-Ryan
Feroze Kistan wrote:
Hi Tom,
I'm trying to gather as much as I can. I prefer real world proof to lab tests any day. But before investing a sizeable chuck of money into a new format I really need to justify if "comparing favourably" is worth not only the investment in a DSLR but also all the sundries like CF cards, a decent printer, lots of batteries, probally a notebook etc, etc. Seems theres a lot of hidden costs in switching formats that is not discussed. Take for eg the tender I'm trying to get now. I have to shoot about 2000 varsity students on graduation night. How many cards would I need to keep the flow of work up without undue interruption while my assistant copies it to harddrive. I can shoot the entire event with the equipment I have now just by having enough film and batteries on me. Wheres the favourable comparison in that real world scenario?
Feroze
----- Original Message ----- From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:38 AM Subject: RE: Digital Lenses
You really shuld gather a little more information before you make your judgement. My experience has shown that a 6 meg sensor compares favorably to 35mm film.
As always, the proof is in the prints.
tv
-----Original Message----- From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 4:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital Lenses
So at the moment I can have only have one, guess I rather prefer the grain too, pity the *istD looked good, a bit too small for me though. I hope the next one up is more like the MZS. Thanks
Feroze ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses
At 11:26 PM 3/1/2017 +0200, Feroze wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:40 PM Subject: Re: Digital Lenses
Hi Peter
<snip>
however the answer is no.
I don't, I think there is more to the quality of an
image than mere
resolution, I think tonality and true to life colour is much more
important.
I think that at the moment even though digital images
seem to be brighter
overall it still seems to lack a certain something....Is
it only my taste or
do others feel this way?Many observers look at digital images and seem to prefer
them because they
are smoother, giving a creamy look to out of focus images
and large expanses
of uniform color without detail. Well like sky for
instance. They are
also very kind to skin tones in that they tend to remove blemishes.
The built in
algorithms used to remove artifacts in the captured image tend to
also smooth out
small details.
Film in contrast looks well grainy. I like grain but
that's just me. I'd
prefer the detail, I can always remove the grain if it's a problem
but I can't put the
detail back if I've never seen it.
Color is another issue. Under most circumstances digital
gives good color
often better than you get with color negative film from a mini-lab.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
