Re: Fw: Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image

[Graywolf]

Wondered if someone would catch that. No one on the Internet seems to want to do 
apple to apple comparisons. e.g. Digital print vs. chemical print. It is always 
digital image to converted to digital from analog image. Now I wounder what his 
results would have been if he had projected the digital image and the slide up 
on a 60x60 inch screen? To be truly fair the projectors should cost about the 
same (GRIN).

Did anyone notice that he did a little PS'ing of the digital as well?
All this kind of stuff proves is you can prove just about anything you want to 
if you set up the tests to favor your point.

However, in the real world both processes work pretty well, it just depends on 
how good the technician doing the print is at his job.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------

John Francis wrote:
William Robb mused:
This guy seems to think digital has a longer dynamic range than film, 
and has the charts to back it up.
Granted, his print fil is not the one I would have chosen as the 
longest range one, but his results are interesting, none the less.

William Robb
 
All he's shown is that one particular digital camera (with a 12-bit
sensor) can capture as much (or more) dynamic range as a 12-bit scanner
can read from film.  Somehow that doesn't really seem too surprising.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian"
Subject: Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image


http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/