If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

As I've mentioned before, a good current film and ideal conditions
would match roughly a 30+ megapixel camera, so matched and
slightly exceeded by a D800

nonsense.

Of course not.

it is without question, pure nonsense.

medium format film cameras were matched by full frame dslrs a long time
ago. today, they've been beat.

even the first canon 1ds was considered 'medium format quality' and
that was just a lowly 11 mp.

sensor technology has come a long way since the 11mp 1ds, so if a 13
year old 11mp camera was considered to beat medium format film, a 36mp
nikon d800 easily can.

https://luminous-landscape.com/shootout/

But, could the 1Ds compete with the resolution of the Pentax 67?
Several other professional photographers who I have spoken with had
told me that their recent experience has been that they were finding
that the 1Ds indeed surpassed medium format film, but I had to make a
final determination for myself.

....

The most obvious difference (other than the overall colour balance ‹
which we ignored), is that the 1Ds print shows more detail. In other
words it has higher resolution. Note that the Pentax 67 file was
printed at 535 ppi and the Canon 1Ds file was printed at only 255
ppi. Just in case feeding such a large file to the Epson¹s printer
driver was causing a problem I tried ressing the file down to 300 and
then as well to 255 ppi. Same results.

This is astonishing. I therefore made similar comparisons using
another set of lenses (the Pentax 300mm f/4 ED/IF and the Canon
70-200mm f/2.8L IS at 150mm). Similar results. Of course the scans
were redone just to be sure that this wasn¹t the cause. Same results.

The second thing noticed is that the 1Ds file has greater shadow
detail. The shadow detail difference can clearly be seen in the
example above.

Grain of course is the next important factor, though the result were
as expected. Though Velvia is not as fine grained as Provia 100F it
still is one of the finest grained colour films around. As you can
see, at 100% resolution there is simply no contest. The 1Ds doesn¹t
start to look this noisy until about ISO 800.

....

Another Opinion

The transition from medium format film to high-end digital is very
new, but it is happening very quickly. During the past few months I
have personally spoken and had correspondence with a number of
leading professional photographers on this topic. Universally their
comments echo those of Melvin Sokolsky, one of America¹s top
photographers, as reproduced here from a recent commentary made on
this site¹sDiscussion Forum.

For the past year I have been shooting for various magazines, *
VogueŠ Harper¹s BazaarŠVibe * with the Canon 1D and recently with
the 1Ds. I was told by the math-bound technocrats that I could not
print a double page spread with the 1D. * a Vogue spread is 11x17 *
only to prove them wrong by printing a Kodak Approval print for the
1D file against the 6x7 film 200mg file drum scanned on a
Crossfield. When I asked the printer to pick the Kodak Approval he
thought was best; he picked the 1D Kodak Approval. No contest!

Š It is my experience that the 1Ds images appear to be almost
grainless and sharper than 6?7 film. Compare prints ‹ any size ‹
from each format and the 1Ds print is chosen every time.‹ Melvin
Sokolsky

....

Update: February, 2003

In the above artcile I make the claim that the1Ds produces images
superior to medium format drum scans. I took a lot of flack for this
when the piece first appeared, even though many pros who I have
spoken with and who have started working with the camera are also
coming to the same conclusion. It therefore gives me a chuckle (and
no small satisfaction) to report that the review of the 1Ds in this
month¹s Shutterbug magazine by Jay Abend comes to the same conclusion
as I did.

this is somewhat old, as it only goes up to 20mp, but clearly shows
just how ****ty film really was:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...y1/film.vs.dig
ital.35mm-d.gif

Indeed, and really good analog film were about 100-150 lpmm, which is
equivalent to about 30+ MP. Most film was 50-75 lpmm so generally 20MP covers
most, yes. My comment only concerned especially good film.

in other words, even with your unsubstantiated numbers, 36mp beats
film.

entry level cameras are 24 mp with high end slrs at 36mp and digital
backs at 80mp, not to mention much better sensor technology than
when that chart was made.

Surely you're not comparing digital medium format backs to 135-film? Surely
you
would compare to those to, you know, medium format film.

surely you can read what i wrote.

digital leaves film for dead.

Unless, of course, the film used is top quality and the conditions are super
ideal, like tripod, still subject, mirror lock up, perfect focus etc etc. But
other than that (which is what, product photos in a studio?) I agree.

not anymore.

digital has surpassed film *years* ago.

today, there is no contest.

a nikon d810 can easily match or exceed medium format film.

