> Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 17:02:23 +0200 > From: "Thomas Hennemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: dynamic range from digital cameras
> > The next issue is dynamic range, where digital systems excel, > > and analog systems have to struggle a lot. Hybrid (drum scans) > > systems are coping quite well with a small advantage on the > > digital side. Pure analog systems are lost on this. > > That's a very interesting point. How does the dynamic range from a > digital camera like the D60 compare to pro slides and to the output of > highend drum scanner? You have shadow detail and still the highlights won't burn away in areas where slide film already has to give up. Printing conventionally from slides as rush prints loses the most quality. Silver masks help a little but tend to gray out highlights. Internegatives help more, but introduce color rendition and reciprocity errors. The best way to print from slides today is a high end drum scan and then laser direct output to photo paper. Direct digital shots can still deliiver more dynamic range. On some scanbacks for MF or LF cameras you have more than 11 f-stops detailed dynamic range, while we all know that without tricks the classic techniques have a reach of detailing approximately zone III to zone VIII = 5 f-stops. Run bracketing from a tripod and digitally toys like Helmut Dersch's PTAverage will even make that 11 f-stop range wider. Works for subjects without movement only, of course. > How does it compare to the dynamic range of the different > media one uses to actually display the pictures (i.e. > monitor, The crt tube monitor will show every detail, provided that it is a good one. > LCDs, LCDs are weak in displaying images in general. Especially midtones tend to lump together somewhat, and there is no way to properly calibrate LCD screens. Yes, some LCDs look impressive, but compare them back to back to a very excellent crt monitor, you'll know the difference. > prints, Depnds on the output technique. Laser output from a Fuji Frontier is the superior technique today, with some uncertainties regarding archival stability. Diavographies are absolutely archival, but range in the upper pro lab price region. Conventional prints cannot render as much dynamic range at all, heck, they can't even completely show what is in the negative or slide. That's why dodging and burning helps so much. > digital projectors etc)? Also depending on the technique. Jet black is impossible as in any projection technique, for LCD projectors see LCD screens above, DLPs are a little better, CRT projectors still rule the high end market. > Are we already at a point where we get a higher dynamic > range from a digital camera than we need With some high end scanbacks definitely. > or is there still room for improvement? There is always rooom for improvement. > Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 12:19:54 -0500 (CDT) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Michael) > Subject: Re: EOS-Digest V1 #1065 > For film, the smallest unit of information is the film > grain, which may overlap, and which have a more irregular > shape. > > I think that in order to properly scan film, one needs to > be able to scan the details in the film grain, so this > requires a lot of resolution. But only a fraction of that > will contain "real" information about the photographed > object. Exactly the point. > This of course raises the question of how to archive > photographs, and another one about the archival qualities > of film. Velvia for example is not archival - colors fade > relatively quickly. Whatever happened to good old Kodachome > 64 ... That was prone to fade when projected. I have been staging projections for decorative purposes in a local discotheque with six Kodak carousel units over a long time. 2 nights per week from 9pm to approximately 5 am the slides went round and round and round, with a projection time of anything shorter than 30 seconds each. After three weeks the Kodachrome slides showed very clear siigns of fading, after six weeks I had to replace them. Ektachrome and Fujis last longer. > Again, digital has its own set of problems here, most > prominent I would say are compatibility problems of storage > media. And longevity of storage media. I'm looking hard into MO drives now, since they seem to be the most reliable media of them all. I'll buy a spare drive and put that in the bank locker. -- Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
