do get 6 megapixels of
resolution.

So, if you go back to the top of this message, where I came in, Austin says
for RGB you need four times as many sensors, I'm asking if that is true with
4 shot devices, or do the separate exposures work as, or in lieu of, extra
sensors.

Let me say that I don't know what I suggest to be so, I'm putting that
argument/question out there somewhat generically. I need Austin to do the
math... ;-)

Todd

Todd Flashner wrote:

> <HUGE SNIP>
> >
> > The concept of increasing the real pixel count by doing 4 exposures (one
> with
> > each of the RGGB filters).  And limitations, in that one cannot do 'live'
> > subjects, as they move (including most landscapes) and would not ''register'
>
> > in
> > the sequential exposures.
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
>
> Okay. See what I'm wondering is with 4 shot backs whether the pixel count
> really increases, or if the pixel information is just more accurate, ie
> captured not interpolated? If pixel count doesn't increase, wouldn't it also
> hold true that with the one shot backs, when used for grayscale images, the
> pixel count doesn't quarter.

For all intents and purposes are not interpolating at this point, but have a
true 5 megapixel (or whatever)  camera.  On the other hand, the manufacturers of
those '4 shot' cameras might claim 4 times the pixel coiunt, and we'd be right
back to where we started this discussion.

>
>
> IOW, pixel count (resolution) is independent from color info. You and Austin
> have maintained that a 6 megapix camera would only give you one quarter of
> that many pixels in grayscale mode (correct me if I'm wrong).

I actually assume that if you shoot in grayscale (not convert in Photoshop) you
will actually have the pixel count that the manufacturers claim (but that is a
guess on my part).  And it would depend on how each camera actually works to
capture the information.

> I am
> questioning that. I'm suggesting that that *IS* the resolution of those
> cameras, and the file sizes get larger from there as the color information
> gets added on top of that. IOW, a 6 megapix camera may yield an 18MB RGB
> TIFF. You don't get 18MB of resolution, but you do get 6 megapixels of
> resolution.

This is such a 'relative ' argument.  Define what makes 'resolution'. The camera
yields whatever file size it says it will, but the question is: Where does the
camera get that information from?  How much is real and how much is
interpolation?

There finally is no way a1 color sensor can yield a real pixel of information
that must contain 3 colors of information.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




>
>
> So, if you go back to the top of this message, where I came in, Austin says
> for RGB you need four times as many sensors, I'm asking if that is true with
> 4 shot devices, or do the separate exposures work as, or in lieu of, extra
> sensors.
>
> Let me say that I don't know what I suggest to be so, I'm putting that
> argument/question out there somewhat generically. I need Austin to do the
> math... ;-)
>
> Todd
>


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

What sort of literature was it?

Sales blurb for a scanner perhaps? :-)

Like all big companies, Kodak probably has a multitude of opinions depending 
upon who is expressing it.

My take on the issue is to look at what the end-product is. If all you are 
doing is devoting a multitude of pixels to reproducing the film grain, then 
what's the point? 

If on the other hand someone can show real detail being resolved in a 
100Mpixel scan compared to a 20Mpixel one, then I'm listening.

I'm inclined to doubt it though because the real resolution of 35mm lenses 
simply doesn't match that high a figure.

On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 3:38 am, Jerry Olson wrote:
> I've read in Kodak's own literature that an ISO 25 Kodachrome slide has
> 12 megapixels of information in it, and anything more is unnecessary.
>

On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 3:56 am, Thomas Fors wrote:
> That's interesting considering on their web page:
>
> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/storage/pcdMaster/abou
>t PCD.shtml
>
> Kodak claims that a 2048 x 3072 (or 6 megapixel) image captures, "all the
> image data 35mm film has to offer."

Loosely translated as "That's how much we could economically pack into the 
scanners we could make at the time"...

Photo-CD was a great product of its day, but don't confuse marketing blurb 
for a system with a discussion of how much detail you can really extract from 
film.

Austin,

Are you sure this statement is correct? From everything I've read, a normal
digital camera has sensor cells that measure luminosity and one colour, and
are arranged in various arrays in the proportion of one red sensor, one blue
sensor, and two green sensors. Each sensor output gives rise to one pixel,
the missing color values for each pixel being interpolated from the
neighbouring sensors.

So if the camera has 4 M sensors, it will at the very least produce 4M
pixels (all of them interpolated of course, since none of them has all the
color values). It may produce more, depending on whether the
hardware/firmware/software produces interpolated pixels that are totally
derived from other sensors.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
> FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the same
> amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!
So,
> 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.

I am never quite sure whether any subjective element enters the 
equation when comparing film resolution with pixels.

For example, the Phase One H20 back uses the Kodak 16mp chip.  16mp 
is less even than Kodak's claims for 35mm resolution, but Phase One 
maintain their back offers quality better than medium format film.  
Examples I have seen from Phase Ones own demo CD are of exceptional 
quality.

It is a slightly diferent point, as maybe 35mm film does, on paper, 
hold more data than, say, the Phase One back, but in practice, the 
Phase One looks a whole lot better.  There could be a number of 
reasons for this: useful data could be lost in film grain, lack of 
film flatness and scanner limitations. But is seems that, 
subjectively at least, substantially fewer pixels are need from 
direct digital capture than from digitised, scanned film.
--
Quentin

--- 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

Hi Jerry,

> Have you ever read this:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

Yes.

> From what I see -it (digital) tops it (film) already.

Well, for snapshots and web images, that is probably true...but for an
enlargement of any size, not even close.  Remember, what you are viewing is
at 72dpi, and on a computer monitor...and most anything looks good, even
shots from a Pentax P&S!

> 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?

These aren't problems, people have been doing it for years.

> And again, just who in
> the consumer market has the equipment/skill to extract all that info
> as well.

That is a valid point...that most people don't need that kind of quality, if
all they care about is web images and 4x6 point-n-shoot type images.  But,
that really has nothing to do with the issue, that is a use issue...the
comparison is 35mm to digital...not is digital good enough for someone's
particular use.

> I've seen
> prints from the D30 at 20x30 that would not have appeard as good if
> they were shot on 35mm.

That's actually not possible...without interpolation using something like
Genuine Fractals.  Why it looks "good" is because when interpolated, the
image still holds it's sharpness...but lacks in detail.  You can do this
with scanned film too.

Run the numbers.  The D30 gives you 2160 x 1440...and that is an
uninterpolated 1440/20 or 72 PPI to the printer...and there is NO way a
72PPI print will not show massive pixelation at any viewing distance except
from far away.  The images you saw were run through GF.

> yes, you CAN go that big with 35, but it Wont be as clean.

That depends on a lot of things, exposure, development, original image,
lense used etc.

> I read so many different explanations of film is better,
> digital is better...

This wasn't a discussion on which is "better", since, as you point out, for
a LOT of uses, digital can be "better".  It was a question of comparing
information content of 35mm film to digital sensor technology.

> again, not to offend, just my view.

Of course!

Regards,

Austin

> I am never quite sure whether any subjective element enters the
> equation when comparing film resolution with pixels.

Hi Quentin,

It depends on whether you're talking about science (truth) or marketing ;-)

> For example, the Phase One H20 back uses the Kodak 16mp chip.  16mp
> is less even than Kodak's claims for 35mm resolution, but Phase One
> maintain their back offers quality better than medium format film.
> Examples I have seen from Phase Ones own demo CD are of exceptional
> quality.

The term "quality" is very very subjective.  If you mean it has excellent
color, yes, if you mean it's really sharp, yes...if you talk about actual
image detail...bzzzzzt...it falls way short.  Detail and sharpness are
entirely different things.

> It is a slightly diferent point, as maybe 35mm film does, on paper,
> hold more data than, say, the Phase One back, but in practice, the
> Phase One looks a whole lot better.  There could be a number of
> reasons for this: useful data could be lost in film grain, lack of
> film flatness and scanner limitations. But is seems that,
> subjectively at least, substantially fewer pixels are need from
> direct digital capture than from digitised, scanned film.

It depends on what you are trying to do with the image...  In many
circumstances, yes, that is entirely true.

Austin

> Austin,
>
> Are you sure this statement is correct? From everything I've
> read, a normal
> digital camera has sensor cells that measure luminosity and one
> colour, and
> are arranged in various arrays in the proportion of one red
> sensor, one blue
> sensor, and two green sensors. Each sensor output gives rise to one pixel,
> the missing color values for each pixel being interpolated from the
> neighbouring sensors.

Hi Bob,

Yes, that is more or less what I said...but each sensor does NOT give you
one pixel, it gives you one of the three colors of a pixel.  Remember, color
pixels require THREE colors...and since each sensor cell can only give you
one of the three colors...

> So if the camera has 4 M sensors, it will at the very least produce 4M
> pixels

Not from the sensor...the sensor gives you 2M green sensor data, 1M blue
sensor data and 1M red sensor data...

> (all of them interpolated of course, since none of them has all the
> color values).

So the CAMERA gives you 4M of interpolated pixels...not the sensor.

Regards,

Austin

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> >
> > You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
> > FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to
> get the same
> > amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!
> So,
> > 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
>

Derek,

> ...because the real resolution of
> 35mm lenses
> simply doesn't match that high a figure.

High end primes can go well over 100 lp/mm...  BTW, have you seen gigabit
film?  Obviously, there are lenses that can accommodate that film.

Austin

Hi Harvey,

> For all intents and purposes are not interpolating at this point,
> but have a
> true 5 megapixel (or whatever)  camera.  On the other hand, the
> manufacturers of
> those '4 shot' cameras might claim 4 times the pixel coiunt, and
> we'd be right
> back to where we started this discussion.

I believe it is a real pixel count.  The arithmetic supports that...

> > IOW, pixel count (resolution) is independent from color info.
> You and Austin
> > have maintained that a 6 megapix camera would only give you one
> quarter of
> > that many pixels in grayscale mode (correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> I actually assume that if you shoot in grayscale (not convert in
> Photoshop) you
> will actually have the pixel count that the manufacturers claim
> (but that is a
> guess on my part).  And it would depend on how each camera
> actually works to
> capture the information.

Hum...I don't believe that's true.  What it pretty much has to do is take
the color image, and then the camera converts TO grayscale.  It has no
choice, since the color filters on the sensor cells can't be removed!

> > I am
> > questioning that. I'm suggesting that that *IS* the resolution of those
> > cameras, and the file sizes get larger from there as the color
> information
> > gets added on top of that. IOW, a 6 megapix camera may yield an 18MB RGB
> > TIFF. You don't get 18MB of resolution, but you do get 6 megapixels of
> > resolution.

6M pixels IS 18M, since each pixel is 3 bytes, one for each RGB.  The sensor
in the camera IS what the sensor is, and a 6M sensor really only has 1.5M
red sensors, 1.5M blue sensors and 3M green sensors...and the 6M IS
interpolated, not REAL data.

> This is such a 'relative ' argument.  Define what makes
> 'resolution'. The camera
> yields whatever file size it says it will, but the question is:
> Where does the
> camera get that information from?  How much is real and how much is
> interpolation?

Exactly.

> There finally is no way a1 color sensor can yield a real pixel of
> information
> that must contain 3 colors of information.

And right again ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> on 1/28/02 11:19 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
> > FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to
> get the same
> > amount of color information, you need four times the amount of
> sensors!  So,
> > 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
>
>
> Question: I assume this is only true for one shot cameras, but not the 4
> shot models, a la Leaf and Sinar?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Todd

Hi Todd,

Absolutely correct.  Scanning backs are TRUE pixels, not interpolated
pixels.

Austin

> No, I'm referring to 4 shot backs, which make 4 separate exposures per
> capture, one for each color.

Same thing, point is they have or do one pass per color...whether they use
tri-band CCDs or three passes.

> This eliminates color interpolation.

Exactly.

> One difference between (among many) 4shot backs and scan backs is
> that scan
> backs need continuous light sources, ie, tungsten, HMI, florescent, etc,
> while 4 shot backs can also utilize strobe.

Ah, good point!

Austin

> Okay. See what I'm wondering is with 4 shot backs whether the pixel count
> really increases, or if the pixel information is just more accurate, ie
> captured not interpolated?

Pixel information IS more accurate and is NOT interpolated.

> If pixel count doesn't increase,
> wouldn't it also
> hold true that with the one shot backs, when used for grayscale
> images, the
> pixel count doesn't quarter.

Not if they have permanent color filters in front of the CCD.

> IOW, pixel count (resolution) is independent from color info. You
> and Austin
> have maintained that a 6 megapix camera would only give you one quarter of
> that many pixels in grayscale mode (correct me if I'm wrong).

Well, the sensor yes, but the camera no.

> So, if you go back to the top of this message, where I came in,
> Austin says
> for RGB you need four times as many sensors,

For single shot sensors, yes...

> I'm asking if that
> is true with
> 4 shot devices, or do the separate exposures work as, or in lieu of, extra
> sensors.

For B&W, with a 4 shot device, you could get true resolution with a single
shot (using a ND filter, just like the Leafscan does ;-), true...you do not
need 4 shots...depending on how the back was designed, and if it included an
ND filter.

Austin

I said the real resolution, i.e. that achievable in a real camera with the 
medium of your choice, rather than the theoretical figures obtained with an 
MTF machine.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highres.html is quite a good discussion 
of the resolution issues.

On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 2:18 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Derek,
>
> > ...because the real resolution of
> > 35mm lenses
> > simply doesn't match that high a figure.
>
> High end primes can go well over 100 lp/mm...  BTW, have you seen gigabit
> film?  Obviously, there are lenses that can accommodate that film.
>
> Austin
>
>
> 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/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> > Have you ever read this:
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > From what I see -it (digital) tops it (film) already.
> 
> Well, for snapshots and web images, that is probably true...but for 
an
> enlargement of any size, not even close.  Remember, what you are 
viewing is
> at 72dpi, and on a computer monitor...and most anything looks good, 
even
> shots from a Pentax P&S!