Incorrect. Even the lowest quality medium format film is more than twice the
resolution of a D810.

nonsense and there's much more to image quality than just resolution.

you're ignoring digital's much better dynamic range, lower noise, more
accurate colours and more.

film simply can't compete.

the game is *over*.

another one of roger clark's charts clearly shows that a 12mp canon
5d is comparable to fine grained mf film while a 21mp canon 5dii
outperforms it.

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ance.summary/a
iq.clark.a.gif

I'm not even sure what your charts is supposed to show, What is "apparent
image
quality" and how is it measured?

he explains that on his page:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1/
While most who have worked with digital camera images agree that
because of the "smoothness" of digital images, they can be enlarged
more than film images. My testing shows that fine grained film has
higher spatial resolution than 8-MPixel digital camera images, but
the digital camera images have several times higher signal-to-noise.
People infer image quality as a function of both spatial resolution
and signal-to-noise. While this is a subjective concept, I've started
some experiments to test this "Apparent Image Quality," or AIQ. My
initial results (example references below) are showing to first order
that there is an approximate equal trade for signal-to-noise ratio
versus spatial resolution. Thus, if you had a digital camera that
produced 8 megapixels and twice the signal to noise as fine grained
film, the apparent digital camera megapixels could be doubled when
comparing to film. So that 8-megapixel image may have the "apparent
image quality" of 16 megapixels if compared to the lower
signal-to-noise film. Since my tests show the spatial resolution of
fine grained 35mm film like Fuji Velvia is around 16 MPixels digital
equivalent, then that 8-MPixel digital camera probably produces
similar "apparent image quality" to 35mm fine-grained film.

But high end DSLRs, like the Canon 1D Mark II have several times the
signal-to-noise ratio of film, so this boosts the apparent image
quality by the same factor as the ratio in the signal-to-noise
values, propelling the 1D Mark II images higher in "perceived image
quality" than fine grained 35mm film. While my research is
preliminary, it does seem to agree with what people are saying, and
because people look at different things (image smoothness versus
spatial detail), it shows there is a lot of room for interpretation.



there's also more to image quality than just pixels. there's dynamic
range and colour accuracy, areas in which film did rather poorly.

Film, no - development and paper, sometimes.

completely wrong.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


One
cannot make apple cider from pears. They are not the same.

usually one company does both.

not that it matters since neither one wants to prohibit users from
installing apps.

Then where do all these copyright cases come from?

what copyright cases?

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 11:33:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


One
cannot make apple cider from pears. They are not the same.

usually one company does both.

not that it matters since neither one wants to prohibit users from
installing apps.

Then where do all these copyright cases come from?

what copyright cases?

Haven't you noticed?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

One
cannot make apple cider from pears. They are not the same.

usually one company does both.

not that it matters since neither one wants to prohibit users from
installing apps.

Then where do all these copyright cases come from?

what copyright cases?

Haven't you noticed?

did you have a specific one in mind?

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 19:55:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

One
cannot make apple cider from pears. They are not the same.

usually one company does both.

not that it matters since neither one wants to prohibit users from
installing apps.

Then where do all these copyright cases come from?

what copyright cases?

Haven't you noticed?

did you have a specific one in mind?

You said "... neither one wants to prohibit users from installing
apps."

A lot of things are implied for that statement to mean what you intend
(you don't have to explain them to me). But as it stands the bald
meaning is that "neither (company) wants to prohibit users from
installing apps". But that is not true. Many companies want to stop
users from installing apps: just not the apps you had in mind.

This is an example of how arguments can unintentionally stray off the
intended path.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Then where do all these copyright cases come from?

what copyright cases?

Haven't you noticed?

did you have a specific one in mind?

You said "... neither one wants to prohibit users from installing
apps."

A lot of things are implied for that statement to mean what you intend
(you don't have to explain them to me). But as it stands the bald
meaning is that "neither (company) wants to prohibit users from
installing apps". But that is not true. Many companies want to stop
users from installing apps: just not the apps you had in mind.

not very many companies want that at all.

anyway, instead of being vague, how about naming which companies and
which apps.

This is an example of how arguments can unintentionally stray off the
intended path.

by citing edge cases that don't actually matter?

speaking of straying, what are the copyright cases you mentioned?

