1Ds MkII

On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald wrote:
Will D. wrote:
I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.

Opinions/comments?

Will D.

All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
(almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
not for quality DSLR sensors.

The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging
digital images.

I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what
I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric
growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by
others doing the same thing.

35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging
through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or
as big as a digital image.

Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30%
noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to
degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with
a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture
being the only truly valid comparison.

What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm
image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make
a print and it was that print which became the photograph.

When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be
printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega
pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm
film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do
is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and
exceed previous boundaries of film.

Douglas

Is this an advertisement? Sounds like you selling something here.
Don't think most folk confuse genuine detail with fake interpolation.
No doubt your customers are impressed, and if they're happy you're
successful. For most people, if you make their images more dramatic,
they're happy, but that's probably not the case here.

Don't think folk here are impressed by being told what many hold true is
only myth. You make a lot of claims that may or may not be valid, but
it sounds like you're cherry picking your data to back up those claims.
If you think that the current lot of high resolution DSLRs are hype,
that's your privilege, but don't think others will buy that just because
you say so. Too many pros are already using the 1Ds where they used to
use medium format.

Not all photographic images become prints, though probably most do, at
least at some point. Some people are into straight photography only,
and are careful to reproduce only what they get, and some people always
manipulate their images. I suspect most people sometimes do one and
sometimes do the other, but I doubt they confuse the two. I know I
don't.

That said, no doubt you have a successful business, but I really doubt
folk here are willing to accept the standards of your customers as their
own.

Will D.

Douglas MacDonald writes:
All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do
with a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may
be (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but
certainly not for quality DSLR sensors.

The process of enlarging digital images is called
"Interpolation". This is the digital version of the old optical
enlargers. My business operates a digital print lab in Australia which
specialises in enlarging digital images.

I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x
30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and
what I do for a living cannot be done.

I don't think anybody has ever said that interpolation can't be done.
It is the claim that interpolation work so well that it can /replace/
original resolution that has been challenged.

Last time interpolation was discussed on Usenet. I put up the
following page:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html

I think it demonstrates quite clearly that while good interpolation
algorithms can do some very impressive things to remove pixelation,
you still need to /have/ details in the original bitmap if you want
those details to appear in the image. To have the details, you need
the pixels to capture them - for starters.

I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR
cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be
usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster
the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed
previous boundaries of film.

The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm.
By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution
around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
================================================== ======================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?

Will D. wrote:
On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald wrote:
Will D. wrote:
I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.

Opinions/comments?

Will D.

All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do
with
a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be

(almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but
certainly
not for quality DSLR sensors.

The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation".
This
is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business
operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in
enlarging
digital images.

I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints
24" x
30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the
responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and
what
I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the
electric
growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints
made by
others doing the same thing.

35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or
enlarging
through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as
cleanly or
as big as a digital image.

Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has
around 30%
noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except
to
degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image
with
a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or
picture
being the only truly valid comparison.

What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a
35mm
image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to
make
a print and it was that print which became the photograph.

When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic
negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need
to be
printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is
produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four)
mega
pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution
35mm
film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional
pixels do
is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera
reach and
exceed previous boundaries of film.

Douglas

Is this an advertisement? Sounds like you selling something here.

He is always trying to pull a fast one. According to what I've read, he
used to own a web business with a warranty policy that violated
Australian law. A bunch of people picked up on it so he pulled the site
down and claimed that he would never post to Usenet again. That turned
out to be another lie. During the course of discussion, it was reported
that Douglas had an elaborate criminal record, and so did his
wife/partner Marg. Reports said that Douglas did hard time for fraud,
and that his wife spent time in jail for soliciting as a hooker. He has
a few sock puppets like "Ryadia" and "Sebastian Po" that he
occasionally uses to post under.

"Bubba LugNuts" writes:

[garbage]

You're "reporting" unsubstanciated garbage that originally was
posted to Usenet by somone using several forged identities.
Reposting it using yet another silly pseudonym doesn't make it
credible, or interesting.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
================================================== ======================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?

On 18-Nov-04 03:41:18, Gardner said
In article .co.uk,
"Angus Manwaring" writes:

It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely
populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image
size.


No, physical size is important:

(1) big sensor - big photo-sites which are more sensitive and
are less affected by noise.

(2) big sensor - low/no "multiplication factor" so your wide
angle lens is really wide-angle.

I agree the size of the sensor is indicative of the camera's capabilities,
but in context with the O.P.'s question, if you are effectively measuring
the digital camera's resolution against a 35mm film camera, of primary
interest is the true non-interpolated images size you are getting - not
the measurements of the sensor, notwithstanding the implications you raise
in your first point. Your second point is valid, but a seperate issue to
that raised by the O.P.





All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html

On 18-Nov-04 04:01:18, Douglas MacDonald said
Will D. wrote:
I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there.

Opinions/comments?

Will D.

All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with
a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be
(almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly
not for quality DSLR sensors.

The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This
is the digital version of the old optical enlargers.

The difference is that you are enlarging true detail when you blow up a
film image. Interpolation is an algorithm's best guess as to what the
adjacent pixels are likely to be, and while I have no doubt your results
are very good, I think its important not to blur this distinction.


