derekstanton
Well-Known Member
Mike, as i keep repeating, this was never intended to be a discourse on digital's superiority. In fact, i have been espousing both sides, as i see benefits and advantages to both media. Yes, i did "point" to the Reichman article, as the first set of s&le comparison images i could find at that quick moment. But, no, i don't rely on that single piece to validate my claims that I ALSO HAVE SEEN THE SAME RESULTS. And, THAT has been the foundation of all of my comments. If you're so infuriated by MR's stuff, dismiss it and focus on the true issue. Yes, i said it seems the 1Ds images are better. Operative word is "seems." I also have said that i prefer the "dirty" analog media for aesthetic reasons. So, rather than jump me for a bit of lexicon, please make an effort to rediscover the content of the post.
No, it was not my intent to "prove" anything with that link. As i said before, (why aren't you getting this?) the link was for the purpose of illustrating something, and for DISCUSSION. Either way, i still fail to see how the linked s&les don't contradict a post above that asserts that 35mm is still better than digital. MRs illustration is with 6x7 film, and regardless of the conversations you have with fellow conspiracy theorists, it still demonstrates 'something.' Extrapolate down for a much smaller 35mm frame, and the differences are more significant. But, again, throw it all out. I'm saying i've achieved the same results, and with (only) a D60, versus both 35mm and 6x4.5. I haven't compared 6x7.
You said "Haven't you guys seen the Luminous Landscape shootout?" and then proceeded to say that it seems that 1Ds images are "superior on every front". If your idea of proving your point was referencing that article on luminous-landscape, then that idea is wrong.
A GMC commercial? Trucks is trucks. Whatever.
Your objections:
"Seeing where? On the 72dpi screen? Or on optically made print? Or on inkjet? Or on projector? What exactly is being compared? If the purpose of his article was comparing resolving power of his scanner and his digital camera - mission partially accomplished. If his purpose was to compare resolving power of FILM based system and resolving power of digital system - the mission is a total failure.
I'm still not sure what world you're living in. All of your 'statistics' are only valid in a purely speculative, academic sense. You use mathematics to prove something that should be decided with your eyes. For one thing, you still haven't indicated how you could examine a digital file with a microscope. So, whatever quantitative measure you would get by measuring film resolution is really moot. Secondly, it just doesn't matter anyway. Film is a different TYPE of media. Your nyquist formulations and 'equivalent megapixels' factors are irrelevant. A 16Mp file from a film scan is different than a 16Mp digital capture. Enlarge both, and you'll see the difference. It seems that all of your arguments are strictly numbers-based, and those numbers are being improperly applied. Whatever - i will always prefer to rely on my eyes. I used to have the same objections as you, but then i actually USED the equipment. Theoretical fuzzy math.
You say it very aptly here: "Your film pictures are probably sharper than digital. Most likely you simply don't have adequate equipment to get all that detail out."
You're telling me which is sharper? Based on what? NOT seeing the images? That pretty much encapsulates the foundation of your logic. But, even if your presumtuous conclusion were correct, the secondary, qualifying statement invalidates it. Most likely, most people don't have adequate equipment to "get the sharpness out." And, as an art director in New York, if i don't have access to the best equipment, then who does? Again, you're comparing theoretical data instead of real-world information. As i continue to say, the only data that really matters to me is That Which Can Actually Be Realized. Further, i have also been speaking of working professionals, who in the commercial world, must deal with reproducing their images. I'm not going to go into an entire 'thing' with regard to press limitations, but suffice it to say that even your mathematical 'advantages' dissapear on press.
So, even if we concede that Reichman was "ought" [sic] to contrive certain results, he didn't have to go very far. But, i suppose you're calling me a liar, and might also make the accusation that i'm somehow in league with MR. Perhaps in your mind, we're one and the same.... Really, though, what would be my motivations?
That's why, in response to what you said:
"I would only compare 'full-sized' sensors, of DSLRs or digital backs to drum scans of 35mm/MF film".
You: "Academic one? Aren't we ought to see whether film has more detail or digital? If you can't extract that detail because you have terrible enlarger lens - it has nothing to do with film itself! The details are THERE."
No, i'm not "ought" (again?) to see whether film has more detail than digital. Again, it's an impossible comparison. You CAN'T measure the detail without scanning the film, or without outputting the digital file to film emulsion. Both are flawed processes. But, in the REAL WORLD, film is routinely, and by necessity, scanned for use, for commercial use. You keep ignoring the basics of my comments in order to continue on your rant. I am NOT talking about gallery/exhibition prints, in which the negative would be used to make a print 'directly.' I SAID that i still find silver prints to be superiour to any inkjets. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE ARGUMENT!
It's going to tell you a true resolving power of film. If you're going to use scanner that CAN'T see all the details on film and say "okay, that's the true measure of detail the film can capture", then you're fooling yourself. Pretty simple.
You:
"All the people that shoot slides and then project it on their screen will tell you that digital isn't there yet."
For the last time - anyone who shoots slides and projects them CANNOT have made a comparison between those slides and digital. A comparison would involve projecting the digital images side by side with the film counterparts. How/when was this done? You're endeavouring to compare Two Different Media types, with different purposes, applications, and means of display. As soon as you can explain how this can be done, AND then SHOW us how your argument makes sense in a practical, real life ex&le.... If you want real-life ex&les, as i suggested, visit Mark Tucker's work. Then, perhaps you could go to RobGalbraith.com, and read similar discussion from working professionals who use both film and digital and who therefore have a more firm basis for comparison. The continued naysaying from those who apparently haven't even used one of the media in question is rather pointless.
But, Mike, it's ridiculous to continue this in argumentative form. I apologize now, if you've taken offense to anything above. I made what i considered to be a simple statement, and then i find myself having to defend someone else (with whom i have no affiliation or allegiance), simply because his conclusions are similar to my own, although with different methodology, and apparently different motives.
Peace.
No, it was not my intent to "prove" anything with that link. As i said before, (why aren't you getting this?) the link was for the purpose of illustrating something, and for DISCUSSION. Either way, i still fail to see how the linked s&les don't contradict a post above that asserts that 35mm is still better than digital. MRs illustration is with 6x7 film, and regardless of the conversations you have with fellow conspiracy theorists, it still demonstrates 'something.' Extrapolate down for a much smaller 35mm frame, and the differences are more significant. But, again, throw it all out. I'm saying i've achieved the same results, and with (only) a D60, versus both 35mm and 6x4.5. I haven't compared 6x7.
You said "Haven't you guys seen the Luminous Landscape shootout?" and then proceeded to say that it seems that 1Ds images are "superior on every front". If your idea of proving your point was referencing that article on luminous-landscape, then that idea is wrong.
A GMC commercial? Trucks is trucks. Whatever.
Your objections:
"Seeing where? On the 72dpi screen? Or on optically made print? Or on inkjet? Or on projector? What exactly is being compared? If the purpose of his article was comparing resolving power of his scanner and his digital camera - mission partially accomplished. If his purpose was to compare resolving power of FILM based system and resolving power of digital system - the mission is a total failure.
I'm still not sure what world you're living in. All of your 'statistics' are only valid in a purely speculative, academic sense. You use mathematics to prove something that should be decided with your eyes. For one thing, you still haven't indicated how you could examine a digital file with a microscope. So, whatever quantitative measure you would get by measuring film resolution is really moot. Secondly, it just doesn't matter anyway. Film is a different TYPE of media. Your nyquist formulations and 'equivalent megapixels' factors are irrelevant. A 16Mp file from a film scan is different than a 16Mp digital capture. Enlarge both, and you'll see the difference. It seems that all of your arguments are strictly numbers-based, and those numbers are being improperly applied. Whatever - i will always prefer to rely on my eyes. I used to have the same objections as you, but then i actually USED the equipment. Theoretical fuzzy math.
You say it very aptly here: "Your film pictures are probably sharper than digital. Most likely you simply don't have adequate equipment to get all that detail out."
You're telling me which is sharper? Based on what? NOT seeing the images? That pretty much encapsulates the foundation of your logic. But, even if your presumtuous conclusion were correct, the secondary, qualifying statement invalidates it. Most likely, most people don't have adequate equipment to "get the sharpness out." And, as an art director in New York, if i don't have access to the best equipment, then who does? Again, you're comparing theoretical data instead of real-world information. As i continue to say, the only data that really matters to me is That Which Can Actually Be Realized. Further, i have also been speaking of working professionals, who in the commercial world, must deal with reproducing their images. I'm not going to go into an entire 'thing' with regard to press limitations, but suffice it to say that even your mathematical 'advantages' dissapear on press.
So, even if we concede that Reichman was "ought" [sic] to contrive certain results, he didn't have to go very far. But, i suppose you're calling me a liar, and might also make the accusation that i'm somehow in league with MR. Perhaps in your mind, we're one and the same.... Really, though, what would be my motivations?
That's why, in response to what you said:
"I would only compare 'full-sized' sensors, of DSLRs or digital backs to drum scans of 35mm/MF film".
You: "Academic one? Aren't we ought to see whether film has more detail or digital? If you can't extract that detail because you have terrible enlarger lens - it has nothing to do with film itself! The details are THERE."
No, i'm not "ought" (again?) to see whether film has more detail than digital. Again, it's an impossible comparison. You CAN'T measure the detail without scanning the film, or without outputting the digital file to film emulsion. Both are flawed processes. But, in the REAL WORLD, film is routinely, and by necessity, scanned for use, for commercial use. You keep ignoring the basics of my comments in order to continue on your rant. I am NOT talking about gallery/exhibition prints, in which the negative would be used to make a print 'directly.' I SAID that i still find silver prints to be superiour to any inkjets. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE ARGUMENT!
It's going to tell you a true resolving power of film. If you're going to use scanner that CAN'T see all the details on film and say "okay, that's the true measure of detail the film can capture", then you're fooling yourself. Pretty simple.
You:
"All the people that shoot slides and then project it on their screen will tell you that digital isn't there yet."
For the last time - anyone who shoots slides and projects them CANNOT have made a comparison between those slides and digital. A comparison would involve projecting the digital images side by side with the film counterparts. How/when was this done? You're endeavouring to compare Two Different Media types, with different purposes, applications, and means of display. As soon as you can explain how this can be done, AND then SHOW us how your argument makes sense in a practical, real life ex&le.... If you want real-life ex&les, as i suggested, visit Mark Tucker's work. Then, perhaps you could go to RobGalbraith.com, and read similar discussion from working professionals who use both film and digital and who therefore have a more firm basis for comparison. The continued naysaying from those who apparently haven't even used one of the media in question is rather pointless.
But, Mike, it's ridiculous to continue this in argumentative form. I apologize now, if you've taken offense to anything above. I made what i considered to be a simple statement, and then i find myself having to defend someone else (with whom i have no affiliation or allegiance), simply because his conclusions are similar to my own, although with different methodology, and apparently different motives.
Peace.