My film was Portra 160VC for most jobs. The best scans I obtained were from a custom lab. They were drum scans and yielded full frame images of around 80 megs. I prepped them in PS the same way I prep my digital images today and printed them on the same Epson 2200 printer. The lens was the SMC 50/1.4. Of course, this wasn't a strict test. The subjects were different and, as you note, the fov was different. But to my eye, the prints from the *istD look better. A more scientific test would be interesting. In any case, I was merely making the point that there is no "softness" problem with the *istD when one shoots RAW and manages it properly.
> I have never seen anyone claim that 6MP ( non-foveon ) > DSLRS are capable of "considerably sharper" or even as > sharp images than 35mm full frame fine grain film. Lower noise/ > grain yes, sharper or as sharp as fine grain FF film, no. > > When you say with same lenses are you comparing a crop of > full frame 35mm film to the APS digital with same lens or are you > comparing > full frame 35mm film with a 50% longer lens (same AOV as the > APS digital lens)?? > > Secondly are you putting the same effort into the film > scans as you are into the digital captures, i.e. up-rezzing(sic) > fractals, optimal unsharp masking, etc. > > Thirdly, what is the quality of the lenses, film, and film scanner? The > sharper > the lenses and the higher the resolution of the film (read slower) > the harder it is going to be for the 6 Mp DSLR images to match > the FF film scans in terms of resolution. > > JCO > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 9:58 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: *istDs samples are here! > > > You can turn up the in-camera sharpening in the *istD. However, that' > not the route to great results. Better to shoot RAW and sharpen when > converting in PSCS. My *istD prints appear to be considerably sharper > than 35mm prints shot with the same lenses and scanned at 4800dpi. If > your prints are soft, you're doing something wrong. (I assume they are, > because you refer to the "famous softness.") It's not "famous" around > here nor is it even noted. Paul. > > > > Steve Jolly wrote on 22.10.04 15:23: > > > > > > > > I was more interested in using the photos to judge the quality of > > > the DA 18-55 - it's obviously softer than the DA14 and the FA*200, > > > but surprisingly good for a "kit" lens IMO. > > Especially considering its price! To me it seems that Ds adds more > > in-camera sharpening than *istD. The pictures straight from camera > > seems nicer to look at. > > > > -- > > Best Regards > > Sylwek > > > > >
