🚀 go-pugleaf

Its not the pictures it's the physics.
 

On Dec 2, 9:03 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> Some claim that full frame sensors like the Sony a900's 24.6 Mpix or the
> Canon 21 Mpix cameras cannot out-resolve the Nikon 12 Mpix full frame
> cameras.
>
> I therefore throw out this friendly challenge with results to be posted
> (full frame raw images) in two weeks time.
> monster snip


<yaaaaawn>

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:366dnZFj8cyiwqnUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> Some claim that full frame sensors like the Sony a900's 24.6 Mpix or the
> Canon 21 Mpix cameras cannot out-resolve the Nikon 12 Mpix full frame
> cameras.
>
> I therefore throw out this friendly challenge with results to be posted
> (full frame raw images) in two weeks time.
>
> Send me an e-meil at the address above (less the "Freelunch") if you're
> "in" and your gear complies to the requirement below.
>
> PROPOSED RULES
> --------------
> Here are some rules, you may propose changes, naturally, in reply to
> this post.
>
> Let's try to sort out rule changes by this Friday (2008.12.05).
>
> I will not reply to anything other than serious proposed rule changes or
> adjustments which are within the grasp of the average shooters in these
> NG's and which enable participation with a minimum of fuss, but that
> have reasonably controllable technical requirements/minimums.
>
> 1. CAMERA and LENS
>
> a) Each uses his sharpest 50mm or longer lens at its sharpest aperture.
>     You may borrow, beg, etc. a lens if you want/need to.
>
>     b) Full frame 35mm cameras only (eg: [24 x 36mm] +/- 1 mm).
>
>        Film is permitted, nay, encouraged.  Scanning is the
> responsibility of the shooter.  (If you're late on the deadline, I'll
> still post the images, of course).  Submit TIF's.
>
>     c) Camera set to its best ISO for image quality (per the
manufacturer).
>
> 2. TARGET
>
>     Subject to be a specific "The Economist" - "Positions" advertisement
> (tend to have fine print) to be mutually agreed from the 6 Dec 2008
edition.
>
>     A ruler (cm or inches) must be part of the image but will not,
> itself, be part of the evaluation.
>
>     Shooter to make sure the page is mounted as flat as reasonably
> possible and normal to the lens axis.  Eg: tape or clamp the page to a
> piece of plywood.
>
> 3. LIGHTING
>
>     Tungsten lighting at a distance commensurate with exposure at chosen
> aperture, ISO and speed.  Assume two lights, one on each side, level
> with the work and approximately 45 degrees to the lens axis.
> I propose we agree on 100W for each light.
>
> (I have no objection if folks prefer strobe lighting, as long as
> everyone agrees on it and can do it.  I would prefer strobe actually but
> propose tungsten if that is more accessible.)
>
> 4. DISTANCE
>
>     Distance to be _1.25 inches per mm of focal length_ from the subject
> to the sensor plane.  (To allow a wide range of normal to telephot
> lenses but a reasonable scaling for comparison.)  If you know the 'true'
> FL v. the marketed FL, then please use the true value.
>
> (This constant to be refined but something on that order.  Once agreed,
> all shooters must use the same multiplier.  A ruler (in cm or inches)
> must be part of the photo(s)).
>
> 5. SUPPORT
>
>     Tripod, release cable and MLU are assumed.
>
> 6. RESULT FILES
>
>     Original, unchanged, raw files (no sharpening that way) to be sent
> to me via YouSendIt.com.  I will post these for access by all
participants.
>
> 7. OTHER FILES
>
>     100% crops (sharpened and not) to be posted as well as selected by
> the shooters.
>
> 8. EVALUATION
>
>     Evaluation: center and corner sharpness.  Discussion of results in
> rec.photo.equipment.slr-systems.
>
>     Does anyone have a resolution tool on their computer?
>
> 9. DEADLINE
>
>     Deadline: 2008.12.14 - Sunday midnight, Los Angeles Time.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
> -- 
> -- 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.