All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html

On 18-Nov-04 10:57:06, Gisle Hannemyr said

I think it demonstrates quite clearly that while good interpolation
algorithms can do some very impressive things to remove pixelation,
you still need to /have/ details in the original bitmap if you want
those details to appear in the image. To have the details, you need
the pixels to capture them - for starters.

Well said, sir.

All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html

Bubba LugNuts wrote:

He is always trying to pull a fast one. According to what I've read, he
used to own a web business with a warranty policy that violated
Australian law. A bunch of people picked up on it so he pulled the site
down and claimed that he would never post to Usenet again. That turned
out to be another lie. During the course of discussion, it was reported
that Douglas had an elaborate criminal record, and so did his
wife/partner Marg. Reports said that Douglas did hard time for fraud,
and that his wife spent time in jail for soliciting as a hooker. He has
a few sock puppets like "Ryadia" and "Sebastian Po" that he
occasionally uses to post under.

Gotcha...
You slandered me for the last time *******.
This group doesn't accept posts from mail2news remailing services for
the very purpose of identifying where defamation from lying *******s
like you originates from.

Here's my offer again.
$500 US CASH reward paid to anyone who can positively identify you with
a valid address I can server papers to. I'll pay the money through a
lawyer in the country you reside in. You and I will yet see each other
in court. And don't you worry too much... The Mexicans don't take kindly
to people using them for defamation either.

Douglas
--------------------

netnum: 200.79.91/24
status: reallocated
owner: Reasignacion UniNet
ownerid: MX-REUN-LACNIC
responsible: David Chavez Alba
address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
address: 01900 - Mexico DF - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 55 54907000 [7049]
owner-c: SRU
tech-c: SRU
created: 20031021
changed: 20031021
inetnum-up: 200.79.0/17
inetnum-up: 200.79/16

nic-hdl: SRU
person: SEGURIDAD DE RED UNINET
e-mail:
address: PERIFERICO SUR, 3190, ALVARO OBREG
address: 01900 - MEXICO - DF
country: MX
phone: +52 55 52237234 []
created: 20030701
changed: 20030703

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR
cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be
usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster
the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed
previous boundaries of film.


The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm.
By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution
around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm.
----------
What you say Gisle is quite true. If it were not for the fact that a
film has no intrinsic use until it it is converted to either a print or
another film (transparency). In this conversion, it changes from one
form of existence to another.

That change is what no one seems to take into consideration when
attempting a comparison. Digital images do not degrade from copying
unless the copying medium loses data. When you change a digital image to
a photograph, you have the opportunity not available with a film
conversion to improve the image.

Should we call a film 'analogue'? If so, it is easy to consider how much
detail is lost when copying a VHS 'analogue' video compared to a digital
video recording. The same applies to a film image, copy it and no matter
how good your gear is, some of the image will be lost.

You are absolutely correct that a good image is needed to obtain good
results. This is after all a DSLR group so it is reasonable to make a
few assumptions when posting here. One is that any DSLR will have at
least some halfway decent glass and be able to capture a detailed image
in the first place.

As for those who say I'm advertising my business buy posting information
of use to the group... Really? Show me which business, where, how and
what I am accused of advertising and I'll stop.


Douglas

On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald wrote:
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR
cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be
usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster
the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed
previous boundaries of film.


The maximum resolution of such a camera would be 32 lp/mm.
By comparison, amateur negative colour film has a resolution
around 50 lp/mm and pro stock can go well beyond 100 lp/mm.
----------

Not in response to me, but I started the thread...

What you say Gisle is quite true. If it were not for the fact that a
film has no intrinsic use until it it is converted to either a print or
another film (transparency). In this conversion, it changes from one
form of existence to another.

"Intrinsic use"? What does that have to do with anything?

That change is what no one seems to take into consideration when
attempting a comparison. Digital images do not degrade from copying
unless the copying medium loses data. When you change a digital image to
a photograph, you have the opportunity not available with a film
conversion to improve the image.

So what's your point?

Should we call a film 'analogue'? If so, it is easy to consider how much
detail is lost when copying a VHS 'analogue' video compared to a digital
video recording. The same applies to a film image, copy it and no matter
how good your gear is, some of the image will be lost.

Okay, your point seems to be that digital is never lossy and film always
is, right?

Bushwa. Ever seen anyone click on the wrong icon and save a degraded
file over the top of the original? Easy to do when you're working with
jpegs. Ever seen a master darkroom tech produce a positive large format
dupe that faithfully records the grain of the original? I have.

In the real world, there's always the possibility of loss in both media.

You are absolutely correct that a good image is needed to obtain good
results. This is after all a DSLR group so it is reasonable to make a
few assumptions when posting here. One is that any DSLR will have at
least some halfway decent glass and be able to capture a detailed image
in the first place.

Now you're making assumptions that are "intrinsically" invalid. How
many people have bought a DReb kit with that horrible piece of coke
bottle glass, and thought they were doing just great? And inevitably
some of them will wind up here, trying to get answers to questions they
don't know enough to ask.

As for those who say I'm advertising my business buy posting information
of use to the group... Really? Show me which business, where, how and
what I am accused of advertising and I'll stop.

How about the one you cited in your original response, the one you said
was undergoing "electric" growth. Being coy and not naming the business
gets people to ask, and that's a come-on.

Nah, you're a troll, as far as I'm concerned.

Will D.