Austin -- Digital is not just better for "snapshots and web images".

At least, Michael Reichmann, whose opinion I value highly and who is 
the author of the Luminous Landscape article you say you read, 
disagrees pretty vehemently with you.  You can read the quotes I've 
included below and see that he thinks the digital D30 is preferable 
to Provia 100F film even up to 10" x 15".  Moreoever, he believes 
that the digital pictures have a higher "apparent resolution":

"All this is lead-up to my current opinion; unvarnished and without 
reservation. Prints that I can make from D30 images are better than 
the prints that I can make from 35mm film. Period." 

"The D30, whether because of its unique CMOS imaging chip, 
electronics, software, magic fairy dust or whatever, allows me to to 
make prints that are superior in apparent resolution, colour 
saturation, shadow detail and overall image quality than what I am 
able to produce from film. ( I should also make clear that D30 images 
are the first digital camera images that to my eye don't look 
digital. They look like film.)"

"Quite a statement, isn't it? But, after just 4 days and a few 
hundred test images, that's my opinion. Others may find differently. 
So be it. But I can only tell you that if I were to head into the 
field today with my Canon gear and wanted to come back with an image 
from which I could make a print for gallery exhibit or sale, in a 
size up to about 10 X 15", I would use the D30 in preference to the 
EOS-1V using Provia 100F. That's where, as the current saying goes, 
the rubber meets the road."

-- Herb Sitz

Typically, what you are calling "real" resolution has nothing to do with the
lense, but the shooting environment...which I believe Erwin probably states
in his "discussion".

He (Erwin) also has a writeup on digital image sensors vs 35mm film, and if
I remember correctly, he also came up with 100M...basically the same way I
did...

Aside from that, let's give 40 lp/mm as the maximum "PRACTICALLY usable"
resolution for 35mm photography...  Any of this is quite easy to
calculate...

40 lp/mm is 80 lines/mm.  But...to actually reliably resolve 80 lines/mm,
you need to sample at 2x that, or 160 lines/mm...and that only is on axis,
off axis you need 1.4x, or 224 lines/mm...  24mm x 224 x 36mm x 224 =
43,352,064 or 43M pixels...and this doesn't take into account that a single
shot sensor only contains %25 real color information...so to get 43M REAL
color pixels, you'd some multiplication of that...

The real answer is, it depends on what your goal is.  If it's happy snaps,
then 6M pixel sensors or less will do just fine.  If it's high resolution
imaging...then 100M pixels is the answer...it your goal is somewhere
in-between, then something in-between will, obviously, work just fine.

Also, remember, that for some, even the best 35mm doesn't even cut
it...which is why some (my self included) shoot medium format.

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Clarke [mailto:derek_c@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:45 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.
>
>
> I said the real resolution, i.e. that achievable in a real camera
> with the
> medium of your choice, rather than the theoretical figures
> obtained with an
> MTF machine.
>
> http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highres.html is quite a
> good discussion
> of the resolution issues.
>
> On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 2:18 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > Derek,
> >
> > > ...because the real resolution of
> > > 35mm lenses
> > > simply doesn't match that high a figure.
> >
> > High end primes can go well over 100 lp/mm...  BTW, have you
> seen gigabit
> > film?  Obviously, there are lenses that can accommodate that film.
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > 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/


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/

Hi Herb,

> Austin -- Digital is not just better for "snapshots and web images".
>
> At least, Michael Reichmann, whose opinion I value highly

Out of curiosity, why?

> and who is
> the author of the Luminous Landscape article you say you read,
> disagrees pretty vehemently with you.

He can disagree all he wants...but it doesn't change the actual facts.  I
also believe many people read too much into what he has written...and what
he has written is only his opinion, not a statement of facts.

> You can read the quotes I've
> included below and see that he thinks the digital D30 is preferable
> to Provia 100F film even up to 10" x 15".

> Moreoever, he believes
> that the digital pictures have a higher "apparent resolution":

What he is talking about is that digital images typically have better edge
sharpness.  This is true, unless you take a film image and also apply USM to
it.  It's really comparing apples and oranges.  There is a large difference
between edge sharpness and detail.  You can have fantastic edge sharpness,
but no detail.

> "All this is lead-up to my current opinion; unvarnished and without
> reservation. Prints that I can make from D30 images are better than
> the prints that I can make from 35mm film. Period."

I've done exactly that, and it's just not true for what my opinion of
"better" is.  "better" is entirely subjective.  One of the "problems" is,
just as with people who debate sound quality...is it depends on if you know
what you are looking at or not, and what you are looking for.  As I have
pointed out many times to people who look at a digital image and claim they
are "better", is digital images that are "rezzed up" to match the size
capabilities of film don't have the detail that film does.  It's not magic,
if the data isn't in the captured image (which it simply can't be, the
sensor only captures just so much), it just isn't there...no matter how many
times you run interpolation on the image.  Interpolated data is just that,
made up data.

Some may say that an artist's drawing is far better than a
photograph...simply because it has cleaner lines, and smoother (or more
consistent) tones...it's the same thing...it lacks the detail of the film
image...though it is very pleasing to the eye.

Don't get me wrong, the images from the D30 are really pretty good, and are
very usable for a lot of uses...but they aren't really as good as Michael
believes they are, at least if one understands just what one is looking at.
They may look more "pleasing" to someone's eye, again, doesn't mean they are
more accurate, or "better".  That is certainly subjective.  Some people like
Cibas that have the colors enhanced...though the color isn't reality, they
like it.  It all depends on what you are trying to do.

It's an interesting question...since some people like "special effects" in
the movies, but you know they aren't real...are you trying to accurately
capture reality, or make something more pleasing to the eye?

Austin

If you read the article, it says the following:

"Kodak had suggested that a photographic lens needs to have a resolution 3
times as high as that of the film to fully exploit the capabilities of the
emulsion."  It's apparently not quite true, but never the less, a good
starting point.

So, even at 40 lp/mm, that's a lense of 120 lp/mm...  He also says that the
best photographic lenses from Leica can achieve 250 to 300 lp/mm...so as I
said, there are lenses readily available that easily accommodate high
resolution films, even if you take the 3x "rule of thumb" or not.

Austin

>
> I said the real resolution, i.e. that achievable in a real camera
> with the
> medium of your choice, rather than the theoretical figures
> obtained with an
> MTF machine.
>
> http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highres.html is quite a
> good discussion
> of the resolution issues.
>
> On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 2:18 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > Derek,
> >
> > > ...because the real resolution of
> > > 35mm lenses
> > > simply doesn't match that high a figure.
> >
> > High end primes can go well over 100 lp/mm...  BTW, have you
> seen gigabit
> > film?  Obviously, there are lenses that can accommodate that film.
> >
> > Austin

But Austin, If you had a 16x24 print from a velvia slide and the same
size from a 20 megapixel camera, (with a top of the line Leitz, Zeiss,
Canon, or Nikkor Lens), could anyone on the planet see any difference,
anywhere in the print? I doubt it very much. Of course if you're
speaking of billboard size prints, you'd need the 100 meg. An 8x10 print
from a Canon D30 absolutely equals a velvia slide. Ther is no question
about it. I've done this comparison many times. You just can't see any
difference that's worth talking about. Your figures may be correct, but
what difference could it possibly make? 

Jerry


Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > Rather than comparing grain size to resolution, I think an interesting
> > comparison would be between the film's resolving power and the digital
> > resolution.  The data sheet for Fuji Velvia, for instance, says it can
> > resolve 80 lines/mm at a chart contrast of 1.6:1.  The
> > measurement for this
> > is described in ISO 6328:2000.  Does anyone have a copy of this?  What I
> > don't know is if lines/mm means lp/mm.
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> lp/mm means line PAIRS per mm.  One black line, next to one white line.  If
> you have two lines of same color next to each other, then you can't see
> them.  Reason for solid black next to solid white is because it's %100
> contrast.
> 
> Resolution of digital imaging systems is hard to measure...since they have a
> regular structure for their arrays.  The worst case is diagonally...which is
> typically about 1.4x worse than on axis...and most digital imaging systems
> list only the BEST they can do, not the worst!
> 
> > If you assume it means exactly what it says, "lines/mm," then that
> > translates to 4064 pixels per inch which would mean an image of
> > 3840 x 5760
> > (or 22.1 megapixels) is equivalent.  This is closer to the number
> > thrown out
> > by Gordon Brown.
> 
> 80 line pair/mm is actually 160 lines/mmm, which is what you used to do your
> arithmetic with apparently...since 160 x 24mm = 3840.
> 
> The big issue to remember when comparing digital imaging sensors to film is
> that digital imaging sensors are regular patterns, and film is not.  This is
> very important when trying to compare resolutions.  Film has a LOT more
> information than just comparing squared segments (as you are doing when
> calculating digital equivalent based on lp/mm)...remember the diagonal issue
> I mentioned above.
> 
> You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
> FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to get the same
> amount of color information, you need four times the amount of sensors!  So,
> 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So, even the 80lp/mm shown for Velvia, clearly shows that 22.1M sensors is
> clearly not enough to give a reliable 80 lp/mm with digital.  Others will
> argue that anything over 40 lp/mm is wasted...and that very much depends on
> what your shooting techniques are.
> 
> If you want any of this explained any further, I'd be more than happy to.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 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/

Hi Jerry,

> But Austin, If you had a 16x24 print from a velvia slide and the same
> size from a 20 megapixel camera, (with a top of the line Leitz, Zeiss,
> Canon, or Nikkor Lens), could anyone on the planet see any difference,
> anywhere in the print?

Yes.  It would be image dependant, and I agree that some images differences
may not be able to be seen.  And it depends on if the 20M were real pixels,
or interpolated pixels.  Real pixels would make it a LOT tougher.

> I doubt it very much. Of course if you're
> speaking of billboard size prints, you'd need the 100 meg. An 8x10 print
> from a Canon D30 absolutely equals a velvia slide. Ther is no question
> about it.

No question that it doesn't.  It depends on what you are considering
"equals".

> I've done this comparison many times.

Me too.

> You just can't see any
> difference that's worth talking about.

I can.

> Your figures may be correct, but
> what difference could it possibly make?

The image detail isn't there.

Austin

> Jerry
>
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > Rather than comparing grain size to resolution, I think an interesting
> > > comparison would be between the film's resolving power and the digital
> > > resolution.  The data sheet for Fuji Velvia, for instance, says it can
> > > resolve 80 lines/mm at a chart contrast of 1.6:1.  The
> > > measurement for this
> > > is described in ISO 6328:2000.  Does anyone have a copy of
> this?  What I
> > > don't know is if lines/mm means lp/mm.
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > lp/mm means line PAIRS per mm.  One black line, next to one
> white line.  If
> > you have two lines of same color next to each other, then you can't see
> > them.  Reason for solid black next to solid white is because it's %100
> > contrast.
> >
> > Resolution of digital imaging systems is hard to
> measure...since they have a
> > regular structure for their arrays.  The worst case is
> diagonally...which is
> > typically about 1.4x worse than on axis...and most digital
> imaging systems
> > list only the BEST they can do, not the worst!
> >
> > > If you assume it means exactly what it says, "lines/mm," then that
> > > translates to 4064 pixels per inch which would mean an image of
> > > 3840 x 5760
> > > (or 22.1 megapixels) is equivalent.  This is closer to the number
> > > thrown out
> > > by Gordon Brown.
> >
> > 80 line pair/mm is actually 160 lines/mmm, which is what you
> used to do your
> > arithmetic with apparently...since 160 x 24mm = 3840.
> >
> > The big issue to remember when comparing digital imaging
> sensors to film is
> > that digital imaging sensors are regular patterns, and film is
> not.  This is
> > very important when trying to compare resolutions.  Film has a LOT more
> > information than just comparing squared segments (as you are doing when
> > calculating digital equivalent based on lp/mm)...remember the
> diagonal issue
> > I mentioned above.
> >
> > You are also confused by pixels vs sensors.  Digital imaging sensors use
> > FOUR sensor cells to make ONE color pixel...so if you want to
> get the same
> > amount of color information, you need four times the amount of
> sensors!  So,
> > 4 x 22.1 is reasonably close to my claim of 100M pixels.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > So, even the 80lp/mm shown for Velvia, clearly shows that 22.1M
> sensors is
> > clearly not enough to give a reliable 80 lp/mm with digital.
> Others will
> > argue that anything over 40 lp/mm is wasted...and that very
> much depends on
> > what your shooting techniques are.
> >
> > If you want any of this explained any further, I'd be more than
> happy to.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > 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.

What scanner would most professional pre press house people say is the
best in the world at getting the most sharpness and detail out of a 35mm
film?  There was a comparison in Design Graphics Magazine between 20 of
the best scanners in every price bracket. I seem to remember the
Polaroid 4000 DPI scanner came out as the sharpest, even when compared
to a $60,000 scanner. There were samples of 5 different kinds of
subjects, all depicting sharpness and detail in Huge blowups.  Price of
scanner seemed to have nothing to do with the quality of scans.
Are there scanners that can scan at 20,000 DPI Optically or more? Is it
possible to get every last bit of detail including individual grain in
Kodachrome 25 film?
How much would such a scan cost? It would be interesting for someone on
the list who has access to such a high end scanner to make a comparison
between that scanner, and say a 4000 DPI Nikon or Polaroid scanner, and
at what print size a difference could be seen in sharpness.

Jer

I too greatly respect Michael Reichmann's views, and given his 
familiarity with high quality gear, including the likes of Rollei 
6008i, Pentax 67II, Toyo 5x4 etc, and his succcess as a photographer 
he is well placed to give the opinion you quote.

But I go only some of the way with him.  My Fuji S1 is superb for 
some work, delivering results that I prefer to medium format 
(portraits mainly,).  But I don't wholly agree with Michael, as with 
some subjects, image quality, although still very good, is not quite 
in high quality 35mm league.  This is I think where colour pixel 
interpolation (as Austin has mentioned) is probably kicking in.

What is surprising, however, is how close a 3+ mp camera like the S1 
or D30 comes to 35mm, and that is even subjectively (to me) seems to 
better it for some applications. 

I'd say you need around double the pixels from scanned film to equal 
direct digital capture, but the exact figure varies according to 
subject.  I can give one practical example to back this up:

Whiling away the time between too much food and drink over the xmas 
break, I compared two identical still life images.  The first I took 
with a Wista VX 5x4 camera, Schnieder 90mm lens, using FP4 plus sheet 
film, developed in DDX, and scanned at 3,200 dpi.  The second used 
the same camera, but used a Dicomed scan back at its max resolution 
of 6,000 x 7,500 dpi (tri-linear Kodak CCD, no interpolation).

The scanned FP4 gave a file more than twice the size of the Dicomed.  
In terms of resolving power, there was little in it, although I 
preferred the "clean" Dicomed scan. Both seemed to have similar 
resolution at any given viewing size, but the Dicomed could be rezzed 
up and sharpened more due to the complete absence of grain, or even 
S1 type noise.  The Dicomed edges were razor sharp.  Not bad for 7 
year old technology :-)  This proves nothing, of course, as I was 
still judging matters subjectively.  I also guess the outcome might 
have been different if I was using Tech Pan (although I'd then run up 
against lens resolving power limitations).

--
Quentin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "hsitz" <hsitz@n...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> > 
> > > Have you ever read this:
> > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > From what I see -it (digital) tops it (film) already.
> > 
> > Well, for snapshots and web images, that is probably true...but 
for 
> an
> > enlargement of any size, not even close.  Remember, what you are 
> viewing is
> > at 72dpi, and on a computer monitor...and most anything looks 
good, 
> even
> > shots from a Pentax P&S!
> 
> 
> Austin -- Digital is not just better for "snapshots and web images".
> 
> At least, Michael Reichmann, whose opinion I value highly and who 
is 
> the author of the Luminous Landscape article you say you read, 
> disagrees pretty vehemently with you.  You can read the quotes I've 
> included below and see that he thinks the digital D30 is preferable 
> to Provia 100F film even up to 10" x 15".  Moreoever, he believes 
> that the digital pictures have a higher "apparent resolution":
> 
> "All this is lead-up to my current opinion; unvarnished and without 
> reservation. Prints that I can make from D30 images are better than 
> the prints that I can make from 35mm film. Period." 
> 
> "The D30, whether because of its unique CMOS imaging chip, 
> electronics, software, magic fairy dust or whatever, allows me to 
to 
> make prints that are superior in apparent resolution, colour 
> saturation, shadow detail and overall image quality than what I am 
> able to produce from film. ( I should also make clear that D30 
images 
> are the first digital camera images that to my eye don't look 
> digital. They look like film.)"
> 
> "Quite a statement, isn't it? But, after just 4 days and a few 
> hundred test images, that's my opinion. Others may find 
differently. 
> So be it. But I can only tell you that if I were to head into the 
> field today with my Canon gear and wanted to come back with an 
image 

> from which I could make a print for gallery exhibit or sale, in a 
> size up to about 10 X 15", I would use the D30 in preference to the 
> EOS-1V using Provia 100F. That's where, as the current saying goes, 
> the rubber meets the road."
> 
> -- Herb Sitz

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/

Herb, I agree with you ! The D-30 Does seem to do better than most other
digital cameras in it's class, especially if you have sharp lenses, and
the Canon lenses are sharp!

I wonder, if an epson PRINTER can resolve all the detail that's in a
file! Possibly they can't. Does anyone have any knowledge of this? I
never use glossy paper, so I can't fairly test the 2880 setting on my
1280 printer. On matte papers, it doesn't seem to be any sharper than
1440 unless you use a loupe.

Jerry

> Austin -- Digital is not just better for "snapshots and web images".
> 
> At least, Michael Reichmann, whose opinion I value highly and who is
> the author of the Luminous Landscape article you say you read,
> disagrees pretty vehemently with you.  You can read the quotes I've
> included below and see that he thinks the digital D30 is preferable
> to Provia 100F film even up to 10" x 15".  Moreoever, he believes
> that the digital pictures have a higher "apparent resolution":
> 
> "All this is lead-up to my current opinion; unvarnished and without
> reservation. Prints that I can make from D30 images are better than
> the prints that I can make from 35mm film. Period."
> 
> "The D30, whether because of its unique CMOS imaging chip,
> electronics, software, magic fairy dust or whatever, allows me to to
> make prints that are superior in apparent resolution, colour
> saturation, shadow detail and overall image quality than what I am
> able to produce from film. ( I should also make clear that D30 images
> are the first digital camera images that to my eye don't look
> digital. They look like film.)"
> 
> "Quite a statement, isn't it? But, after just 4 days and a few
> hundred test images, that's my opinion. Others may find differently.
> So be it. But I can only tell you that if I were to head into the
> field today with my Canon gear and wanted to come back with an image
> from which I could make a print for gallery exhibit or sale, in a
> size up to about 10 X 15", I would use the D30 in preference to the
> EOS-1V using Provia 100F. That's where, as the current saying goes,
> the rubber meets the road."
> 
> -- Herb Sitz
>

Austin, what are some of these Really sharp lenses of which you speak? 
Brands? Prices, What cameras do they fit?

Thanks

Jerry




Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> If you read the article, it says the following:
> 
> "Kodak had suggested that a photographic lens needs to have a resolution 3
> times as high as that of the film to fully exploit the capabilities of the
> emulsion."  It's apparently not quite true, but never the less, a good
> starting point.
> 
> So, even at 40 lp/mm, that's a lense of 120 lp/mm...  He also says that the
> best photographic lenses from Leica can achieve 250 to 300 lp/mm...so as I
> said, there are lenses readily available that easily accommodate high
> resolution films, even if you take the 3x "rule of thumb" or not.
> 
> Austin
> 
> >
> > I said the real resolution, i.e. that achievable in a real camera
> > with the
> > medium of your choice, rather than the theoretical figures
> > obtained with an
> > MTF machine.
> >
> > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highres.html is quite a
> > good discussion
> > of the resolution issues.
> >
> > On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 2:18 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > > Derek,
> > >
> > > > ...because the real resolution of
> > > > 35mm lenses
> > > > simply doesn't match that high a figure.
> > >
> > > High end primes can go well over 100 lp/mm...  BTW, have you
> > seen gigabit
> > > film?  Obviously, there are lenses that can accommodate that film.
> > >
> > > Austin
> 
> 
> 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/

Hi Jerry,

I'd check with Erwin's web site for that info, and then with B&H or someone
for prices.  I assume he is talking about Leitz lenses for the Leica R or M
cameras.

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:30 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.
>
>
> Austin, what are some of these Really sharp lenses of which you speak?
> Brands? Prices, What cameras do they fit?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > If you read the article, it says the following:
> >
> > "Kodak had suggested that a photographic lens needs to have a
> resolution 3
> > times as high as that of the film to fully exploit the
> capabilities of the
> > emulsion."  It's apparently not quite true, but never the less, a good
> > starting point.
> >
> > So, even at 40 lp/mm, that's a lense of 120 lp/mm...  He also
> says that the
> > best photographic lenses from Leica can achieve 250 to 300
> lp/mm...so as I
> > said, there are lenses readily available that easily accommodate high
> > resolution films, even if you take the 3x "rule of thumb" or not.
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > >
> > > I said the real resolution, i.e. that achievable in a real camera
> > > with the
> > > medium of your choice, rather than the theoretical figures
> > > obtained with an
> > > MTF machine.
> > >
> > > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highres.html is quite a
> > > good discussion
> > > of the resolution issues.
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 2:18 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > > > Derek,
> > > >
> > > > > ...because the real resolution of
> > > > > 35mm lenses
> > > > > simply doesn't match that high a figure.
> > > >
> > > > High end primes can go well over 100 lp/mm...  BTW, have you
> > > seen gigabit
> > > > film?  Obviously, there are lenses that can accommodate that film.
> > > >
> > > > Austin

> 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

Hi Jerry,

Those are scanning backs (of which I have a MF one), which are not the same
as one shot cameras that we are speaking about.  They don't surpass film
(again, I know that for a fact) but they are VERY VERY good, and as you
point out, very expensive.

Austin

Hi Jerry,

> I wonder, if an epson PRINTER can resolve all the detail that's in a
> file [from a D30]! Possibly they can't.

The image files for the D30 are only 2160 x 1440...and as you well know, you
really don't want to go below 180PPI, if even 240PPI to the
printer...therefore you would get a 9" x 6" image size at 240PPI...so the
printer can EASILY resolve "all the detail" from these images.  Now, if
you're talking about colors, that's a different story...but as far as
resolution goes, yes, no doubt about it, even the smaller Epson PRINTERs
can.

Austin

Derek Clarke wrote:

>  <sni>
>
> I'm inclined to doubt it though because the real resolution of 35mm lenses
> simply doesn't match that high a figure.

I think the resolving power of a lens and the amount of information on film are
two different issues.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

>
>
> On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 3:38 am, Jerry Olson wrote:
> > I've read in Kodak's own literature that an ISO 25 Kodachrome slide has
> > 12 megapixels of information in it, and anything more is unnecessary.





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

On 1/29/02 8:38 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

Snip...snip... Snip...snip... Snip...snip... Snip...snip...

> It's an interesting question...since some people like "special effects" in
> the movies, but you know they aren't real...are you trying to accurately
> capture reality, or make something more pleasing to the eye?

Well that seems to be a topic for discussion.  Is that the difference
between a photographer and an artist?  Reality vs. Imagination?

Robert

> 
> He can disagree all he wants...but it doesn't change the actual facts.  I
> also believe many people read too much into what he has written...and what
> he has written is only his opinion, not a statement of facts.
> 


Austin,

Having done some tests myself using my Howtek 4500 and 35mm film and a D30,
I must say I'd have to agree with you.

Lawrence
------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
------------------------------

YOW!!  What a pain these threads are- 25 lines of quoted text, and 1
question or comment!

Please act like you have some respect for your fellow list members' time,
and DELETE unnecessary text.

yow...

(rant over)

Bill

>
>
> Well that seems to be a topic for discussion.  Is that the difference
> between a photographer and an artist?  Reality vs. Imagination?
>
> Robert

Or what is the difference between a painter and an artist?

William

>
>
>
>                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Don't forget that subject matter is *very* important as to whether a digital
capture is better than film.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

qdfb wrote:

>  I am never quite sure whether any subjective element enters the
> equation when comparing film resolution with pixels.
>
> For example, the Phase One H20 back uses the Kodak 16mp chip.  16mp
> is less even than Kodak's claims for 35mm resolution, but Phase One
> maintain their back offers quality better than medium format film.
> Examples I have seen from Phase Ones own demo CD are of exceptional
> quality.
>
> It is a slightly diferent point, as maybe 35mm film does, on paper,
> hold more data than, say, the Phase One back, but in practice, the
> Phase One looks a whole lot better.  There could be a number of
> reasons for this: useful data could be lost in film grain, lack of
> film flatness and scanner limitations. But is seems that,
> subjectively at least, substantially fewer pixels are need from
> direct digital capture than from digitised, scanned film.
> --
> Quentin
>





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

hsitz wrote:

>  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > > Have you ever read this:
> > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > From what I see -it (digital) tops it (film) already.
> >
> > Well, for snapshots and web images, that is probably true...but for an
> > enlargement of any size, not even close.  Remember, what you are viewing is
> > at 72dpi, and on a computer monitor...and most anything looks good, even
> > shots from a Pentax P&S!
>
>
> Austin -- Digital is not just better for "snapshots and web images".
>
> At least, Michael Reichmann, whose opinion I value highly and who is
> the author of the Luminous Landscape article you say you read,
> disagrees pretty vehemently with you.  You can read the quotes I've
> included below and see that he thinks the digital D30 is preferable
> to Provia 100F film even up to 10" x 15".  Moreoever, he believes
> that the digital pictures have a higher "apparent resolution":
>
> "All this is lead-up to my current opinion; unvarnished and without
> reservation. Prints that I can make from D30 images are better than
> the prints that I can make from 35mm film. Period."
>
> "The D30, whether because of its unique CMOS imaging chip,
> electronics, software, magic fairy dust or whatever, allows me to to
> make prints that are superior in apparent resolution, colour
> saturation, shadow detail and overall image quality than what I am
> able to produce from film. ( I should also make clear that D30 images
> are the first digital camera images that to my eye don't look
> digital. They look like film.)"
>
> "Quite a statement, isn't it? But, after just 4 days and a few
> hundred test images, that's my opinion. Others may find differently.
> So be it. But I can only tell you that if I were to head into the
> field today with my Canon gear and wanted to come back with an image
> from which I could make a print for gallery exhibit or sale, in a
> size up to about 10 X 15", I would use the D30 in preference to the
> EOS-1V using Provia 100F. That's where, as the current saying goes,
> the rubber meets the road."
>
> -- Herb Sitz
>
>

Herb,
Having read that article, I found his 'proofs' lacking.  The images he used were
easy ones for digital capture (straight lines, large fields of color), but if he
were to shoot a forest in the winter, at a distance (for example) the real film
would contain *much* more information as it would be based on real data, not
interpolated.

That is not to say that digital cameras aren't good, it's just that, like all
tools they have their proper uses and have *real* limitations.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



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

Jerry Olson wrote:

>  But Austin, If you had a 16x24 print from a velvia slide and the same
> size from a 20 megapixel camera, (with a top of the line Leitz, Zeiss,
> Canon, or Nikkor Lens), could anyone on the planet see any difference,
> anywhere in the print? I doubt it very much. Of course if you're
> speaking of billboard size prints, you'd need the 100 meg. An 8x10 print
> from a Canon D30 absolutely equals a velvia slide. Ther is no question
> about it. I've done this comparison many times. You just can't see any
> difference that's worth talking about. Your figures may be correct, but
> what difference could it possibly make?
>
> Jerry

Jerry,
Subject matter, subject matter, subject matter!

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




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

I used to have an R4 Leica, and 2 summicron lenses 1 Leica Macro, and 1
elmarit.  Tests between my 90mm Elmarit and my friends 90mm Summicron
showed the opposite from what was expected. The Elmarit was sharper. I
had always thought the summicrons were the sharpest. In comparison to my
Canon lenses, There isn't enough difference in sharpness to talk about.
They are for all practical purposes equal. My Canon 50mm is sharper than
my Leica 50mm Macro was. Not enough to notice until you made corner and
edges tests in a 16x24 print. Then the Canon was noticeably better. Both
were still excellent. 

Both companies produce fantastic gear,  We also noticed that the M
lenses are sharper than the same focal lengths for the reflex cameras. 

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> I'd check with Erwin's web site for that info, and then with B&H or someone
> for prices.  I assume he is talking about Leitz lenses for the Leica R or M
> cameras.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:30 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.
> >
> >
> > Austin, what are some of these Really sharp lenses of which you speak?
> > Brands? Prices, What cameras do they fit?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > If you read the article, it says the following:
> > >
> > > "Kodak had suggested that a photographic lens needs to have a
> > resolution 3
> > > times as high as that of the film to fully exploit the
> > capabilities of the
> > > emulsion."  It's apparently not quite true, but never the less, a good
> > > starting point.
> > >
> > > So, even at 40 lp/mm, that's a lense of 120 lp/mm...  He also
> > says that the
> > > best photographic lenses from Leica can achieve 250 to 300
> > lp/mm...so as I
> > > said, there are lenses readily available that easily accommodate high
> > > resolution films, even if you take the 3x "rule of thumb" or not.
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I said the real resolution, i.e. that achievable in a real camera
> > > > with the
> > > > medium of your choice, rather than the theoretical figures
> > > > obtained with an
> > > > MTF machine.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highres.html is quite a
> > > > good discussion
> > > > of the resolution issues.
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 2:18 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > > > > Derek,
> > > > >
> > > > > > ...because the real resolution of
> > > > > > 35mm lenses
> > > > > > simply doesn't match that high a figure.
> > > > >
> > > > > High end primes can go well over 100 lp/mm...  BTW, have you
> > > > seen gigabit
> > > > > film?  Obviously, there are lenses that can accommodate that film.
> > > > >
> > > > > Austin
> 
> 
> 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/

Hi Austin, the digital back of which I speak are the 4x5 scanning backs
on a Sinar View Camera, and the test was conducted by Design Graphics
Magazine, using a very detailed oil painting as the subject. The blowups
clearly showed the superiority of the digital scan over film. No doubt
about it at all. So said the article. and anyone with normal vision
could easily see the difference in quality.
 
Jerry

>

> Hi Austin, the digital back of which I speak are the 4x5 scanning backs
> on a Sinar View Camera, and the test was conducted by Design Graphics
> Magazine, using a very detailed oil painting as the subject. The blowups
> clearly showed the superiority of the digital scan over film. No doubt
> about it at all. So said the article. and anyone with normal vision
> could easily see the difference in quality.

Hi Jerry,

What's interesting about that is...how did they get the film image into the
magazine?  Given that you really didn't see a REAL output print from a
darkroom for the print, and then a lightjet print of the digital, you really
didn't have a good comparison, IMO.  I'd really have to know how they did
what they did to comment further.  I assure you, I can easily show the exact
opposite is true!

Austin

Hi Austin, have you ever used the SI software that was posted on the
list about 2 weeks ago? In comparison with Genuine Fractals and Adobe
bicubic upsampling, it gave sharper, more detailed results than either
Genuine Fractals or Photoshop Bicubic. I tried it on several images, and
it is better. Again, not by much, but enough to make it the upsizer of
choice. I'll send you a copy if you'd like to try it. It is an action
that upsamples the image many times in small increments. Hard to believe
that could work, but it does. I always upsample my D-30 images to 36
Megs or so for final use, then sharpen as much as I can, and then reduce
that image if I ever need a smaller one.

Regardless of the numbers say, the D-30 is capable of some very nice
images up to 12x18 inches. And I'm very picky as you know, but probably
not as picky as you are. And I also am willing to bet you have better
eyesight than I do. It is rare to find someone who is that picky. That's
a good thing, right?  Canon is releasing a 6 megapixel camera soon, that
has a full size chip. a 17 mm lens will still be a 17mm lens. Wonder
what THAT is going to cost?

Jerry








Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> > I wonder, if an epson PRINTER can resolve all the detail that's in a
> > file [from a D30]! Possibly they can't.
> 
> The image files for the D30 are only 2160 x 1440...and as you well know, you
> really don't want to go below 180PPI, if even 240PPI to the
> printer...therefore you would get a 9" x 6" image size at 240PPI...so the
> printer can EASILY resolve "all the detail" from these images.  Now, if
> you're talking about colors, that's a different story...but as far as
> resolution goes, yes, no doubt about it, even the smaller Epson PRINTERs
> can.
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 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/

What sort of subject matter does the digital realm really shine at? I
know it doesn't do great on super fine tree branches, but most cameras
and lenses don't. I've very rarely seen any lens or film combination or
camera that could resolve the finely detailed tips of a bare tree's
branches in the winter. (no leaves, just branches). An 8x10 Contact
print can do it, but an enlargemnent? Not many!

Jerry



SKID Photography wrote:

> 
> Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> >  But Austin, If you had a 16x24 print from a velvia slide and the same
> > size from a 20 megapixel camera, (with a top of the line Leitz, Zeiss,
> > Canon, or Nikkor Lens), could anyone on the planet see any difference,
> > anywhere in the print? I doubt it very much. Of course if you're
> > speaking of billboard size prints, you'd need the 100 meg. An 8x10 print
> > from a Canon D30 absolutely equals a velvia slide. Ther is no question
> > about it. I've done this comparison many times. You just can't see any
> > difference that's worth talking about. Your figures may be correct, but
> > what difference could it possibly make?
> >
> > Jerry
> 
> Jerry,
> Subject matter, subject matter, subject matter!
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 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/

> Hi Austin, have you ever used the SI software that was posted on the
> list about 2 weeks ago?

Hi Jerry,

My scanner is high enough resolution, and I don't print over 20x24 digitally
anyway...so I haven't had the need to use any of those.

> In comparison with Genuine Fractals and Adobe
> bicubic upsampling, it gave sharper, more detailed results than either
> Genuine Fractals or Photoshop Bicubic. I tried it on several images, and
> it is better. Again, not by much, but enough to make it the upsizer of
> choice. I'll send you a copy if you'd like to try it.

Sure.

> It is an action
> that upsamples the image many times in small increments. Hard to believe
> that could work, but it does. I always upsample my D-30 images to 36
> Megs or so for final use, then sharpen as much as I can, and then reduce
> that image if I ever need a smaller one.

I believe that upsampling can get smarter and possibly "simulate"
detail...but in the end, just like a Pixar movie, or Super Nintendo
game...it's still not really real ;-)

> Regardless of the numbers say, the D-30 is capable of some very nice
> images up to 12x18 inches.

I know, and I've never said otherwise.

> And I'm very picky as you know, but probably
> not as picky as you are.

Oh, I don't know about that ;-)

> And I also am willing to bet you have better
> eyesight than I do. It is rare to find someone who is that picky. That's
> a good thing, right?

Well, I really wouldn't call it picky, in my case.  It's just I know how
this stuff works...it's kind of like finding out there is no "fictional
character of your choice"...

> Canon is releasing a 6 megapixel camera soon, that
> has a full size chip. a 17 mm lens will still be a 17mm lens. Wonder
> what THAT is going to cost?

One of the issues I have with getting that type of digital camera now, is
none of them use any of the lenses I already have tens of thousands of
dollars invested in!  It'll probably be 5 or more years before I get a
traditional "35mm" SLR digital camera, and it'll probably be the
Contax...used, as well as wait for more lenses to come out.  I know I will
eventually get one, it's just a matter of time.  I'm in no hurry to stop
using my film based 35mm, and I shoot mostly B&W anyway, except P&S with my
little Contax TVS.

I shoot WIDE open most of the time, and really need FAST lenses and manual
focus.  I don't believe any autofocus can reliably give me what I want when
shooting with a 1/4" DOF.  Most of the digital (and autofocus) cameras have
slow lenses...probably for increased DOF purposes...

Regards,

Austin

Images with not much detail, and lots of axial lines ;-)

> 
> What sort of subject matter does the digital realm really shine at? I
> know it doesn't do great on super fine tree branches, but most cameras
> and lenses don't. I've very rarely seen any lens or film combination or
> camera that could resolve the finely detailed tips of a bare tree's
> branches in the winter. (no leaves, just branches). An 8x10 Contact
> print can do it, but an enlargemnent? Not many!
> 
> Jerry

Austin, the difference was so great that if they weren't paid by the
digital industry to fake a test, it really was very obvious. The file
was about 480 MG as I recall. If I can find this particular magazine,
I'll quote you what they said. They were VERY impressed. (This is
Australia's top Design Magazine, and it's gorgeous!) (but expensive :(.

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > Hi Austin, the digital back of which I speak are the 4x5 scanning backs
> > on a Sinar View Camera, and the test was conducted by Design Graphics
> > Magazine, using a very detailed oil painting as the subject. The blowups
> > clearly showed the superiority of the digital scan over film. No doubt
> > about it at all. So said the article. and anyone with normal vision
> > could easily see the difference in quality.
> 
> Hi Jerry,
>

Hi again,

Attached is the SI action. I'm on a Mac, so don't know if it will work
on a P.C., but if it does, let me know what you think. Of course if you
have a good enough scanner, this wouldn't really be of much interest I suppose.

Jerry

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

Austin - 

the camera Jerry is referring to is the Canon D-60 - we hope it's 
announced at PMA next month. Like the D30 (and 1D) this will be an 
EOS system camera. The quality of this lens system is well 
established I think and the availablity of high quality, fast EOS 
lenses is limited only by one's ability to put the cash on the barrel-
head.

Perhaps I'm confused but it appears that you don't know that the D30 
uses Canon EOS SLR lenses.....

Shaun Granleese

> > Canon is releasing a 6 megapixel camera soon, that
> > has a full size chip. a 17 mm lens will still be a 17mm lens. 
Wonder
> > what THAT is going to cost?
> 
> One of the issues I have with getting that type of digital camera 
now, is
> none of them use any of the lenses I already have tens of thousands 
of
> dollars invested in!  It'll probably be 5 or more years before I 
get a
> traditional "35mm" SLR digital camera, and it'll probably be the
> Contax...used, as well as wait for more lenses to come out.  I know 
I will
> eventually get one, it's just a matter of time.  I'm in no hurry to 
stop
> using my film based 35mm, and I shoot mostly B&W anyway, except P&S 
with my
> little Contax TVS.
> 
> I shoot WIDE open most of the time, and really need FAST lenses and 
manual
> focus.  I don't believe any autofocus can reliably give me what I 
want when
> shooting with a 1/4" DOF.  Most of the digital (and autofocus) 
cameras have

> slow lenses...probably for increased DOF purposes...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Jerry,
Actually the digital cameras do very well with the tree branches (because of the
straight line algorithms), but it's the information *BETWEEN* the branches.
It's that information that the digital cameras cannot resolve or properly
interpret, but can be found in film.

Digital camera do well with straight lines and broad areas of color and
surface.  e.g. Cars, smooth buildings, macro shots of flowers, etc.


Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


>  What sort of subject matter does the digital realm really shine at? I
> know it doesn't do great on super fine tree branches, but most cameras
> and lenses don't. I've very rarely seen any lens or film combination or
> camera that could resolve the finely detailed tips of a bare tree's
> branches in the winter. (no leaves, just branches). An 8x10 Contact
> print can do it, but an enlargemnent? Not many!
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> SKID Photography wrote:
> >
> > Jerry Olson wrote:
> >
> > >  But Austin, If you had a 16x24 print from a velvia slide and the same
> > > size from a 20 megapixel camera, (with a top of the line Leitz, Zeiss,
> > > Canon, or Nikkor Lens), could anyone on the planet see any difference,
> > > anywhere in the print? I doubt it very much. Of course if you're
> > > speaking of billboard size prints, you'd need the 100 meg. An 8x10 print
> > > from a Canon D30 absolutely equals a velvia slide. Ther is no question
> > > about it. I've done this comparison many times. You just can't see any
> > > difference that's worth talking about. Your figures may be correct, but
> > > what difference could it possibly make?
> > >
> > > Jerry
> >
> > Jerry,
> > Subject matter, subject matter, subject matter!
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
>





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

Shaun,

Yes, I do know the Canon D30 uses Canon EF lenses...and there are only the
24 and 35 1.4 lenses available, the rest are slower, so the lenses available
do not match the lenses I prefer to use.  For my Contax film cameras, I
primarily use the 85/1.4 and the 100/2, though I do use the 35/1.4 a lot
too...but one out of three doesn't do it for me.  Also, unless the sensor is
full size, the lenses don't match up between film and digital.  I would also
believe that the 24 would have some falloff with a digital imaging sensor
due to well depth...but none the less, the focal lengths I prefer are not
available.  Perhaps when the lense line increases, and the digital sensor is
the same size, I might reconsider.