Item #7: What's "100% crops"?  Either uncropped or nonexistent.  May I
suggest an alternative to requiring huge files to be posted?  Take the
picture as proposed, size to a large size (e.g., 20x30"), then crop a
section of about 6x9" (to fit on the screen).  No need to evaluate the
entire image.
-- 
Alan Justice

Alan Justice wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:366dnZFj8cyiwqnUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Some claim that full frame sensors like the Sony a900's 24.6 Mpix or the
>> Canon 21 Mpix cameras cannot out-resolve the Nikon 12 Mpix full frame
>> cameras.
>>
>> I therefore throw out this friendly challenge with results to be posted
>> (full frame raw images) in two weeks time.
>>
>> Send me an e-meil at the address above (less the "Freelunch") if you're
>> "in" and your gear complies to the requirement below.
>>
>> PROPOSED RULES
>> --------------
>> Here are some rules, you may propose changes, naturally, in reply to
>> this post.
>>
>> Let's try to sort out rule changes by this Friday (2008.12.05).
>>
>> I will not reply to anything other than serious proposed rule changes or
>> adjustments which are within the grasp of the average shooters in these
>> NG's and which enable participation with a minimum of fuss, but that
>> have reasonably controllable technical requirements/minimums.
>>
>> 1. CAMERA and LENS
>>
>> a) Each uses his sharpest 50mm or longer lens at its sharpest aperture.
>>     You may borrow, beg, etc. a lens if you want/need to.
>>
>>     b) Full frame 35mm cameras only (eg: [24 x 36mm] +/- 1 mm).
>>
>>        Film is permitted, nay, encouraged.  Scanning is the
>> responsibility of the shooter.  (If you're late on the deadline, I'll
>> still post the images, of course).  Submit TIF's.
>>
>>     c) Camera set to its best ISO for image quality (per the
> manufacturer).
>> 2. TARGET
>>
>>     Subject to be a specific "The Economist" - "Positions" advertisement
>> (tend to have fine print) to be mutually agreed from the 6 Dec 2008
> edition.
>>     A ruler (cm or inches) must be part of the image but will not,
>> itself, be part of the evaluation.
>>
>>     Shooter to make sure the page is mounted as flat as reasonably
>> possible and normal to the lens axis.  Eg: tape or clamp the page to a
>> piece of plywood.
>>
>> 3. LIGHTING
>>
>>     Tungsten lighting at a distance commensurate with exposure at chosen
>> aperture, ISO and speed.  Assume two lights, one on each side, level
>> with the work and approximately 45 degrees to the lens axis.
>> I propose we agree on 100W for each light.
>>
>> (I have no objection if folks prefer strobe lighting, as long as
>> everyone agrees on it and can do it.  I would prefer strobe actually but
>> propose tungsten if that is more accessible.)
>>
>> 4. DISTANCE
>>
>>     Distance to be _1.25 inches per mm of focal length_ from the subject
>> to the sensor plane.  (To allow a wide range of normal to telephot
>> lenses but a reasonable scaling for comparison.)  If you know the 'true'
>> FL v. the marketed FL, then please use the true value.
>>
>> (This constant to be refined but something on that order.  Once agreed,
>> all shooters must use the same multiplier.  A ruler (in cm or inches)
>> must be part of the photo(s)).
>>
>> 5. SUPPORT
>>
>>     Tripod, release cable and MLU are assumed.
>>
>> 6. RESULT FILES
>>
>>     Original, unchanged, raw files (no sharpening that way) to be sent
>> to me via YouSendIt.com.  I will post these for access by all
> participants.
>> 7. OTHER FILES
>>
>>     100% crops (sharpened and not) to be posted as well as selected by
>> the shooters.
>>
>> 8. EVALUATION
>>
>>     Evaluation: center and corner sharpness.  Discussion of results in
>> rec.photo.equipment.slr-systems.
>>
>>     Does anyone have a resolution tool on their computer?
>>
>> 9. DEADLINE
>>
>>     Deadline: 2008.12.14 - Sunday midnight, Los Angeles Time.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
>> -- 
>> -- 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.
> 
> Item #7: What's "100% crops"?  Either uncropped or nonexistent.  May I
> suggest an alternative to requiring huge files to be posted?  Take the
> picture as proposed, size to a large size (e.g., 20x30"), then crop a
> section of about 6x9" (to fit on the screen).  No need to evaluate the
> entire image.

That's exactly what 100% crop means.

'100%' means the view should be 'actual pixel' size, ie not resampled.

'crop' means that rather than post the whole image and waste bandwidth, 
just post a small .. crop.

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:366dnZFj8cyiwqnUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
<snip>

Of course photographing a newspaper will tell nought about color
problems/differences anyway. There's more to photo quality than just
resolution.
And it seems to me the only advantage of the Nikon (lower noise at higher
ISO) is not to be tested, so what's the point?
A proper optical bench test is more definitive than shooting a newspaper.
But if you need better than any of those camera's you should probably be
using MF or large format anyway.

MrT.

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
> 8. EVALUATION
>
>    Evaluation: center and corner sharpness.  Discussion of results in
> rec.photo.equipment.slr-systems.

Excuse me, but if you are evaluating digital SLR systems, please discuss 
the results in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems!

Thanks,
David 

"David J Taylor" 
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in 
message news:226Zk.335$Sp5.267@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Alan Browne wrote:
> []
>> 8. EVALUATION
>>
>>    Evaluation: center and corner sharpness.  Discussion of results in
>> rec.photo.equipment.slr-systems.
>
> Excuse me, but if you are evaluating digital SLR systems, please discuss 
> the results in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems!
>
Oh, ain't that rich...some never give up   : ) 

Mr.T wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message 
> news:366dnZFj8cyiwqnUnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com... <snip>
> 
> Of course photographing a newspaper will tell nought about color 
> problems/differences anyway. There's more to photo quality than just 
> resolution. And it seems to me the only advantage of the Nikon (lower
> noise at higher ISO) is not to be tested, so what's the point? A
> proper optical bench test is more definitive than shooting a
> newspaper. But if you need better than any of those camera's you
> should probably be using MF or large format anyway.

I have nothing against full testing, but for simplicity's sake, let's
begin with addressing resolution as that replies to those who claim that
there is no discernible resolution beyond 12 Mpix.

Resolution test charts, by the way, are black on white.

The purpose of this challenge is to see if general users like us can
discern that detail.  The use of a fine print magazine advert at a good
distance is very useful for resolution testing as it presents contrast
lines at many angles (font shape).

I'd be happier to use USAF res charts, but they are expensive for their
limited use.  The Economist is a few bucks at your local newsstand.

-- 
-- 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.

Alan Justice wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message

>> 100% crops (sharpened and not) to be posted as well as selected by 
>> the shooters.
>> 
> 
> Item #7: What's "100% crops"?  Either uncropped or nonexistent.  May
> I suggest an alternative to requiring huge files to be posted?  Take
> the picture as proposed, size to a large size (e.g., 20x30"), then
> crop a section of about 6x9" (to fit on the screen).  No need to
> evaluate the entire image.

100% crop (a very common term used in these NG's) means a section 
cropped for detail examination and not resized further.  eg: a 400 x 400 
pixel area from the original without re-sizing of the original or the crop.

The notion of sending in the raw files is to assure everyone that the 
original is available for examination.

Speaking of cropping, you could have cropped your post for readability 
on your issue without re-quoting the entire post.

-- 
-- 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.

David J Taylor wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
> []
>> 8. EVALUATION
>>
>>    Evaluation: center and corner sharpness.  Discussion of results in
>> rec.photo.equipment.slr-systems.
> 
> Excuse me, but if you are evaluating digital SLR systems, please discuss 
> the results in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems!

Film shooters are just as welcome to participate.

See rule 1 b) para 2.


-- 
-- 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.

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:mLydnZkuMMe8W6jUnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@giganews.com...
> The purpose of this challenge is to see if general users like us can
> discern that detail.  The use of a fine print magazine advert at a good
> distance is very useful for resolution testing as it presents contrast
> lines at many angles (font shape).
>
> I'd be happier to use USAF res charts, but they are expensive for their
> limited use.  The Economist is a few bucks at your local newsstand.

So is pretty pointless for anybody who actually uses their camera to shoot
real world subjects in real world conditions.
The "newspaper test" is very good at picking the difference between a crap
camera/lens and a good one. But offers little when comparing similar top end
camera's/lenses IMO.
Still, IF the results are spectacularly different, AND repeatable, I'm
prepared to eat my words I guess :-)

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:mLydnZkuMMe8W6jUnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> The purpose of this challenge is to see if general users like us can
>> discern that detail.  The use of a fine print magazine advert at a good
>> distance is very useful for resolution testing as it presents contrast
>> lines at many angles (font shape).
>>
>> I'd be happier to use USAF res charts, but they are expensive for their
>> limited use.  The Economist is a few bucks at your local newsstand.
> 
> So is pretty pointless for anybody who actually uses their camera to shoot
> real world subjects in real world conditions.
> The "newspaper test" is very good at picking the difference between a crap
> camera/lens and a good one. But offers little when comparing similar top end
> camera's/lenses IMO.
> Still, IF the results are spectacularly different, AND repeatable, I'm
> prepared to eat my words I guess :-)

I seem to have to repeat this a lot:  The main point here is the 
assumption by some that there is no useful difference between a 12 and 
24 Mpix camera, not which top lens is best.

The first step is to see if that difference can be seen.

Given high quality lenses used on 12 and 24 Mpix sensors, I'm pretty 
sure the difference will come out based on the sensor, not minor 
differences in high end lens resolution.

So, are you in or out?


-- 
-- 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.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 20:21:09 -0800 (PST), Noons <wizofoz2k@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Dec 2, 9:03�am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
: wrote:
: > Some claim that full frame sensors like the Sony a900's 24.6 Mpix or the
: > Canon 21 Mpix cameras cannot out-resolve the Nikon 12 Mpix full frame
: > cameras.
: >
: > I therefore throw out this friendly challenge with results to be posted
: > (full frame raw images) in two weeks time.
: > monster snip
: 
: 
: <yaaaaawn>

For once, I agree with Noons.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 20:21:09 -0800 (PST), Noons <wizofoz2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> : On Dec 2, 9:03 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> : wrote:
> : > Some claim that full frame sensors like the Sony a900's 24.6 Mpix or the
> : > Canon 21 Mpix cameras cannot out-resolve the Nikon 12 Mpix full frame
> : > cameras.
> : >
> : > I therefore throw out this friendly challenge with results to be posted
> : > (full frame raw images) in two weeks time.
> : > monster snip
> : 
> : 
> : <yaaaaawn>
> 
> For once, I agree with Noons.

Have a nice nap.

-- 
-- 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.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:38:30 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
: David J Taylor wrote:
: > Alan Browne wrote:
: > []
: >> 8. EVALUATION
: >>
: >>    Evaluation: center and corner sharpness.  Discussion of results
: >> in rec.photo.equipment.slr-systems.
: > 
: > Excuse me, but if you are evaluating digital SLR systems, please
: > discuss the results in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems!
: 
: Film shooters are just as welcome to participate.
: 
: See rule 1 b) para 2.

I noticed that, and it puzzled me. How does the inclusion of film contribute
in any way to answering the question that motivated the exercise? Which, I
believe, was "Do you need more than 12 megapixels in a full-frame digital
sensor?"

Bob

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:34:00 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

> I noticed that, and it puzzled me. How does the inclusion of film contribute
> in any way to answering the question that motivated the exercise? Which, I
> believe, was "Do you need more than 12 megapixels in a full-frame digital
> sensor?"

  One possible reason could be that he wants to make sure that
people that know him are aware of his new toy!

Robert Coe <bob@1776.com> wrote:
> 
> I noticed that, and it puzzled me. How does the inclusion of film contribute
> in any way to answering the question that motivated the exercise? Which, I
> believe, was "Do you need more than 12 megapixels in a full-frame digital
> sensor?"
>
Some very high resolution films should out-resolve 20 megapixels
on a 24x36 format. I have no film scanner, but I might be prepared
to do the test with Eastman 5360 if someone will accept my film.

Peter.
-- 
pirwin@ktb.net

On Dec 4, 10:08 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> Robert Coe wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 20:21:09 -0800 (PST), Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > : On Dec 2, 9:03 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> > : wrote:
> > : > Some claim that full frame sensors like the Sony a900's 24.6 Mpix or the
> > : > Canon 21 Mpix cameras cannot out-resolve the Nikon 12 Mpix full frame
> > : > cameras.
> > : >
> > : > I therefore throw out this friendly challenge with results to be posted
> > : > (full frame raw images) in two weeks time.
> > : > monster snip
> > :
> > :
> > : <yaaaaawn>
>
> > For once, I agree with Noons.
>
> Have a nice nap.


<yaaaaawn>

Peter Irwin wrote:
> Robert Coe <bob@1776.com> wrote:
>> I noticed that, and it puzzled me. How does the inclusion of film contribute
>> in any way to answering the question that motivated the exercise? Which, I
>> believe, was "Do you need more than 12 megapixels in a full-frame digital
>> sensor?"
>>
> Some very high resolution films should out-resolve 20 megapixels
> on a 24x36 format. I have no film scanner, but I might be prepared
> to do the test with Eastman 5360 if someone will accept my film.
> 
> Peter.

Send me a valid e-mail and I'll send you a mailing address.  Remove the
'freelunch'.


-- 
-- 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.

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:38:30 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> : Film shooters are just as welcome to participate.
> : 
> : See rule 1 b) para 2.
> 
> I noticed that, and it puzzled me. How does the inclusion of film contribute
> in any way to answering the question that motivated the exercise? Which, I
> believe, was "Do you need more than 12 megapixels in a full-frame digital
> sensor?"

An indirect relationship to be sure, but if somebody submitted such the
comparison could be of interest.  A 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm frame is
about 21.5 Mpix.  So comparable in pixel count.

-- 
-- 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.

Alan Browne wrote:
> Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:38:30 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
>> : Film shooters are just as welcome to participate.
>> : : See rule 1 b) para 2.
>>
>> I noticed that, and it puzzled me. How does the inclusion of film 
>> contribute
>> in any way to answering the question that motivated the exercise? 
>> Which, I
>> believe, was "Do you need more than 12 megapixels in a full-frame digital
>> sensor?"
> 
> An indirect relationship to be sure, but if somebody submitted such the
> comparison could be of interest.  A 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm frame is
> about 21.5 Mpix.  So comparable in pixel count.
> 
Comparable in no of pixels, but not in quality - I've never seen a 4k 
scan showing any better pixel-level quality than about an 8Mp dslr 
equivalent (given nyquist/aliasing, etc).

Surely you would need the proverbial (and rarely seen) *good* drum scan 
(and probably only from K25/Velvia/b&w) when you are getting into this 
territory..?

Pushing past the extremes of 35mm format, imo, but it's interesting.

Mark Thomas wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Robert Coe wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:38:30 -0500, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> : Film shooters are just as welcome to participate.
>>> : : See rule 1 b) para 2.
>>>
>>> I noticed that, and it puzzled me. How does the inclusion of film 
>>> contribute
>>> in any way to answering the question that motivated the exercise? 
>>> Which, I
>>> believe, was "Do you need more than 12 megapixels in a full-frame 
>>> digital
>>> sensor?"
>>
>> An indirect relationship to be sure, but if somebody submitted such the
>> comparison could be of interest.  A 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm frame is
>> about 21.5 Mpix.  So comparable in pixel count.
>>
> Comparable in no of pixels, but not in quality - I've never seen a 4k 
> scan showing any better pixel-level quality than about an 8Mp dslr 
> equivalent (given nyquist/aliasing, etc).
> 
> Surely you would need the proverbial (and rarely seen) *good* drum scan 
> (and probably only from K25/Velvia/b&w) when you are getting into this 
> territory..?

Regardless, good to document.  It really does depend on the quality of 
the image taken to get the best possible scan.

I was tempted to buy the wet kit for my 9000ED which reduces grain noise 
and improves contrast (like a drum scan), but at $500 plus consumables 
it was getting a bit insane.


