> Is it not true that a lens capable of excellent > rendition with film formats is not so suitable for the best digital > capture results? If so the above is biased against the digital capture > image in the comparison surely?
This area still needs atention and study. I am no expert in optics, but surely "funny" things are happening when jumping to digital . I have not yet tested any of those lenses "made for digital" and would love to hear experiences from others about this. > Some of us are fortunate enough to run our own processing facilities and > have the luxury of full control over the quality of processing. My > inclusion of the requirement of a 'nicely' processed tranny was to work > with film in it's best state, and to demonstrate the lack of > crud/spotting from a drum scan carefully made in an ideal working > environment. Dear Richard, the only thing I totally regret from this discussion is my physical inability to be close by and offer my participation in this series of tests you are suggesting. Having all that control over potentially disturbing variables is something I would definitely love to do ,and NOT precisely to be able to say if digital is better or film is much better, but to really be able to find out how far can we go with each format under ideal conditions, and which common ground can be defined (in which range the format's qualities and use overlap). This would be by far the real benefit coming from this information. All the best. Jorge Parra APA/ASMP www.jorgeparra.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