Contax only has two slow zooms and one 50 available at this point in time.
I have no interest in Canon at this point in time...as I prefer Zeiss glass
(or even Leica) to Canon glass.  I've used both, and Canon does have some
nice glass, just not my preference.

Austin

>
> Austin -
>
> the camera Jerry is referring to is the Canon D-60 - we hope it's
> announced at PMA next month. Like the D30 (and 1D) this will be an
> EOS system camera. The quality of this lens system is well
> established I think and the availablity of high quality, fast EOS
> lenses is limited only by one's ability to put the cash on the barrel-
> head.
>
> Perhaps I'm confused but it appears that you don't know that the D30
> uses Canon EOS SLR lenses.....
>
> Shaun Granleese
>
> > > Canon is releasing a 6 megapixel camera soon, that
> > > has a full size chip. a 17 mm lens will still be a 17mm lens.
> Wonder
> > > what THAT is going to cost?
> >
> > One of the issues I have with getting that type of digital camera
> now, is
> > none of them use any of the lenses I already have tens of thousands
> of
> > dollars invested in!  It'll probably be 5 or more years before I
> get a
> > traditional "35mm" SLR digital camera, and it'll probably be the
> > Contax...used, as well as wait for more lenses to come out.  I know
> I will
> > eventually get one, it's just a matter of time.  I'm in no hurry to
> stop
> > using my film based 35mm, and I shoot mostly B&W anyway, except P&S
> with my
> > little Contax TVS.
> >
> > I shoot WIDE open most of the time, and really need FAST lenses and
> manual
> > focus.  I don't believe any autofocus can reliably give me what I
> want when
> > shooting with a 1/4" DOF.  Most of the digital (and autofocus)
> cameras have
> > slow lenses...probably for increased DOF purposes...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

> Digital camera do well with straight lines and broad areas of color and
> surface.  e.g. Cars, smooth buildings, macro shots of flowers, etc.

Harvey,

There is a HORRID picture in the Elinchrom line brochure...I mean REALLY
horrid...and they tout it as a digital image!  It's got NO detail,
staircasing, blown out highlights...bleck!  I'm sure it could have been done
much much better...

Austin

Don't forget the following available Canon lenses: 50/1.4, 50/1.0L, 
85/1.2L, 85/1.8, 100/2

SG


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Shaun,
> 
> Yes, I do know the Canon D30 uses Canon EF lenses...and there are 
only the
> 24 and 35 1.4 lenses available, the rest are slower, so the lenses 
available
> do not match the lenses I prefer to use.  For my Contax film 
cameras, I
> primarily use the 85/1.4 and the 100/2, though I do use the 35/1.4 
a lot
> too...but one out of three doesn't do it for me.  Also, unless the 
sensor is
> full size, the lenses don't match up between film and digital.  I 
would also
> believe that the 24 would have some falloff with a digital imaging 
sensor
> due to well depth...but none the less, the focal lengths I prefer 
are not
> available.  Perhaps when the lense line increases, and the digital 
sensor is
> the same size, I might reconsider.
> 
> Contax only has two slow zooms and one 50 available at this point 
in time.
> I have no interest in Canon at this point in time...as I prefer 
Zeiss glass
> (or even Leica) to Canon glass.  I've used both, and Canon does 
have some
> nice glass, just not my preference.
>

...and the 135/2L!

From: "shaungranleese" <shaun@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:55:14 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] You lost me... was: From the horses mouth.


Don't forget the following available Canon lenses: 50/1.4, 50/1.0L,
85/1.2L, 85/1.8, 100/2

SG


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Shaun,
> 
> Yes, I do know the Canon D30 uses Canon EF lenses...and there are
only the
> 24 and 35 1.4 lenses available, the rest are slower, so the lenses
available
> do not match the lenses I prefer to use.  For my Contax film
cameras, I
> primarily use the 85/1.4 and the 100/2, though I do use the 35/1.4
a lot
> too...but one out of three doesn't do it for me.  Also, unless the
sensor is
> full size, the lenses don't match up between film and digital.  I
would also
> believe that the 24 would have some falloff with a digital imaging
sensor
> due to well depth...but none the less, the focal lengths I prefer
are not
> available.  Perhaps when the lense line increases, and the digital
sensor is
> the same size, I might reconsider.
> 
> Contax only has two slow zooms and one 50 available at this point
in time.
> I have no interest in Canon at this point in time...as I prefer
Zeiss glass
> (or even Leica) to Canon glass.  I've used both, and Canon does
have some
> nice glass, just not my preference.
> 



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

Austin, what ever happened to the contax 6 megapixel camera that was
supposed to be released last year?

Jerry




Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Shaun,
> 
> Yes, I do know the Canon D30 uses Canon EF lenses...and there are only the
> 24 and 35 1.4 lenses available, the rest are slower, so the lenses available
> do not match the lenses I prefer to use.  For my Contax film cameras, I
> primarily use the 85/1.4 and the 100/2, though I do use the 35/1.4 a lot
> too...but one out of three doesn't do it for me.  Also, unless the sensor is
> full size, the lenses don't match up between film and digital.  I would also
> believe that the 24 would have some falloff with a digital imaging sensor
> due to well depth...but none the less, the focal lengths I prefer are not
> available.  Perhaps when the lense line increases, and the digital sensor is
> the same size, I might reconsider.
> 
> Contax only has two slow zooms and one 50 available at this point in time.
> I have no interest in Canon at this point in time...as I prefer Zeiss glass
> (or even Leica) to Canon glass.  I've used both, and Canon does have some
> nice glass, just not my preference.
> 
> Austin
> 
> >
> > Austin -
> >
> > the camera Jerry is referring to is the Canon D-60 - we hope it's
> > announced at PMA next month. Like the D30 (and 1D) this will be an
> > EOS system camera. The quality of this lens system is well
> > established I think and the availablity of high quality, fast EOS
> > lenses is limited only by one's ability to put the cash on the barrel-
> > head.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm confused but it appears that you don't know that the D30
> > uses Canon EOS SLR lenses.....
> >
> > Shaun Granleese
> >
> > > > Canon is releasing a 6 megapixel camera soon, that
> > > > has a full size chip. a 17 mm lens will still be a 17mm lens.
> > Wonder
> > > > what THAT is going to cost?
> > >
> > > One of the issues I have with getting that type of digital camera
> > now, is
> > > none of them use any of the lenses I already have tens of thousands
> > of
> > > dollars invested in!  It'll probably be 5 or more years before I
> > get a
> > > traditional "35mm" SLR digital camera, and it'll probably be the
> > > Contax...used, as well as wait for more lenses to come out.  I know
> > I will
> > > eventually get one, it's just a matter of time.  I'm in no hurry to
> > stop
> > > using my film based 35mm, and I shoot mostly B&W anyway, except P&S
> > with my
> > > little Contax TVS.
> > >
> > > I shoot WIDE open most of the time, and really need FAST lenses and
> > manual
> > > focus.  I don't believe any autofocus can reliably give me what I
> > want when
> > > shooting with a 1/4" DOF.  Most of the digital (and autofocus)
> > cameras have
> > > slow lenses...probably for increased DOF purposes...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Austin
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 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/

Yes, I wonder what some people are thinking. When Cone sent me my first
example of piezo printing, I almost laughed, it was so bad. Olive green,
the blackest black was a charcoal gray, several steps away from black,
and flat and muddy, like it was printed on #1 paper when it needed a #3.
 I never got over that sample. Still have it somewhere.

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > Digital camera do well with straight lines and broad areas of color and
> > surface.  e.g. Cars, smooth buildings, macro shots of flowers, etc.
> 
> Harvey,
> 
> There is a HORRID picture in the Elinchrom line brochure...I mean REALLY
> horrid...and they tout it as a digital image!  It's got NO detail,
> staircasing, blown out highlights...bleck!  I'm sure it could have been done
> much much better...
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 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/

<michael.kravit@w...> wrote:
> Jerry,
> 
> Could I trouble you for a copy as well?

Hi Michael,

I'm not Jerry but here is a link to the Stair Interpolation Action - it's 
free...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/Action_profilesPage/index.html

Best,

John V.

Herb, Austin, et. al.

I just got off of the phone with Tom McCartney. Tom is a co-author of "The Digital Zone System". Gordon Brown was one of the Kodak r&d engineers for T-Max 100. Tom and I discussed Austins assertion and re-read his opinion. It appears that Austin is equating the film grains with pixels to get to the 100 megapixel number. We feel that this is just not correct. Pixels and grain should not be equated as such. I am not an engineer and this stuff is greek to me.

All I know is that my D1x is incredible.

Mike

 


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

Jerry,

After much testing the University of Miami digital imaging department has come to the same conslusion. That has now become their scanner of choice.

Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jerry Olson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.


  What scanner would most professional pre press house people say is the
  best in the world at getting the most sharpness and detail out of a 35mm
  film?  There was a comparison in Design Graphics Magazine between 20 of
  the best scanners in every price bracket. I seem to remember the
  Polaroid 4000 DPI scanner came out as the sharpest, even when compared
  to a $60,000 scanner. There were samples of 5 different kinds of
  subjects, all depicting sharpness and detail in Huge blowups.  Price of
  scanner seemed to have nothing to do with the quality of scans.
  Are there scanners that can scan at 20,000 DPI Optically or more? Is it
  possible to get every last bit of detail including individual grain in
  Kodachrome 25 film?
  How much would such a scan cost? It would be interesting for someone on
  the list who has access to such a high end scanner to make a comparison
  between that scanner, and say a 4000 DPI Nikon or Polaroid scanner, and
  at what print size a difference could be seen in sharpness.

  Jer

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Jerry,

Could I trouble you for a copy as well?

Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jerry Olson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 2:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.


  Hi Austin, have you ever used the SI software that was posted on the
  list about 2 weeks ago? In comparison with Genuine Fractals and Adobe
  bicubic upsampling, it gave sharper, more detailed results than either
  Genuine Fractals or Photoshop Bicubic. I tried it on several images, and
  it is better. Again, not by much, but enough to make it the upsizer of
  choice. I'll send you a copy if you'd like to try it. It is an action
  that upsamples the image many times in small increments. Hard to believe
  that could work, but it does. I always upsample my D-30 images to 36
  Megs or so for final use, then sharpen as much as I can, and then reduce
  that image if I ever need a smaller one.

  Regardless of the numbers say, the D-30 is capable of some very nice
  images up to 12x18 inches. And I'm very picky as you know, but probably
  not as picky as you are. And I also am willing to bet you have better
  eyesight than I do. It is rare to find someone who is that picky. That's
  a good thing, right?  Canon is releasing a 6 megapixel camera soon, that
  has a full size chip. a 17 mm lens will still be a 17mm lens. Wonder
  what THAT is going to cost?

  Jerry








  Austin Franklin wrote:
  > 
  > Hi Jerry,
  > 
  > > I wonder, if an epson PRINTER can resolve all the detail that's in a
  > > file [from a D30]! Possibly they can't.
  > 
  > The image files for the D30 are only 2160 x 1440...and as you well know, you
  > really don't want to go below 180PPI, if even 240PPI to the
  > printer...therefore you would get a 9" x 6" image size at 240PPI...so the
  > printer can EASILY resolve "all the detail" from these images.  Now, if
  > you're talking about colors, that's a different story...but as far as
  > resolution goes, yes, no doubt about it, even the smaller Epson PRINTERs
  > can.
  > 
  > Austin
  > 
  > 
  > 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/

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Harvey,

What exactly is the information between tree branches?

Helene

<< Actually the digital cameras do very well with the tree branches (because 
of the
straight line algorithms), but it's the information *BETWEEN* the branches.
It's that information that the digital cameras cannot resolve or properly
interpret, but can be found in film. >>

Hi Mike,

> Herb, Austin, et. al.
>
> I just got off of the phone with Tom McCartney. Tom is a
> co-author of "The Digital Zone System". Gordon Brown was one of
> the Kodak r&d engineers for T-Max 100. Tom and I discussed
> Austins assertion and re-read his opinion. It appears that Austin
> is equating the film grains with pixels to get to the 100
> megapixel number.

I don't know that you could have given him "all" my assertions ;-)

Actually, that is only one way at arriving at that number.  It is entirely
valid, since a grain IS the unit of tonality recording...but actually, even
the 100M number does not come close to equating with film grain, since film
grain is essentially random in nature, therefore not having the axial
effects that digital sensors have.

The other method I used was taking 40 lp/mm and extrapolating from
there...and it comes out to around 80M using that method.

> We feel that this is just not correct. Pixels
> and grain should not be equated as such. I am not an engineer and
> this stuff is greek to me.

Well, I am (as well as having been in this industry for 25 years), and it's
perfectly clear to me ;-)

> All I know is that my D1x is incredible.

No doubt about it!

Austin

This year, this year...but as I said, VERY limited choices of lenses...damn.

Austin

> 
> Austin, what ever happened to the contax 6 megapixel camera that was
> supposed to be released last year?
> 
> Jerry

Mike-

I'm weak on math...but you hit my hot button...a D1x, w/14mm AF-s 
printed on a Kodak 8660 will match any 35mm traditional film wet 
darkroom print in color, detail and red...at least to my aging eyes 
<g>.

