[rollei_list] Re: Digital Advice
- From: "Austin Franklin" <austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:03:25 -0400
Hi Peter,
Nothing I said was a justification (though I've been listening to digital
justification and self proclaimed digital experts - present company
excluded - for a decade claiming 2-3M "pixels" was better than 35mm film
etc.). I do this (digital imaging equipment design) for a living, and have
been for some 30 years. I spend a lot of time specifically dealing with
image fidelity (and design some tools to test this as well). I know what
digital medium can do, and what film medium can do. I didn't making any
claims as to which is better/worse from an amorphous "image quality"
perspective, that is a personal opinion. But, when talking about strict
image fidelity, digital does not have as high an image fidelity (accuracy of
reproduction) when comparing unit area to unit area, much less , 56mm x 56mm
film vs an APS sized sensor (Rollei vs XTi). That *really* just doesn't
hold any water (to say the least) from my experience.
Of course, all this depends on a lot of factors, how well the image is
exposed, and in the case of film, how well it's developed, and what film
you're talking about etc. So, it's really amorphous to talk about this
without specifics...but in the case of 56x56 vs 17x24, there isn't much of a
prayer, except in some extreme circumstance. I guess a an A with the
mismatched Tessar using Delta 3200 vs a Canon XTi with L glass at
100ASA...may stand a chance.
Regards,
Austin
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Peter K.
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 3:29 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Digital Advice
You can believe what you want. Everyone justifies what they own especially
those who cling to their film cameras.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Austin Franklin
<austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Michael,
> Now that the output from these cameras far exceed the quality that
> I could produce (for my normal wedding/photojournalism work) with 35mm
> film...
Shooting both film and digital, for quite a few years, I still don't see
higher digital quality from any sub $2k digital camera than 35mm film.
But,
that's using my criteria...some people think that sharpness somehow is
higher image quality...but in reality, it is typically not. I think a
lot
of the digital "quality" people like, like sharpness, are a false metric
with respect to actual image fidelity. Comics are very sharp, but have
little detail.
So, anyway, though I fully appreciate and agree that *some* people
believe
their digital output has higher "quality" than they got with film, I
believe
a lot of it is misperception of actual image fidelity. But, hey, since
in
today's society perception is everything (reality takes a back seat),
then
if they think an image with lower image fidelity is higher "quality",
who am
I to argue.
The bottom line is, it really depends on what the criteria for "quality"
is.
That, for some reason, seems to almost never be stated.
Regards,
Austin
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
Other related posts:
