In a message dated 2/17/01 2:42:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Subj: Re: Bodies Roll Call UPDATE 59
Date: 2/17/01 2:42:29 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Adam)
<<My point is, even within the same newspaper, you can usually tell what
was done with a digital camera vs. the classical one.>>
Oh I agree.
<<The moment they have to enlarge a digital image, they introduce artifacts.
They are dealing with very large discrete pixels, which will be interpolated
when enlarged. The data between two pixels is JUST NOT THERE to begin with,
and it shows. The fact that they don't give a dam about quality just compound
the effect.>>
Agree. But in most instances, it ~is~ a daily newspaper, bound to be perused
then thrown away within hours. That is why I, as a publisher of a weekly
newspaper, ~did~ care because our patrons almost always kept each edition for
weeks or sent the paper overseas, risking tearing thus we were forced to
carry newsprint with rag content.
<<Twenty or thirty years from now, some student writting a thesis will study
the newspaper archives, and plot a graph of the quality of images over time.
There will be a big dip at the introduction of the D1.>>
I gleefully agree.
<<How long this dip will last, who knows.>>
With the majors now printing on up to 40% recycled newsprint, paper so porous
it actually turns brown* in your driveway in mere minutes (under a bright
Sun), you can expect the digital images will ~not~ improve, though the image
makers will.
*Not only does it nearly brown as you look at it, it sometime crumbles as you
read it! WAHH!
As I have continually noted, "Digital" photography really means medium format
or 4 x 5, not "small format" APS sized CCDs.
As long as no one comes up with a way to shrink the real size of pixels,
~small format~ digital will always be for PJs and amateurs. I do note that
small format digital has become a working tool for hospitals, law
enforcement, insurance and real estate agents, temporary ID badges, surgical
rooms, and a host of other places and venues, including camera to computer to
Internet use for the ordinary consumer, particularly for Auction sales, and a
host of other applications where the veracity of the image and image quality
are neither questioned or required.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Bodies Roll Call UPDATE 59
> In a message dated 2/16/01 7:21:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> << And if the results of all those N* D1 pictures I see in the newspaper
are
> any indication, you can spot that crappy quality all the time. >>
>
> I don't want anyone to think I've gone soft on digital just because I say:
> what else would you expect the images to look like, when they are printed
on
> 30% recycled ~newsprint~?
>
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