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Michael Kravit" 
<michael.kravit@w...> wrote:
> Herb, Austin, et. al.
> 
> I just got off of the phone with Tom McCartney. Tom is a co-author 
of "The Digital Zone System". Gordon Brown was one of the Kodak r&d 
engineers for T-Max 100. Tom and I discussed Austins assertion and re-
read his opinion. It appears that Austin is equating the film grains 
with pixels to get to the 100 megapixel number. We feel that this is 
just not correct. Pixels and grain should not be equated as such. I 
am not an engineer and this stuff is greek to me.

> 
> All I know is that my D1x is incredible.
> 
> Mike
> 
>  
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,

Well, the Canon documentation specifically says the EF series lenses only
(and I quote from their web site specs for the D30):

"Lens mount - Canon EF mount (full electronic control type)"

as well as:

"Lenses used - Canon EF lenses (focal length/angle of view conversion factor
is approximately 1.6X compared to full-frame 35mm filmformat)"

with a provided link to (I assume) all the EF lenses:

http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/lenses.html

...and none of those mentioned below are in that list.  Do you KNOW for a
fact they are fully operational with the D30?  And if so, why wouldn't Canon
mention that it also can use these?

Austin

> Don't forget the following available Canon lenses: 50/1.4, 50/1.0L,
> 85/1.2L, 85/1.8, 100/2
>
> SG
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Shaun,
> >
> > Yes, I do know the Canon D30 uses Canon EF lenses...and there are
> only the
> > 24 and 35 1.4 lenses available, the rest are slower, so the lenses
> available
> > do not match the lenses I prefer to use.  For my Contax film
> cameras, I
> > primarily use the 85/1.4 and the 100/2, though I do use the 35/1.4
> a lot
> > too...but one out of three doesn't do it for me.  Also, unless the
> sensor is
> > full size, the lenses don't match up between film and digital.  I
> would also
> > believe that the 24 would have some falloff with a digital imaging
> sensor
> > due to well depth...but none the less, the focal lengths I prefer
> are not
> > available.  Perhaps when the lense line increases, and the digital
> sensor is
> > the same size, I might reconsider.
> >
> > Contax only has two slow zooms and one 50 available at this point
> in time.
> > I have no interest in Canon at this point in time...as I prefer
> Zeiss glass
> > (or even Leica) to Canon glass.  I've used both, and Canon does
> have some
> > nice glass, just not my preference.
> >

Michael,
It is interesting that you say that without protest, as you use a Howtek, and I
think would agree that 'sharpness' is only one aspect of a good scan.  The depth
of tone, among other attributes, is equally as important.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Michael Kravit wrote:

>  Jerry,
>
> After much testing the University of Miami digital imaging department has come
> to the same conslusion. That has now become their scanner of choice.
>
> Mike
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jerry Olson
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:02 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.
>
>
>   What scanner would most professional pre press house people say is the
>   best in the world at getting the most sharpness and detail out of a 35mm
>   film?  There was a comparison in Design Graphics Magazine between 20 of
>   the best scanners in every price bracket. I seem to remember the
>   Polaroid 4000 DPI scanner came out as the sharpest, even when compared
>   to a $60,000 scanner. There were samples of 5 different kinds of
>   subjects, all depicting sharpness and detail in Huge blowups.  Price of
>   scanner seemed to have nothing to do with the quality of scans.
>   Are there scanners that can scan at 20,000 DPI Optically or more? Is it
>   possible to get every last bit of detail including individual grain in
>   Kodachrome 25 film?
>   How much would such a scan cost? It would be interesting for someone on
>   the list who has access to such a high end scanner to make a comparison
>   between that scanner, and say a 4000 DPI Nikon or Polaroid scanner, and
>   at what print size a difference could be seen in sharpness.
>
>   Jer
>





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

>   What scanner would most professional pre press house people say is the
>   best in the world at getting the most sharpness and detail
>   out of a 35mm
>   film?

The Leafscan 45 scans 35mm at 5080 PPI...so aside from an Imacon or a Drum,
it's got the highest resolution.

Alas, it has not been made for 8 years now...but still stacks up against
even the best of them today.  It was also $16k back 8 years ago, and was the
staple service bureau and pre-press scanner.

Austin

Thanks John,

Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: johnvphoto 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.


  <michael.kravit@w...> wrote:
  > Jerry,
  > 
  > Could I trouble you for a copy as well?

  Hi Michael,

  I'm not Jerry but here is a link to the Stair Interpolation Action - it's 
  free...

  http://www.fredmiranda.com/Action_profilesPage/index.html

  Best,

  John V.








        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Another insteresting tidbit.....

I saw a couple dozen 24x30" color prints made by Vincent Versace on an Epson 10000 shot on his Nikon D1x. Of course they were rezzed up with Genuine Fractals. The prints were awesome, full of detail and sharp. Vincent is a pretty out going guy, and made some rather outrageous claims. He said that the D1x produces images that blow 35mm film away, makes images that are better than film, etc, etc. I found it very hard to accept his statements as he is a consultant and paid by Nikon, but his images really speak for themselves.

I can only say that I saw a multitude of digital prints last week and the "State of the Art" is very strong and very promising.

Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: tomoc 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.


  Mike-

  I'm weak on math...but you hit my hot button...a D1x, w/14mm AF-s 
  printed on a Kodak 8660 will match any 35mm traditional film wet 
  darkroom print in color, detail and red...at least to my aging eyes 
  <g>.




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

That is an odd link they provided but not the only totally out of 
date piece of info on Canon's website unfortunately. The link should 
really have been to http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/

All the lenses I listed function with the D30, 1D and all other EOS 
cameras.

SG

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Well, the Canon documentation specifically says the EF series 
lenses only
> (and I quote from their web site specs for the D30):
> 
> "Lens mount - Canon EF mount (full electronic control type)"
> 
> as well as:
> 
> "Lenses used - Canon EF lenses (focal length/angle of view 
conversion factor

> is approximately 1.6X compared to full-frame 35mm filmformat)"
> 
> with a provided link to (I assume) all the EF lenses:
> 
> http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/lenses.html
> 
>

on 1/29/02 3:36 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> I shoot WIDE open most of the time, and really need FAST lenses and manual
> focus.  I don't believe any autofocus can reliably give me what I want when
> shooting with a 1/4" DOF.

But, how will you know if detail is missing in distant tree branches in
winter?

;-)

Todd

As I don't run the Canon USA web site, it's hard to answer why that page is 
so poor, but here's a better link:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html

All Canon EF lenses work with the D30, period.

One year the Contax N mount might have a similarly wide range, but personally 
I wouldn't hold my breath...

On Wednesday 30 Jan 2002 3:25 am, Austin Franklin wrote:

> ...and none of those mentioned below are in that list.  Do you KNOW for a
> fact they are fully operational with the D30?  And if so, why wouldn't
> Canon mention that it also can use these?

Kyocera made a strategic decision to stay with manual focus at more or less 
the same time that Canon switched to the EF mount, and now they're paying the 
price.

On Wednesday 30 Jan 2002 3:16 am, Austin Franklin wrote:
> This year, this year...but as I said, VERY limited choices of
> lenses...damn.

Here you have the nub of why the film vs digital argument is so often really 
a scanner vs digital origin one!

On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 8:17 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
>
> What's interesting about that is...how did they get the film image into the
> magazine?

Of course, but we don't make images with MTF machines...

On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 6:20 pm, SKID Photography wrote:
> Derek Clarke wrote:
> >  <sni>
> >
> > I'm inclined to doubt it though because the real resolution of 35mm
> > lenses simply doesn't match that high a figure.
>
> I think the resolving power of a lens and the amount of information on film
> are two different issues.

Hi Derek,

Which is exactly why I asked what I asked...  Scanning is a LOT more skilled
an art than using a digital camera is.

Austin

> Here you have the nub of why the film vs digital argument is so
> often really
> a scanner vs digital origin one!
>
> On Tuesday 29 Jan 2002 8:17 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > What's interesting about that is...how did they get the film
> image into the
> > magazine?

> As I don't run the Canon USA web site, it's hard to answer why
> that page is
> so poor, but here's a better link:
>
> http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lineup/index.html

Thanks!  I did find another link to a wider list of lenses...but still don't
understand why they chose to limit the list they provide with the D30.

> All Canon EF lenses work with the D30, period.

I'll take your word for it.  If that's the case, then they do have a
reasonable line up...having an 85/1.2 is great, but it's about 2x the price
point of an 85/1.4, which they don't make...sigh.

As soon as they come out with a full frame sensor, I'll consider taking
another look at the Canon line.

> One year the Contax N mount might have a similarly wide range,
> but personally
> I wouldn't hold my breath...

Oh, I'm not.

Austin

Jerry, Michael, & John,

This 'Stair Interpolation Action' seems to be simply an action to upsample
in 10% increments using PS's standard bicubic interpolation. It just goes
into Image size and increases the image size by multiples of 10% with
resampling checked. So the SI 1.5x upsamples by 10% five times, and the SI
2x repeats that cycle a second time.

Apart from putting it in an action, it's nothing new; TonyHath posted a
query about the same method a year or more ago:-

I recently returned from a trip to the Antarctic with a bunch of
photographers including John Shaw of nature photography fame.  He has got
into digital imaging quite extensively and told us something which I found
very interesting.  By upsizing in increments of 10% there is no loss of
identifiable definition.  He says you can do this many times.  If you go
over
10% the quality will suffer.  Anyone familiar with this procedure?

It seems to work; perhaps someone could say why; I don't think anyone
replied to Tony last time.


Bob Frost.


----- Original Message -----

From: "johnvphoto" <jvlist@...>
>
> I'm not Jerry but here is a link to the Stair Interpolation Action - it's
> free...

> I recently returned from a trip to the Antarctic with a bunch of
> photographers including John Shaw of nature photography fame.  He has got
> into digital imaging quite extensively and told us something which I found
> very interesting.  By upsizing in increments of 10% there is no loss of
> identifiable definition.

I have no problem with upsizing not losing definition...but it can't create
detail where no detail was captured in the original image...  I think a lot
of the problem is understanding what interpolation (upsizing) actually does
an doesn't do.

Austin

Of course if an 85 f/1.4 is your favourite focal length then a 50 f/1.4 with 
a D30 will do as well!

On Wednesday 30 Jan 2002 1:07 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:

> As soon as they come out with a full frame sensor, I'll consider taking
> another look at the Canon line.

Sure, Here it is. Let me know what you think about it.

Jerry

Michael Kravit wrote:
>

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

Yes, that what it is, and it really does work.

Jerry

Bob Frost wrote:

> 
> Jerry, Michael, & John,
> 
> This 'Stair Interpolation Action' seems to be simply an action to upsample
> in 10% increments using PS's standard bicubic interpolation. It just goes
> into Image size and increases the image size by multiples of 10% with
> resampling checked. So the SI 1.5x upsamples by 10% five times, and the SI
> 2x repeats that cycle a second time.
>

You mean to say that the new digital contax can't use the current contax
lenses?  That is a really stupid marketing mistake!

Jerry

P.S., the canon lenses are pretty good!





Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> This year, this year...but as I said, VERY limited choices of lenses...damn.
> 
> Austin
> 
> >
> > Austin, what ever happened to the contax 6 megapixel camera that was
> > supposed to be released last year?
> >
> > 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/

Austin, I have read in canon's literature that the D30 can use ALL of
canon's lenses.

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Well, the Canon documentation specifically says the EF series lenses only
> (and I quote from their web site specs for the D30):
> 
> "Lens mount - Canon EF mount (full electronic control type)"
> 
> as well as:
> 
> "Lenses used - Canon EF lenses (focal length/angle of view conversion factor
> is approximately 1.6X compared to full-frame 35mm filmformat)"
> 
> with a provided link to (I assume) all the EF lenses:
> 
> http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/lenses.html
> 
> ...and none of those mentioned below are in that list.  Do you KNOW for a
> fact they are fully operational with the D30?  And if so, why wouldn't Canon
> mention that it also can use these?
> 
> Austin
> 
> > Don't forget the following available Canon lenses: 50/1.4, 50/1.0L,
> > 85/1.2L, 85/1.8, 100/2
> >
> > SG
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> > <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > Shaun,
> > >
> > > Yes, I do know the Canon D30 uses Canon EF lenses...and there are
> > only the
> > > 24 and 35 1.4 lenses available, the rest are slower, so the lenses
> > available
> > > do not match the lenses I prefer to use.  For my Contax film
> > cameras, I
> > > primarily use the 85/1.4 and the 100/2, though I do use the 35/1.4
> > a lot
> > > too...but one out of three doesn't do it for me.  Also, unless the
> > sensor is
> > > full size, the lenses don't match up between film and digital.  I
> > would also
> > > believe that the 24 would have some falloff with a digital imaging
> > sensor
> > > due to well depth...but none the less, the focal lengths I prefer
> > are not
> > > available.  Perhaps when the lense line increases, and the digital
> > sensor is
> > > the same size, I might reconsider.
> > >
> > > Contax only has two slow zooms and one 50 available at this point
> > in time.
> > > I have no interest in Canon at this point in time...as I prefer
> > Zeiss glass
> > > (or even Leica) to Canon glass.  I've used both, and Canon does
> > have some
> > > nice glass, just not my preference.
> > >
> 
> 
> 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/

I have a canon L lens, and it works perfectly with my D-30. (17-35mm).

Jerry




shaungranleese wrote:

> 
> That is an odd link they provided but not the only totally out of
> date piece of info on Canon's website unfortunately. The link should
> really have been to http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/
> 
> All the lenses I listed function with the D30, 1D and all other EOS
> cameras.
> 
> SG
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Well, the Canon documentation specifically says the EF series
> lenses only
> > (and I quote from their web site specs for the D30):
> >
> > "Lens mount - Canon EF mount (full electronic control type)"
> >
> > as well as:
> >
> > "Lenses used - Canon EF lenses (focal length/angle of view
> conversion factor
> > is approximately 1.6X compared to full-frame 35mm filmformat)"
> >
> > with a provided link to (I assume) all the EF lenses:
> >
> > http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/lenses.html
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 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/

Thanks Jerry.  It's interesting that Canon doesn't say this on their web
site!  They are VERY specific about the EF lenses...

Are the L series lenses fully electronic?

Now, to bring this BACK on topic...what about B&W?  Does the D30 give
comparable B&W to 35mm B&W?

> I have a canon L lens, and it works perfectly with my D-30. (17-35mm).
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
> shaungranleese wrote:
> >
> > That is an odd link they provided but not the only totally out of
> > date piece of info on Canon's website unfortunately. The link should
> > really have been to http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/
> >
> > All the lenses I listed function with the D30, 1D and all other EOS
> > cameras.
> >
> > SG
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> > <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Well, the Canon documentation specifically says the EF series
> > lenses only
> > > (and I quote from their web site specs for the D30):
> > >
> > > "Lens mount - Canon EF mount (full electronic control type)"
> > >
> > > as well as:
> > >
> > > "Lenses used - Canon EF lenses (focal length/angle of view
> > conversion factor
> > > is approximately 1.6X compared to full-frame 35mm filmformat)"
> > >
> > > with a provided link to (I assume) all the EF lenses:
> > >
> > > http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/lenses.html

> You mean to say that the new digital contax can't use the current contax
> lenses?  That is a really stupid marketing mistake!

Well, it depends on what you mean by "current".  The N1 is their new
autofocus camera, and the D1 will use the same lenses.  Prior to that, the
only autofocus camera Contax had in 35mm SLR is the AX, which DOES use the
"regular" manual focus Zeiss lenses...which are absolutely stupendous
lenses.  The AX autofocuses by moving the film plane, not the focus ring on
the lense, which is why it can use the manual focus lenses.

> Jerry
>
> P.S., the canon lenses are pretty good!

If I was going to use Canon, they would have to compare to Leica or
Contax/Zeiss in quality...so I hope they are better than "pretty good".

Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Thanks Jerry.  It's interesting that Canon doesn't say this on their web
> site!  They are VERY specific about the EF lenses...

But they all work, really!

 
> Are the L series lenses fully electronic?

Mounts are same as ef mounts. The L just means the pro line, L for
Luxury, and of course the glass is ED, or apochromatic, and they're much
more expensive than the ef lenses.  The 50 mm macro lens is not an L
lens, but it is Canon's sharpest lens.  In fact Popular Photography said
that lens was the sharpest lens they had ever tested. They gave it an A+
rating at 16x24 inches. Not even the Leica lenses got that good a
rating. I've owned leica, nikon, and canon, in 35mm, and I completely
agree, the Canon 50mm macro is my sharpest lens.

Austin, I've owned leica, Nikon and Canon. The canon lenses are
outstanding. As good as Leitz or Nikkor.

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > You mean to say that the new digital contax can't use the current contax
> > lenses?  That is a really stupid marketing mistake!
> 
> Well, it depends on what you mean by "current".  The N1 is their new
> autofocus camera, and the D1 will use the same lenses.  Prior to that, the
> only autofocus camera Contax had in 35mm SLR is the AX, which DOES use the
> "regular" manual focus Zeiss lenses...which are absolutely stupendous
> lenses.  The AX autofocuses by moving the film plane, not the focus ring on
> the lense, which is why it can use the manual focus lenses.
> 
> > Jerry
> >
> > P.S., the canon lenses are pretty good!
> 
> If I was going to use Canon, they would have to compare to Leica or
> Contax/Zeiss in quality...so I hope they are better than "pretty good".
> 
> 
> 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/

What about bokeh?  I used an F1 in the 70's (one of my favorite cameras) and
found the bokeh to be not really as good...it was blotchy, and not very
smooth.  Not near as harsh as a Fuji lense, but not as nice as my favorite
Zeiss or Leitz lenses.

> Austin, I've owned leica, Nikon and Canon. The canon lenses are
> outstanding. As good as Leitz or Nikkor.
>
> Jerry

Austin, here is a good comparison of resolution and bokeh for Canon's short
tele lenses (85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, and 135 f/2L).  I use the 135 f/2L on my
Canon D30 and it produces razor sharp images with beautiful background bokeh
(with the lens wide open).
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

Carl

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:59:52 -0500
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] You lost me... was: From the horses mouth.


What about bokeh?  I used an F1 in the 70's (one of my favorite cameras) and
found the bokeh to be not really as good...it was blotchy, and not very
smooth.  Not near as harsh as a Fuji lense, but not as nice as my favorite
Zeiss or Leitz lenses.

> Austin, I've owned leica, Nikon and Canon. The canon lenses are
> outstanding. As good as Leitz or Nikkor.
>
> Jerry


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

I don't really consider bokeh in my photos. I don't think I've ever used
any of my lenses wide open, as I'm always looking for maximum sharpness
throughout the image.

I've only heard about what bokeh even is in the last year or so. I've
not seen a single word written about it until last year. Not once in any
photo magazine, not at school, nowhere!


Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> What about bokeh?  I used an F1 in the 70's (one of my favorite cameras) and
> found the bokeh to be not really as good...it was blotchy, and not very
> smooth.  Not near as harsh as a Fuji lense, but not as nice as my favorite
> Zeiss or Leitz lenses.
> 
> > Austin, I've owned leica, Nikon and Canon. The canon lenses are
> > outstanding. As good as Leitz or Nikkor.
> >
> > 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/

Do you find the modern zeiss lenses made in japan equal to their german counterparts?

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> What about bokeh?  I used an F1 in the 70's (one of my favorite cameras) and
> found the bokeh to be not really as good...it was blotchy, and not very
> smooth.  Not near as harsh as a Fuji lense, but not as nice as my favorite
> Zeiss or Leitz lenses.
> 
> > Austin, I've owned leica, Nikon and Canon. The canon lenses are
> > outstanding. As good as Leitz or Nikkor.
> >
> > 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/

Harvey,

I find your sarcastic tone offensive.

I see sky "*BETWEEN*" tree branches.  Squirrels?  Hardly.  Rocks?  Hardly.  
Birds?  Rarely.

Perhaps you are so defensive because you mis-interpreted what you read, or 
put your own spin on it.  It would be helpful to cite the source when 
parroting someone else's findings; otherwise, an evaluatuion is impossible.

Helene 


> I find your question perplexing.  In any place, there is visual information
> between trees and branches, like details of rocks behind the trees, 
> squirrels,
> birds, whatever.
> 
> What exactly do you *think* could be between tree branches?  Certainly 
> there has
> to be *something*!
> 
> There was a similar thread on one of the scanner lists last summer, and it 
> also
> included the resolving power of films well as something to do with lenses.
> During that discussion, someone posted a bunch of details from scans and 
> digital
> captures.  It *clearly* illustrated what I am talking about (a picture 
> being
> worth 1000 words and all), and am frustrated that I cannot explain it 
> further.
> 
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> 
> grdglass@... wrote:
> 
> >  Harvey,
> >
> > What exactly is the information between tree branches?
> >
> > Helene
> >
> > << Actually the digital cameras do very well with the tree branches 
> (because
> > of the
> > straight line algorithms), but it's the information *BETWEEN* the 
> branches.
> > It's that information that the digital cameras cannot resolve or properly
> > interpret, but can be found in film. >>
> 



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

So what's the difference in Bokeh and "normal depth of field" 
characteristics? I thought all optics pretty much had the same depth 
of field range at the same f/ stop? There might by huge differences 
in resolution and contrast and flare and general sharpness, but isn't 
the depth of field a matter of physics that is constant???

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> I don't really consider bokeh in my photos. I don't think I've ever 
used
> any of my lenses wide open, as I'm always looking for maximum 
sharpness
> throughout the image.
>

Bokeh is the way the OOF areas are rendered.  Some lenses give circles
(halos), some give very harsh transitions, and some have very smooth,
pleasing rendering.

I have an article on it at:

http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/bokeh.pdf

> So what's the difference in Bokeh and "normal depth of field"
> characteristics? I thought all optics pretty much had the same depth
> of field range at the same f/ stop? There might by huge differences
> in resolution and contrast and flare and general sharpness, but isn't
> the depth of field a matter of physics that is constant???
>
> Tom O'Connell
>
> > I don't really consider bokeh in my photos. I don't think I've ever
> used
> > any of my lenses wide open, as I'm always looking for maximum
> sharpness
> > throughout the image.
> >

Hi Jerry,

Yes, as I have both.  They are really only assembled in Japan, and the
assembly is overseen by Zeiss.  There is nothing distinguishable between
them that I have found, and they are wholly designed by Zeiss.

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:13 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] You lost me... was: From the horses mouth.
>
>
> Do you find the modern zeiss lenses made in japan equal to their
> german counterparts?
>
> Jerry
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > What about bokeh?  I used an F1 in the 70's (one of my favorite
> cameras) and
> > found the bokeh to be not really as good...it was blotchy, and not very
> > smooth.  Not near as harsh as a Fuji lense, but not as nice as
> my favorite
> > Zeiss or Leitz lenses.
> >
> > > Austin, I've owned leica, Nikon and Canon. The canon lenses are
> > > outstanding. As good as Leitz or Nikkor.
> > >
> > > Jerry
>

I get a headache just thinking about that [GG]

on 1/29/02 10:15 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:


I don't know that you could have given him "all" my assertions ;-)




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

Tom, bokeh is the way the out of focus part of an image is depicted. You
can have a really attractive out of focus area or a really ugly out of
focus area. Before I read about it as an article in a major pro
magazine, I had never heard of it. The illustrations that ran with the
article showed the difference, and if you appreciate the little things,
it was quite a revelation. Some 5 bladed lenses showed leaves that had
pentagon shaped highlights, and were really ugly. A lens that had good
bokeh showed the same image without those ugly reflections, as the lens
it was take with had a 9 blade, near circular arrangement of the lens
diaphragm. It was much nicer.

Jerry

tomoc wrote:

> 
> So what's the difference in Bokeh and "normal depth of field"
> characteristics? I thought all optics pretty much had the same depth
> of field range at the same f/ stop? There might by huge differences
> in resolution and contrast and flare and general sharpness, but isn't
> the depth of field a matter of physics that is constant???
> 
> Tom O'Connell
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > I don't really consider bokeh in my photos. I don't think I've ever
> used
> > any of my lenses wide open, as I'm always looking for maximum
> sharpness
> > throughout the image.
> >
> 
> 
> 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/

Hi Bill,

Oh, that is funny, thanks for the chuckle!

Regards,

Austin

> I get a headache just thinking about that [GG]
> 
> on 1/29/02 10:15 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't know that you could have given him "all" my assertions ;-)

Michael,
Having seen your work, and read your posts, really respect your opinion.

Whew!!!   I thought maybe I'd blown a lot of money on the Howtek for nothing.
;-)

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


Michael Kravit wrote:

>  Harvey,
>
> I really should have re-phrased that. Without going to the expense of buying
> drum scanners, they have found that the the Polaroid is the next best scanner
> on the market. They have tested them all.
>
> Mike
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: SKID Photography
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:00 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.
>
>
>   Michael,
>   It is interesting that you say that without protest, as you use a Howtek,
> and I
>   think would agree that 'sharpness' is only one aspect of a good scan.  The
> depth
>   of tone, among other attributes, is equally as important.
>
>   Harvey Ferdschneider
>   partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
>





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

Harvey,

I really should have re-phrased that. Without going to the expense of buying drum scanners, they have found that the the Polaroid is the next best scanner on the market. They have tested them all.

Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: SKID Photography 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.


  Michael,
  It is interesting that you say that without protest, as you use a Howtek, and I
  think would agree that 'sharpness' is only one aspect of a good scan.  The depth
  of tone, among other attributes, is equally as important.

  Harvey Ferdschneider
  partner, SKID Photography, NYC



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

Harvey,

Sometimes I think faster than I type and truncate my thoughts. It is a problem that us typing challenged have. ;-).

I know you are going to love getting "digital B/W capture" from your Howtek. Have you worked out the initial problems?

Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: SKID Photography 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.


  Michael,
  Having seen your work, and read your posts, really respect your opinion.

  Whew!!!   I thought maybe I'd blown a lot of money on the Howtek for nothing.
  ;-)

  Harvey Ferdschneider
  partner, SKID Photography, NYC

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

> Harvey,
> 
> I really should have re-phrased that. Without going to the expense of buying
> drum scanners, they have found that the the Polaroid is the next best scanner
> on the market. They have tested them all.
> 
> Mike

Mike, as you have access to a high quality CCD scanner and a drum could you
comment on which you prefer for color negative material, particularly 35mm
and 120mm formats? I've only gotten a couple of drum scans of color neg but
it did seem *considerably* more grainy than CCD scans of the same materials.
Was that just a fluke or would you say it's the rule?

> Michael,
> It is interesting that you say that without protest, as you use a Howtek, and
> I
> think would agree that 'sharpness' is only one aspect of a good scan.  The
> depth
> of tone, among other attributes, is equally as important.

Harvey, could you define "depth of tone", and were your comparisons between
a Howtek and a cheap flatbed, or a quality CCD scanner, like a Leaf or a
Scitex? I ask because your exchange print(s) was a comparison of the drum
with the flatbed.

Thanks for doing that BTW, a twofer is always appreciated, not to mention I
LOVE visual aids. ;-)

My own tests between the drum and the Leaf were inconclusive because each
had positive attributes, but they each had negative attributes too, so I
really wonder if there is such a thing as a *BEST* scanner, or if some will
handle certain formats and materials better than others.

Todd

Todd Flashner wrote:

>
>
>
> > Michael,
> > It is interesting that you say that without protest, as you use a Howtek,
> and
> > I
> > think would agree that 'sharpness' is only one aspect of a good scan.  The
> > depth
> > of tone, among other attributes, is equally as important.
>
> Harvey, could you define "depth of tone", and were your comparisons between
> a Howtek and a cheap flatbed, or a quality CCD scanner, like a Leaf or a
> Scitex? I ask because your exchange print(s) was a comparison of the drum
> with the flatbed.
>
> Thanks for doing that BTW, a twofer is always appreciated, not to mention I
> LOVE visual aids. ;-)
>
> My own tests between the drum and the Leaf were inconclusive because each
> had positive attributes, but they each had negative attributes too, so I
> really wonder if there is such a thing as a *BEST* scanner, or if some will
> handle certain formats and materials better than others.
>
> Todd

Todd,
The exchange prints were actually both from ccd scans.  Scitex Eversmart Supreme
and a $300, 42 bit Microtek Scanmaker X12-USL.

Depth of tone is a very hard thing to verbally describe.  It's like the
difference between a really good B&W fiber print and a bad RC machine print.  It
means that at each 'zone' there is good 'information'.  That wherever the tones
fall, they are rich and detailed.  Does that make sense or help?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

OK Austin - a quick guide to EF lenses.

ALL EF mount lenses are wholly electronic, with motors for focus and aperture 
setting. The only connection between lens and body are electronic contacts.

The Contax equivalent is the new N mount.

The various things that you can see attached to Canon lens specs:

USM - short for Ultrasonic Motor. Non-USM lenses use a so-called arc-form 
conventional motor for focusing, USM uses a piezoelectric driver to focus the 
lens.

There are also two kinds of USM lens, a consumer version and ring-type USM. 
The difference is that ring-type USM motors let you manually focus even when 
the lens is set to AF, consumer-type USM doesn't.

L lenses are premium products that use some sort of special technique to 
achieve their quality. The first L lenses had flourite elements, these days 
UD glass (ultra-dispersion or high refractive index) or aspherical elements 
are more likely.

Finally, IS is Image Stabilised. The jewel in the Canon crown as far as I'm 
concerned, these let you use much slower shutter speeds hand-held than 
conventional lenses.

On Wednesday 30 Jan 2002 5:27 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Thanks Jerry.  It's interesting that Canon doesn't say this on their web
> site!  They are VERY specific about the EF lenses...
>
> Are the L series lenses fully electronic?
>
> Now, to bring this BACK on topic...what about B&W?  Does the D30 give
> comparable B&W to 35mm B&W?
>
> > I have a canon L lens, and it works perfectly with my D-30. (17-35mm).
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > shaungranleese wrote:
> > > That is an odd link they provided but not the only totally out of
> > > date piece of info on Canon's website unfortunately. The link should
> > > really have been to http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/
> > >
> > > All the lenses I listed function with the D30, 1D and all other EOS
> > > cameras.
> > >
> > > SG
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> > >
> > > <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Well, the Canon documentation specifically says the EF series
> > >
> > > lenses only
> > >
> > > > (and I quote from their web site specs for the D30):
> > > >
> > > > "Lens mount - Canon EF mount (full electronic control type)"
> > > >
> > > > as well as:
> > > >
> > > > "Lenses used - Canon EF lenses (focal length/angle of view
> > >
> > > conversion factor
> > >
> > > > is approximately 1.6X compared to full-frame 35mm filmformat)"
> > > >
> > > > with a provided link to (I assume) all the EF lenses:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/lenses.html
>
>
> 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/

On Wednesday 30 Jan 2002 4:41 pm, Jerry Olson wrote:
> You mean to say that the new digital contax can't use the current contax
> lenses?  That is a really stupid marketing mistake!

They were mainly stuffed by being manifestly unable to make AF lenses in 
Contax-Yashica mount. 

That was shown by the mess of the focus-plane AF camera the Contax AX.

So to support AF they have been forced to swap to the N mount, and so don't 
have many lenses available for it yet.

It's fair to say that Canon still don't pay particular attention to bokeh. 

On Wednesday 30 Jan 2002 5:59 pm, Austin Franklin wrote:
> What about bokeh?  I used an F1 in the 70's (one of my favorite cameras)
> and found the bokeh to be not really as good...it was blotchy, and not very
> smooth.  Not near as harsh as a Fuji lense, but not as nice as my favorite
> Zeiss or Leitz lenses.

It's releated to the shape of off-focus highlights, as they tend to adopt the 
outline of the aperture disphragm. 

The most extreme example of this effect is the dougnut-shaped highlights from 
mirror lenses thanks to the central secondary mirror.

With conventional lenses it's not when the lens is used at full aperture that 
counts but at smaller apertures.

Lenses with "better bokeh" tend to have more blades in their aperture 
diaphragm, making the outline more nearly a true circle. 

On Wednesday 30 Jan 2002 9:49 pm, tomoc wrote:
> So what's the difference in Bokeh and "normal depth of field"
> characteristics? I thought all optics pretty much had the same depth
> of field range at the same f/ stop? There might by huge differences
> in resolution and contrast and flare and general sharpness, but isn't
> the depth of field a matter of physics that is constant???
>
> Tom O'Connell
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
>
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > I don't really consider bokeh in my photos. I don't think I've ever
>
> used
>
> > any of my lenses wide open, as I'm always looking for maximum
>
> sharpness
>
> > throughout the image.
>
>
> 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/

Aren't there two new Canon lenses meant to be especially appropriate 
for digital cameras? I couldn't tell why.

Sam

>Don't forget the following available Canon lenses: 50/1.4, 50/1.0L,
>85/1.2L, 85/1.8, 100/2
>
>SG [Shaun]

Todd,

I don't shoot 35mm so I can not really opine on the grain of a 35mm scan. I so shoot 120 and 4x5 and scan T-Max 100 and Fuji Astia regularly. I have scanned Kodak Portra Neg film with good results, but obviously negative films is granier than transparency film.

Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Todd Flashner 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] From the horses mouth.



  > Harvey,
  > 
  > I really should have re-phrased that. Without going to the expense of buying
  > drum scanners, they have found that the the Polaroid is the next best scanner
  > on the market. They have tested them all.
  > 
  > Mike

  Mike, as you have access to a high quality CCD scanner and a drum could you
  comment on which you prefer for color negative material, particularly 35mm
  and 120mm formats? I've only gotten a couple of drum scans of color neg but
  it did seem *considerably* more grainy than CCD scans of the same materials.



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

Any Idea why that is? I mean in conventional photography I don't notice
C-prints as being much more (any more?) grainy than R-prints or Cibas. Why
do PMT scanners record neg film as so much more grainy than chromes?

Todd

> Todd,
> 
> I don't shoot 35mm so I can not really opine on the grain of a 35mm scan. I so
> shoot 120 and 4x5 and scan T-Max 100 and Fuji Astia regularly. I have scanned
> Kodak Portra Neg film with good results, but obviously negative films is
> granier than transparency film.
> 
> Mike
 
> 
>> Harvey,
>> 
>> I really should have re-phrased that. Without going to the expense of buying
>> drum scanners, they have found that the the Polaroid is the next best scanner
>> on the market. They have tested them all.
>> 
>> Mike
> 
> Mike, as you have access to a high quality CCD scanner and a drum could you
> comment on which you prefer for color negative material, particularly 35mm
> and 120mm formats? I've only gotten a couple of drum scans of color neg but
> it did seem *considerably* more grainy than CCD scans of the same materials.

As I recall, form the scanner lists, in general, color neg. films on all
scanners appear grainier than transparency films because of  the algorithms used
to get rid of the orange mask.

A reason that there might be more apparent grain in a drum scanner could be the
the 'quality' of the light used (PMT vs. CCD), like the difference between a
condenser vs. diffused light source enlarger.  It could also have to do with
that fact that ccd scanners have 'bloom' and are inherently less sharp, so that
they don't render the grain as well.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



Todd Flashner wrote:

>  Any Idea why that is? I mean in conventional photography I don't notice
> C-prints as being much more (any more?) grainy than R-prints or Cibas. Why
> do PMT scanners record neg film as so much more grainy than chromes?
>
> Todd
>
> > Todd,
> >
> > I don't shoot 35mm so I can not really opine on the grain of a 35mm scan. I
> so
> > shoot 120 and 4x5 and scan T-Max 100 and Fuji Astia regularly. I have
> scanned
> > Kodak Portra Neg film with good results, but obviously negative films is
> > granier than transparency film.
> >
> > Mike
>
> >
> >> Harvey,
> >>
> >> I really should have re-phrased that. Without going to the expense of
> buying
> >> drum scanners, they have found that the the Polaroid is the next best
> scanner
> >> on the market. They have tested them all.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >
> > Mike, as you have access to a high quality CCD scanner and a drum could you
> > comment on which you prefer for color negative material, particularly 35mm
> > and 120mm formats? I've only gotten a couple of drum scans of color neg but
> > it did seem *considerably* more grainy than CCD scans of the same materials.
>
>





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

Todd,

I think that negative film is in fact has more grain than 
transparency film. Especially in the high speed range films. I 
scanned some Portra 400 color negative film and it is grainy. I scan 
Tri-X B/W negative film and it is grainy. Obviously T-Max 100 is very 
fine grain.

Fuji Velvia has almost no grain at all from my scanning experience.

Mike

Mike,

> I think that negative film is in fact has more grain than
> transparency film.

May be I'm missing something here, but transparency film doesn't use grains,
it uses dye clouds.

Austin

So does negative film!

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Mike,
> 
> > I think that negative film is in fact has more grain than
> > transparency film.
> 
> May be I'm missing something here, but transparency film doesn't use grains,
> it uses dye clouds.
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 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/

Sorry, wrong comparison (that was the standard response to "standard" B&W vs
color)...you're, of course, right.  I guess my point was supposed to be
color films don't have grains...

> So does negative film!
>
> Jerry
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > > I think that negative film is in fact has more grain than
> > > transparency film.
> >
> > May be I'm missing something here, but transparency film
> doesn't use grains,
> > it uses dye clouds.
> >
> > Austin

on 2/1/02 12:29 PM, mkravit wrote:

> Todd,
> 
> I think that negative film is in fact has more grain than
> transparency film. Especially in the high speed range films. I
> scanned some Portra 400 color negative film and it is grainy. I scan
> Tri-X B/W negative film and it is grainy. Obviously T-Max 100 is very
> fine grain.
> 
> Fuji Velvia has almost no grain at all from my scanning experience.

I think you and Harvey may be right about that, but what I find interesting
is how much more the digital processes exacerbates the difference relative
to conventional methods. IOW, take out a camera with interchangeable backs,
like a Hassleblad. One back with ASA 100 neg, the other with ASA 100
transparency. Shoot the same image on each film. Make a 24x24" C-print of
the neg and R-print (or ciba) of the chrome. The C-print from the neg
probably won't look much grainer than the R-print from the chrome. Scan the
two on a drum and output to an Epson and the two will look miles apart.

I haven't conducted such a test, so may be I'm wrong, but that's my sense.

Todd

Todd Flashner wrote:

>  on 2/1/02 12:29 PM, mkravit wrote:
>
> > Todd,
> >
> > I think that negative film is in fact has more grain than
> > transparency film. Especially in the high speed range films. I
> > scanned some Portra 400 color negative film and it is grainy. I scan
> > Tri-X B/W negative film and it is grainy. Obviously T-Max 100 is very
> > fine grain.
> >
> > Fuji Velvia has almost no grain at all from my scanning experience.
>
> I think you and Harvey may be right about that, but what I find interesting
> is how much more the digital processes exacerbates the difference relative
> to conventional methods. IOW, take out a camera with interchangeable backs,
> like a Hassleblad. One back with ASA 100 neg, the other with ASA 100
> transparency. Shoot the same image on each film. Make a 24x24" C-print of
> the neg and R-print (or ciba) of the chrome. The C-print from the neg
> probably won't look much grainer than the R-print from the chrome. Scan the
> two on a drum and output to an Epson and the two will look miles apart.
>
> I haven't conducted such a test, so may be I'm wrong, but that's my sense.
>
> Todd
>

Todd,
I think you are right.   It does have something to do with contemporary scanning
process, and this has been discussed quite a bit on the scanner lists.

An interesting side bar on all of this is that several years ago, it was
acceptable even the norm, to shoot in 35mm format for magazines (like fashion)
and then, along came contemporary digital scanning and all of a sudden,
everything had to be shot in medium format.

It was postulated by some, way more knowledgeable that I, that the 'grain'
problem was really a type of 'noise' problem, but a problem nonetheless.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC






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

SKID Photography wrote:

> 
> An interesting side bar on all of this is that several years ago, it was
> acceptable even the norm, to shoot in 35mm format for magazines (like fashion)
> and then, along came contemporary digital scanning and all of a sudden,
> everything had to be shot in medium format.

I don't understand what has changed over the last few years. What
exactly do you mean by "contemporary digital scanning" ? Digital
scanning may be new to us ... but magazines have been drum scanning
transparencies for print for a long long time.

-Jeff

Jeff Magidson wrote:

>
>
> SKID Photography wrote:
>
> >
> > An interesting side bar on all of this is that several years ago, it was
> > acceptable even the norm, to shoot in 35mm format for magazines (like
> fashion)
> > and then, along came contemporary digital scanning and all of a sudden,
> > everything had to be shot in medium format.
>
> I don't understand what has changed over the last few years. What
> exactly do you mean by "contemporary digital scanning" ? Digital
> scanning may be new to us ... but magazines have been drum scanning
> transparencies for print for a long long time.
>
> -Jeff
>

Jeff,
The time span I'm speaking of is from sometime in the 1980's, which is
relatively recently if you're my age.  ;-)  And I think that *is* several years
ago (which is what I said).

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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