 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Nikon 2020 + Digital Pix posted by Greg Ewing on December 05, 2002 at 16:32:54:
Well, pretty much no mater what you do the lab will devitalize your film: most of the contemporary labs process images digitally and do not print analog anymore This is OK. The technologies they use are not something that limit you. The crappy sensor on your cheap camera is the limitation. Even if we forger any other parameter (and there are many of them) and look only at only pixels resolution then the analog film is equivalent to the 22-24 mil pixels. The contemporary “Pro” camera do 5-6 mil pixels…. So, even considering the cheep lens’ 50 line/millimeter resolution we are not there yet. However, I have to admit that for the amateur consumption those 1-2 mil pixels are sufficiently enough… not to mention the 75 dpi of the computer monitors… The new generation of D-cameras with 12-14 mil pixels is coming out and they will drive the prices for contemporary “pro-level” $3-5K cameras down. I thinks at the end of the next year will be seeing the full 24X36 sensor-armed cameras with 5-6 mil pixels at $2-3K price and all those contemporary half-format “pro” cameras will be use by the teenagers only (as they should be).The Cat
Follow Ups:
I, too, am totally underwhelmed by the present digital resolution.But I do know a few labs that still do a good job on film. I haven't tried CostCo myself, but I'd be very careful to find out what kind of digital resolution and scan you get from them.
Personally I own a medium-format film scanner, and capture on film, either 6x7 or 35mm standard (24x36 mm).
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
> > I, too, am totally underwhelmed by the present digital resolution.Geez, I thought I was the only one. Is it the lack of resolution or that funny thang that digital does to colors? Will technology ultimately solve these issues?
I still love my old (heavy) Nikon 2020. I have 3 Nikon lenses. Call me old fashioned. I don't care.
> > But I do know a few labs that still do a good job on film. I haven't tried CostCo myself, but I'd be very careful to find out what kind of digital resolution and scan you get from them.
Yea, not too thrilled with the Costco quality. Still looking for a good place locally.
> > Personally I own a medium-format film scanner, and capture on film, either 6x7 or 35mm standard (24x36 mm).
Ahem, please educate me. I have used slide scanners and generic scanners but is a film scanner a different animal. Maybe it's not too late to add to my Christmas list?
Thanks.
It can't be just being digital. (resolution maybe? or ordered rows of pixels versus the random lay of color dots in film?) I use a slide/film scanner on my 35 mm slides and negatives, and the pictures I'm getting don't look "digital". Yet the scan process certainly is digital. And sure, I play with the file in a photo processing program. But you really need to do that to digital camera files, too. I don't think we're quite to the point of printing right off the camera. Although the latest photo printers are now claiming automatic post processing (like the Fuji machine down at Walmart does, I guess)for color and contrast.
My film scanner takes slides or 35mm film strips (in lengths of up to 6), or up to 6x9 medium format.If you only do 35mm, you can get a much cheaper scanner.
Your slide scanner may or may not also do film.
The biggest questions for film scanners are:
Resolution: For 35mm 2500 dpi is minimum but most do that.
Bit depth: 16 bits with at least a 12 bit ADC is minimum for decent work.
OD (optical density): at least 4.6 Mine does 4.2 and that isn't good enough for K25.But your slide scanner, if you have one, may do what you want.
JJ - Philalethist and Annoyer of Bullies
*** Is it the lack of resolution or that funny thang that digital does to colors? Will technology ultimately solve these issues?I is very difficult to explain how digital screw the colors. I mean it’s long explanation and you will have more questions then answers. (Also you do not need to know it) Even what you call resolution is not a resolution at all… Where could I start? Trust me you do not what to go into those jungles. Will technology ultimately solve these issues? Certainly it will. The question is about the level of demands. Even today the digital photography at it’s consumer level is good enough. General public has their demands to the culture of image as high as the general listeners have demands to the culture of sound…. By the way, if you are very preoccupied with quality of colors, know how to calibrate your camera and generally know what you do then among the consumer inexpensive solutions the Fuji S2 (a lilt above $2K) has the best coloring. Also, the way you transfer data and the type of the software you use are very critical for color reproduction…. although it not color itself but the language of the colors, the language, the langu….
it is very rare (non existant) the times that a pic doesn't need tweaking from any digi camera,color ,brightness,sharpness,intensity.Thats why God gave us Photoshop!!!
Your Photoshop can do nothing that is important in photography. Apparently what I consider important you do not notice…
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
