It's also interesting to note that no sharpening was done on either image. The one from the istDs was made with standard sharpening and other standard settings and the scanned film was just a straight scan -push the scan button, let 'er roll - and no sharpening of any sort was used anywhere in the process.
As you observed, Peter, there was no attempt to hide which image was made with which lens on which camera - and people still got it wrong because they were looking for more than what the test was designed to show, and, perhaps, because some had preconceived notions of what an image "should" look like depending on how it was shot. Perhaps this has become a test of more that equivalency ;-)) Maybe it even shows that film is superior to digital <ROTFLMAO> I did use Superior film <LOL> Shel > [Original Message] > From: P. J. Alling > It's also named 18mm.jpg (I should have looked), Shel's film scanner > certainly produces a cleaner image than mine does. > >On 22 Jul 2005 at 12:57, John Francis wrote: > > > > > > > >>Has there really been much disagreement? > >> > >>Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top > >>photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was > >>from the digital. > >> > >>Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of > >>the lower picture (AWB should do better than a film being > >>used in lighting conditions it wasn't designed for), and > >>the better perceived DOF of the lower image (although this > >>has also been attributed to over-sharpening).