-- 
-- 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.

Alan Browne wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Robert Coe wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:38:30 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> : Film shooters are just as welcome to participate.
>>>> : : See rule 1 b) para 2.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that, and it puzzled me. How does the inclusion of film 
>>>> contribute
>>>> in any way to answering the question that motivated the exercise? 
>>>> Which, I
>>>> believe, was "Do you need more than 12 megapixels in a full-frame 
>>>> digital
>>>> sensor?"
>>>
>>> An indirect relationship to be sure, but if somebody submitted such the
>>> comparison could be of interest.  A 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm frame is
>>> about 21.5 Mpix.  So comparable in pixel count.
>>>
>> Comparable in no of pixels, but not in quality - I've never seen a 4k 
>> scan showing any better pixel-level quality than about an 8Mp dslr 
>> equivalent (given nyquist/aliasing, etc).
>>
>> Surely you would need the proverbial (and rarely seen) *good* drum 
>> scan (and probably only from K25/Velvia/b&w) when you are getting into 
>> this territory..?
> 
> Regardless, good to document.  It really does depend on the quality of 
> the image taken to get the best possible scan.
> 
> I was tempted to buy the wet kit for my 9000ED which reduces grain noise 
> and improves contrast (like a drum scan), but at $500 plus consumables 
> it was getting a bit insane.
> 
> 
I can understand that..  I would have to admit that I used to do a lot 
of K25 work, but.. (blush) there's probably only ten or so of them that 
might justify a drum scan..  For the rest, 2.7/4K suffices.  (O:

And none of those few good'uns are of a newspaper, so I won't be 
contributing, sorry.  But I shall watch with interest - I hope you get a 
few bites.

I wonder if Rafe Bustin/Jim Davis are still around - remember this?
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

I was a bit unimpressed by most of the drum scans on that page, however 
- it's a black art and very few folk seem to know how to do it well (or 
maybe the source images/films just aren't up to it).

Mark Thomas wrote:

> I can understand that..  I would have to admit that I used to do a lot 
> of K25 work, but.. (blush) there's probably only ten or so of them that 
> might justify a drum scan..  For the rest, 2.7/4K suffices.  (O:

While we all shoot for quality we rarely shoot for extreme quantitative
quality.

> And none of those few good'uns are of a newspaper, so I won't be 
> contributing, sorry.  But I shall watch with interest - I hope you get a 
> few bites.

Only one so far that I know of (and film at that), plus me.

Methinks the Nikon 12 Mpix FF shooters have had time to reflect on this 
and don't want to see the truth.  Especially when their sole recourse is 
a few months away and $8K.

Once a D3X gets into these NG wildernesses you can be sure that highest 
resolution will take on new respect...

Or it will have to wait 6 - 12 months before Nikon do the same in a body 
like the D700.

-- 
-- 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.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:32:59 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> Methinks the Nikon 12 Mpix FF shooters have had time to reflect on this 
> and don't want to see the truth.  Especially when their sole recourse is 
> a few months away and $8K.
> 
> Once a D3X gets into these NG wildernesses you can be sure that highest 
> resolution will take on new respect...
> 
> Or it will have to wait 6 - 12 months before Nikon do the same in a body 
> like the D700.

  Wow, I'm not surprised to see that your "friendly challenge" has
you gloating, but whining at the same time?  What the world doesn't
need are fanboys with inferiority complexes.

Alan Browne wrote:

This is the issue (6 Dec) of The Economist to get for the Mpix 
Challenge.  Should be on newsstands by Sun/Mon.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20081206/20081206issuecovUS400.jpg
or
http://tinyurl.com/5z6fud

Reference page to be announced.

-- 
-- 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.

Alan Browne wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
> 
>> I can understand that..  I would have to admit that I used to do a lot 
>> of K25 work, but.. (blush) there's probably only ten or so of them 
>> that might justify a drum scan..  For the rest, 2.7/4K suffices.  (O:
> 
> While we all shoot for quality we rarely shoot for extreme quantitative
> quality.
> 
>> And none of those few good'uns are of a newspaper, so I won't be 
>> contributing, sorry.  But I shall watch with interest - I hope you get 
>> a few bites.
> 
> Only one so far that I know of (and film at that), plus me.
> 
> Methinks the Nikon 12 Mpix FF shooters have had time to reflect on this 
> and don't want to see the truth.  Especially when their sole recourse is 
> a few months away and $8K.

