----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
> So I dare you guys to make better tests, using a 6MP camera like the *ist D > and an expensive filmscanner. I bet you'll have to stand on the tip of a > finger nail, to make scans that than actually match or overpass the digital > images. I know that a lot of you own analog Pentax'es as well as a *ist D. > So get on with it, please! It would be a better test if the film was printed conventionally, as that removes the scanner from the equation. Essentially, your test is a test of the scanner, not of the film. BTW, while I normally don't bother testing anything formally, I really see it as a waste of effort, I have noticed that prints made from the istD show a remarkable lack of grain at larger print sizes compared to 35mm optical prints, and look sharper too. I think film handles fine detail better, and still has a more subtle pallette than digital, as most digital prints are from 8 bit (256 colour) files, or get converted to it as part of the printing process. This is admittedly an observation made from looking at probably half a million prints and not a measured test, but after a quarter century in the business of manufacturing photographs, I have learned a thing or two about print quality. What you are asking people to do is make a meaningless comparison. At least thats what I think. YMMV William Robb