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I've done some explorative scans in preparation for digitizing old
negs
and slides. It can be like timetravel. I don't think that you can
truly
replicate the sense of film digitally.

of course it can. there are even presets for various films.

I have packs like that and have used them, but they ain't real film but
a corny effects. Corny can be cool...

then your packs aren't very good.

not that i think that you would notice the difference... i didn't say
that the packs were bad either... they just ain't film!

if you can't tell the difference, then it proves my point.

the you referred to you mr spambox!
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Ken Hart wrote:

On 08/07/2015 01:40 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I've done some explorative scans in preparation for digitizing old negs
and slides. It can be like timetravel. I don't think that you can truly
replicate the sense of film digitally.

of course it can. there are even presets for various films.

I have packs like that and have used them, but they ain't real film but
a corny effects. Corny can be cool...

That's not discarding digital,
but simply recognizing that film is more than "retro".

no it isn't.

sir, do you accept returns on dead parrots? ;-p

Only if you haven't nailed their feet to the perch.

Sorry then!
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Ken Hart wrote:

By the way, "Nospam", I own over 500 Canon FX camera bodies, and over
800 Canon FL-mount lenses. If I were going to move my collection, I
would have to make two trips, as a Ford F150 is only rated at 1/2 ton
cargo! And I use these 50 year old cameras- they still work.

For the records! Have you notified Guinness?
--
teleportation kills

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
As I've mentioned before, a good current film and ideal
conditions would match roughly a 30+ megapixel camera, so
matched and slightly exceeded by a D800

nospam:
nonsense.

Sandman:
Of course not.

it is without question, pure nonsense.

Incorrect, as usual.

medium format film cameras were matched by full frame dslrs a long
time ago. today, they've been beat.

Incorrect.

even the first canon 1ds was considered 'medium format quality' and
that was just a lowly 11 mp.

Haha!

sensor technology has come a long way since the 11mp 1ds, so if a 13
year old 11mp camera was considered to beat medium format film, a
36mp nikon d800 easily can.

Not even close.

https://luminous-landscape.com/shootout

But, could the 1Ds compete with the resolution of the Pentax 67?
Several other professional photographers who I have spoken with had
told me that their recent experience has been that they were
finding that the 1Ds indeed surpassed medium format film, but I
had to make a final determination for myself.

Pentax 67 is a camera, not a film quality.

nospam:
this is somewhat old, as it only goes up to 20mp, but clearly
shows just how ****ty film really was:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...y1/film.vs.dig
ital.35mm-d.gif

Sandman:
Indeed, and really good analog film were about 100-150 lpmm, which
is equivalent to about 30+ MP. Most film was 50-75 lpmm so
generally 20MP covers most, yes. My comment only concerned
especially good film.

in other words, even with your unsubstantiated numbers, 36mp beats
film.

Just like I said it did.

nospam:
entry level cameras are 24 mp with high end slrs at 36mp and
digital backs at 80mp, not to mention much better sensor
technology than when that chart was made.

Sandman:
Surely you're not comparing digital medium format backs to
135-film? Surely you would compare to those to, you know, medium
format film.

surely you can read what i wrote.

I surely can read that you never mentioned what you compared a medium format
back to, hence the question. I noted a lack of answer.

nospam:
digital leaves film for dead.

Sandman:
Unless, of course, the film used is top quality and the conditions
are super ideal, like tripod, still subject, mirror lock up,
perfect focus etc etc. But other than that (which is what,
product photos in a studio?) I agree.

not anymore.

For 135-film, you're probably right, those high quality films aren't made
anymore. T-Max is up there, but still not at 200 lpmm.

digital has surpassed film *years* ago.

today, there is no contest.

Unless, of course, you compare with medium format. Which, incidentally, Ken
uses.

nospam:
a nikon d810 can easily match or exceed medium format film.

Sandman:
Incorrect. Even the lowest quality medium format film is more than
twice the resolution of a D810.

nonsense and there's much more to image quality than just
resolution.

The topic was enlargements, where resolution is important.

nospam:
there's also more to image quality than just pixels. there's
dynamic range and colour accuracy, areas in which film did
rather poorly.

Sandman:
Film, no - development and paper, sometimes.

completely wrong.

Incorrect, as always.

--
Sandman