I don't expect to win so didn't submit :-(
and don't plan to upgrade any time soon.


> Once a D3X gets into these NG wildernesses you can be sure that highest 
> resolution will take on new respect...
> 
> Or it will have to wait 6 - 12 months before Nikon do the same in a body 
> like the D700.
> 


-- 
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
news:T9h%k.13421$Ws1.1002@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> I can understand that..  I would have to admit that I used to do a lot 
>>> of K25 work, but.. (blush) there's probably only ten or so of them that 
>>> might justify a drum scan..  For the rest, 2.7/4K suffices.  (O:
>>
>> While we all shoot for quality we rarely shoot for extreme quantitative
>> quality.
>>
>>> And none of those few good'uns are of a newspaper, so I won't be 
>>> contributing, sorry.  But I shall watch with interest - I hope you get a 
>>> few bites.
>>
>> Only one so far that I know of (and film at that), plus me.
>>
>> Methinks the Nikon 12 Mpix FF shooters have had time to reflect on this 
>> and don't want to see the truth.  Especially when their sole recourse is 
>> a few months away and $8K.
>
> I don't expect to win so didn't submit :-(
> and don't plan to upgrade any time soon.
>
>
>> Once a D3X gets into these NG wildernesses you can be sure that highest 
>> resolution will take on new respect...
>>
>> Or it will have to wait 6 - 12 months before Nikon do the same in a body 
>> like the D700.
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Paul Furman
> www.edgehill.net
> www.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam



Just been looking at some samples from a d3x.

MUCH less noise than the Sony a900. Not quite as good as the D3 D700 but not 
too bad at all.
Unfortunately these samples are hand held so resolution is pretty low 
although its on lots of pixels!
I they put that sensor in the D700 that I use now (a D800?) I still wouldnt 
rush out to buy it since there are few lenses that can do it justice and iun 
real world conditions you dont get a sharper more detailed image only bigger 
files. To see this advantage you need extraordinarily good primes, and best 
aperture for the lens and a tripod at 100 iso.

Samples (and crap photography) here
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_nikon_d3x_3.php

And
Thread discussing it here
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30227415

Paul Furman wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> I can understand that..  I would have to admit that I used to do a 
>>> lot of K25 work, but.. (blush) there's probably only ten or so of 
>>> them that might justify a drum scan..  For the rest, 2.7/4K 
>>> suffices.  (O:
>>
>> While we all shoot for quality we rarely shoot for extreme quantitative
>> quality.
>>
>>> And none of those few good'uns are of a newspaper, so I won't be 
>>> contributing, sorry.  But I shall watch with interest - I hope you 
>>> get a few bites.
>>
>> Only one so far that I know of (and film at that), plus me.
>>
>> Methinks the Nikon 12 Mpix FF shooters have had time to reflect on 
>> this and don't want to see the truth.  Especially when their sole 
>> recourse is a few months away and $8K.
> 
> I don't expect to win so didn't submit :-(

... it's not a contest...  well...


-- 
-- 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.

Alan Browne wrote:
> 
>    b) Full frame 35mm cameras only (eg: [24 x 36mm] +/- 1 mm).
> 
>    c) Camera set to its best ISO for image quality (per the manufacturer).
> 
> 2. TARGET
> 
>    Subject to be a specific "The Economist" - 

OK  here's my submission:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3096208651/sizes/l/
;-)


-- 
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>    b) Full frame 35mm cameras only (eg: [24 x 36mm] +/- 1 mm).
>>
>>    c) Camera set to its best ISO for image quality (per the 
>> manufacturer).
>>
>> 2. TARGET
>>
>>    Subject to be a specific "The Economist" - 
> 
> OK  here's my submission:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3096208651/sizes/l/
> ;-)

All over I guess.  You win.  Handheld too.

-- 
-- 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.