clean, if he indulged with a little sharpening and cleaning the result wouldn't be so one sided. I'm not saying that digital
doesn't equal film for some, maybe most purposes but this guy doesn't prove it.
Shawn K. wrote:
HAR HAR HAR!! Hahahaha! Actually, thats pretty funny. I'm a fan of chincy humor though.
-Shawn
-----Original Message----- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Ah but in this test: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor2.htm there is clearly more detail in the film scan - I can see a bird in the sky which just gets lost in the digital image!
-----Original Message----- From: Shawn K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 May 2004 15:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
*Shakes head* This is the hootenany I was speaking of. You know a couple years ago people were claiming 30-40 Mega pixels to outdo 35mm film, that number keeps dropping, but people still claim you need such and such ludicrous amount of pixels to out do the resolution of film. well, I have been a witness to a test on the net, that compares, side to side, crops of Fuji provia 35mm film and a 6MP DSLR, and the two are almost exactly the same with the digital getting slightly better color response IMO.
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm#links
There is the link to it.
Besides if you think 8mp is some kind of insurance for film, its not, digital is just going to keep getting bigger and better.
-Shawn
