Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your desire to use the same magnification for each image is
understandable,
> but perhaps it would have been a better test to use the same
size prints
> for the test. Most people ask for a print of a certain size,
not of a
> certain magnification, and the results may have been truer to
real world
> issues.
Shel,
I've just posted two other scans from a 30x45 print made
straight from the camera (with no PS improvement), of course
having the same size print from two different size media means
the digital one is like an enlargement of the central portion of
the film frame, therefore a different picture.
> Also, might it not have been worthwhile to use lenses that
produce
> approximately the same image size, such as the 20mm for the
digi and, what,
> 35mm or so for the film camera? I don't know the answer to
that since the
> introduction of different lenses could effect the test, but
then again,
> it's said that digital "sees" things differently through a
given lens than
> film does, so maybe it's a non issue. What do the experts
say?
My attempt was to reduce to a minimum the variables in the test.
I was trying to have an answer to the question if a film still
can resolve more detail than a 6MP digital camera. From what I
can see, the answer is - not so obviously - no. I can say that
I'm quite shocked to see that. Probably the use of a film like
the Reala (or the discontinued Royal Gold 25) would have
produced a different result, but it's easy to do the test again
(not with the RG25, though :-))...
I guess I can do another test with different lenses with a
comparable AOV on the two media.
> To my eye the Provia image seems to have greater sharpness, or
accutance,
> but one has to look beyond the grain to see it. It seems that
the digital
> results give a more pleasing result if one is just looking at
the print,
> rather than trying to find points of comparison and to see
which is
> "better."
Interesting. I can see small details in the digital print that
simply are not there on the final print from the slide. The
grain sure plays a great role in that. What I cannot see is how
could a scan, or a larger print, improve what is on the slide.
The digital print, though, is, well... digital in its feel. I'm
still not really used to that.
> You didn't mention the ISO used for the digital image. The
lowest ISO, I
> assume?
Yes, ISO 200.
> Thanks for doing this, Gianfranco. While this may not be the
ultimate
> scientific test, and I'm sure there will be some detractors on
that point
> and others, it's nonetheless very worthwhile and was certainly
worth your
> time. I, for one, appreciate the effort, and since you
defined the
> parameters pretty well, I've no complaints. My comments above
were
> questions, not complaints.
You are welcome, Shel!
And thanks to you for the appreciation.
Ciao,
Gianfranco
=====
_
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
