Rob Brigham wrote: >Mind you, he harps on about noise. I don't therefore understand why he >didn't use a scanner with ICE? The digital cameras have automatic noise >reduction in their software don't they, so why put the scans at a >disadvantage? Also, he says that 4000dpi is his perceived maximum of >information from film, yet he scans at 3200? > >
I've never found ICE to reduce all the noise... after all there's noise that comes from the film itself. All scanners have noise reduction built in as well; since we're talking about CCDs or some other form of solid state imaging device (CMOS). He scans at 3200 dpi because that's the native res of his flextight- a very high end scanner. I scan at 4000dpi on my SS120 and have concluded the same thing- it's overkill- I'm getting more information from the film structure than the image on the film at that point. >I don't doubt that the 1Ds 'could' match 35mm, but I have a problem >comparing it to 645. > > Looks pretty good to me; it's close- but the 1Ds is at least within +/-10%. >The other issue in my mind is lattitude. I have yet to see a digicam >with the wide exposure lattitude of negative film. Possibly 'narrow' >slides, although I think provia is reasonably 'wide', so if the D1s can >match that it aint bad. > > Perhaps, but there's certainly higher frequency information in the D1s image than either of the film images... so you'd have to choose between a higher latitude or more information. -R
