Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
So *I* said nothing that equates to "not exceding
1000:1", which is something *you* made up. A
manufactured quote...

"A good match for 10-bit cameras" means that the two are
close, and the film maybe even wins.

10 bits - 1000:1 - first order

But "not exceding" is entirely a limitation of *your*
fabrication. I said no such thing.

You said not as good as 12-bits. The graphs I found approach that.

First you admit I was right, if they "approach that"
then they are not as good as. But in fact they don't
even come close to approaching that.

In theory a 12-bit digital camera can have a 72 dB
dynamic range. I practice they tend to hit 10.5 to 11.5
fstops or so or so.

The graphs for film that we've looked at in this thread
don't exceed 60 dB.

The fact that it doesn't support your claims is
significant, eh? Even the Kodak curves for Tri-X don't
support you.

They don't show as much to the right as they might. Nothing suggests
saturation in the same was as a digital sensor saturates once the well is
full.

They show the normal range for use in photography.
Typically a properly exposed negative is not going to
have a Dmax density higher than 2.0, never mind any 3.0
(60 dB or 1000:1).

Here's another URL to review. Note the age of this
webpage, and the fact that DSLR's today are running more
than 2 fstops _better_ than the one shown.

http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html#Dynamic_range

which also shows Tri-X film as having somewhat more than a 10-bit (3
in log base 10) range.

It shows Tri-X at *less* than 10 stops. About 2.8, not
3.0, or roughly about 631:1, for 56 dB of dynamic range.

I read it differently.

Then you need to tell us what you are reading so it can
be explained to you how to properly read it. In fact,
looking at the various graphs from Kodak, none of them
actually exceeded a range of 2.5, which of course is
much less than the gift of 2.8 above (I ignored the
Dmin, and assumed 0 to be generous).

If you want to argue about dynamic range for film
compared to digital, Tri-X is distinctly *not* the film
to pick as an example. (And neither is the Verachrome
you cited previously. Do you even *look* at these graphs
before claiming they show magical numbers?)

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml

I am quite happy that the information there shows a dynamic range in
excess of 1000:1.

Since it does not, the only question is what is it you
are thinking dynamic range is?

I am quite happy to accept that the dynamic range of a
digital camera is better, compared to a conventional negative film and
printing process.

So you now admit your original stance was indeed in
error.

However, film retains the ability to capture higher
light levels without saturating, and hence has a valid claim to a higher
dynamic range.

That is an absurd statement. You obviously do not
understand what "dynamic range" is, and regardless are
in error with the premise that film can capture higher
levels.

Whether using that range is easy, or whether you would be
pleased with the results is a different matter.

If nobody is pleased with the results, it isn't valid.
The point from the start was which provides a
*photographer* with higher dynamic range, film or
digital. Photographers take pictures. No picture, not
valid.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: question 35 mm vs digital
    ... better dynamic range than film. ... Jpeg digital camera images suffer from posterization and the ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
    ... looking at the curves given on Norman Koren's webpage, ... the film was capable of recording. ... That is the actual dynamic range of the captured image ... If you set your exposure meter to 400, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: How far...
    ... especially DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film. ... Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images ... means you didn't meter and expose correctly. ... With a digital camera you expose to not blow any highlight you don't want blown, then you generally have the signal to noise to pull the image from the shadows. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: SLR concerns, owners experiences please.
    ... No camera will fix a badly lit subject. ... No film camera, no digital camera. ... A well lit and exposed photograph will out do a badly lit, even if properly exposed photograph any day. ... There are better tests for dynamic range where the dynamic range can be expressed by quanitiative measurements rather than subjective evaluation. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Return to film... True!
    ... differences between film and digital, and the costs, both direct and ... digitals are perfectly sharp using your system. ... examples you ever posted about dynamic range problems were simply ... Put a film camera in his hands and it would be ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)