Sharpening wont create detail that isnt in the file. I didnt say sharper (but they are), but do indeed contain more detail. Like it or not, digital is coming of age. Digital solutions for LF are taking over studio work by the droves. Pros who make thier living with the images they create are finding that digital is making that easier. See how you feel about digital imaging in another 5 years.
Everyone seems to like to say 600 dpi is the starting point. But realistically 600 dpi will not give you a "photo quality image" when printed. It takes at least 1200 dpi to print an acceptable "print". So you can double all the numbers you favor. But it doesn't matter to me in the least if digital is comparable to, or exceeds the "clarity" of film. Photography is a craft unto itself. I view it much the same as any other - the results are more often treasured for their artistic value and the appreciation of the artisanship that went into the final product. I think of the comparison as being similar to mass production. Why would anyone want hand-built, solid oak furniture made by a talented craftsman when they can buy a mass-produced, particle board/veneered piece at half the price? Which is most appreciated, and which will be treasured for decades or longer? Digital is to film what video tape is to film. Imagine video tape on a 70 foot theater screen.
No need to imagine videotape on a 70 foot screen, you can go and see it, practically anywhere, because movie theatres are rapidly moving towards all digital distribution.
The use of crude black and white bar test patterns tells us absolutely nothing about the percieved quality of an imaging system except its ability to pass crude resolution tests.Waving figures of 300, 600, and 1200dpi about is meaningless, unless you tell us the context. Is that on film, in a scanner, in a final print, or what? Is that a dye-sub or light-jet print, or a crappy fixed-dot-size ink-jet?
"Sharpening wont create detail that isnt in the file. I didnt say sharper (but they are), but do indeed contain more detail."
While that is true, the sharpened image will have the visual appearance of being sharper which gives the illusion of more detail.
The problem with the comparisons is that the test methodology used is flawed.
1. We do not know the amount of magnification of the images.
2. The film was digitized. This alone negates the entire comparison process. We do not know if number of pixels it was digitized at was appropriate for the amount of magnification. Further, we do not know if the film scan captured the maximum resolution of the film! Hence the need to use a fixed, know target such as a lens resolution chart instead of an aribitrary comparison of a portrait.
For example, while I might get away with 3000 ppi scan for an 8x10 from 35mm, if I want to go to a 48 inch wide print, I will have to have the film digitized at about 11,000 ppi. The same holds true for examining small areas of film to look for details after it has been digitized as this is, in effect, an enlargement,
3. The only way to compare the true resolution capabilities is through controlled tests of the entire imaging "system," and not through poorly thought out comparisons.
As to your comment, "See how you feel about digital imaging in another 5 years."
I feel fine about digital imaging. I use it daily. I've had papers published by the Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers on image processing of digitized infrared video. I also use digital imaging in my personal photographic work. I just don't to buy into a presentation that is really pseudo-photoscience.
I test video equipment for resolution, imaging, dynamic range etc. with image quality evaluated before and after digitizing. From my perspective, the tests were not setup and carried out correctly as the total imaging systems (digital and photographic) were not compared equally because of the test methodology used.
Steve, you apparently did not check out the url. They give all details of the images, and the scanning resolution (5700 DPI) on an Imacon Precision II Film Scanner. You can see the grain (or dye clouds) in the scanned film image. Some of the skin texture is obscured by the grain in the scanned film image, not in the Phase One image. This is also an old CCD (at least 5 years old). They also give the magnification (in equivalent print sizes, both 11x16 size, and 16x24 size).
I've checked out their website, and I stand by my statement that their methodology is flawed.
These images were not printed. These are the image files, so printing has nothing to do with it. As far as scanning the film, if enough resolution was used to reveal the dye clouds, I dont see what a further increase in scanning resolution has to do with it, as the resolution used shows the limits of the film. Regardless of your opinion of the methology, I find the results interresting, and speaks a lot for the state of digital imaging, especially considering it is still in its infancy. Check out the images on the Hasselblad web site from thier new digital camera (at only 4MP, the images are superb). It will be interresting to see the images from Kodaks new 16MP imager due out early next year.
Check out the website of Foveon, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA. It shows an 8 foot (96 inch) tall photograph captured with a 35 mm version of the 16 megapixel sensor chip. It will blow your mind. Hassleblad will be making MF camera with an enlarged version of this ch
The web page is http://aolsearch.aol.com/dirsearch.adp?knf=1&query=large%20formAT%20HO ME%20PAGE%20
David:
That URL didn't work for me. This one did: www.foveon.net
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks