Re: 35mm film VS digital

Hmmmmmm.....

Now that the last few Fuji Finepix S5 DSLRs are left in the shops, I wonder
have we come to the end for cameras that can deliver 'film like' richly
gradated images witha good dynamic range?

After all, images from conventional DSLRS seem to resemble sldes rather than
images derived from film negatives, it seems a pity to me that a camera such
as the Fuji Finepix S5 has been, or is being discontinued. It would be nice
to think there were still DSLRS available which were capable of providing a
wide dynamic range.

Personally I use Nikon DSLRs and keep a Finepix S5 mainly for portraiture.
Even with Nikon's proprietary D-Lighting emnabled, the Fuji images are
always more tonal.
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:o7-dnU3MVPtmiCvVnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That80sGuy wrote:

I don't think there is a proper comparision. A print is a second
generation from a negative or slide.

Or from a digital.

A proper point, but a poor comparison. A digital sensor is much more
perfectly flat than film. There is no dimensional grain in a digital
sensor (there is noise in dynamic, but its always within the bounds of the
pixel).

Most people don't view "first generation" digital files. In fact, nobody
CAN view "first generation" digital files at full resolution. A UXGA
(1600x1200) monitor has only 1.9 megapixels; digital files have 12mp. The
highest resolution monitor is WQUXGA (3840x2400, still far short of
displaying a native 12mp file. Oh, and it's $20,000.00 with a 300:1
contrast ratio that will make your "first generation" file look like
crap.).

Ahem. You zoom into the area of detail of interest. But again, that's
not the same as viewing a print which cannot have the dynamic range of the
image in any case. Never mind the 100 dpi or so of a typical monitor v.
the 300 dpi of a typical print. (Even your drool-monitor above is
somewhat less than 300 dpi.)

So digital must be viewed as a print as well if one wants to get full
resolution.

Hmm. Odd you mention that now...


Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
contest. However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
out a scan, which is a second generation again.

Ever heard of projectors? Ilfochrome? You're a "photo instructor"?
Yikes.
So, my point it this,
does it really matter?
Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files

Yeah, either reduced to 25% resolution to fit a monitor, or by scrolling
to see 1/6th of the picture at a time at full res. Pfft.

Pfft yourself. A monitor is on the order of 100 dpi and a print on the
order of 300 dpi. So yes, in editing you have to zoom in for critical
detail.

And yes, you display it resized to see the entire image for overall
effect. And so what? This has absolutely nothing to do with film v
digital. Once you've digitized film, it is no different in this sense
than a digital original.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.


.

Quantcast