| Author |
Message |
Fred Williams
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
On $DATE , pooua@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Chris Brown wrote:
[snip]
This is at 100 ISO, of course. At high ISO, all bets on 6x7 are
off.
That's a good point. It is important to me, because I like to
take low-light shots. If I'm not trying to take a picture of a
building that has dramatic lighting and color in the night, then
I am trying to photograph stars and planets, the inside of caves
or buildings or under a canopy of leaves.
|
Astronomers used to pack dry ice behind their plates to eliminate
thermal noise in their long exposures, (I think that was the
reason), but we can't do that with digital sensors. They would
cease to operate, wouldn't they!?! I wonder if anyone has thought
of a cryogenic, superconducting sensor? Could there be such a
beast?
--
Regards,
Fred.
(Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:38:50 GMT, Fred Williams <unclefred@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | On $DATE , pooua@aol.com wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:
[snip]
This is at 100 ISO, of course. At high ISO, all bets on 6x7 are
off.
That's a good point. It is important to me, because I like to
take low-light shots. If I'm not trying to take a picture of a
building that has dramatic lighting and color in the night, then
I am trying to photograph stars and planets, the inside of caves
or buildings or under a canopy of leaves.
Astronomers used to pack dry ice behind their plates to eliminate
thermal noise in their long exposures, (I think that was the
reason), but we can't do that with digital sensors. They would
cease to operate, wouldn't they!?! I wonder if anyone has thought
of a cryogenic, superconducting sensor? Could there be such a
beast?
|
They work fine[1], and it's in fact a common technique. Biologists and
other microscopy people often use cameras with Peltier-effect coolers
that go down to -20 C or thereabouts. Astronomers doing visible-light
observations use detectors cooled with liquid nitrogen[2] (77 Kelvin);
detectors in some other energy bands such as the far infrared are
helium-cooled to 5 Kelvin or thereabouts.
-dms, cryogenics geek
[1] Assuming, of course, that the chip and the surrounding
infrastructure have been designed with low temperatures in mind.
Condensation of water onto the viewing window is one of many issues that
need to be considered.
[2] Great for making ice cream:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/ice_cream2.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
Roger wrote:
| Quote: | On 8 Nov 2005 19:49:29 -0800, pooua@aol.com wrote:
have experiemented with films ranging in ISO from 100 to 3200, and even
tried Velvia 100F (I asked my local Wolf Camera shop for Velvia film,
and that's what they had to special order to get me). My Velvia film is
still out of shop being developed, but I've scanned everything else.
There in lies your problem. You are "scanning" and limited by the
capabilities of the scanner.
|
If you want to be technical, I also have some prints. But, scanning is
my primary means of viewing the final results of my photographs.
| Quote: | The best you can do with film in your
tests is how god a job the scanner does. If you have a "good"
scanner and are scanning at or above the limits of the film then you
*may* have a valid comparison, if not, you don't. This means you
should be ending up with some very large files. When I say large I
mean over 100 megs for each image as a tiff.
|
Ah, most of my full-frame scans are only 30 meg or so... though I do
have several scanned to 70, or even 120 meg.
| Quote: | Top of the line scanners
and a good program are not cheap and generally are accompanied by a
rather steep learning curve.
|
If $1500 worth of film-based photographic equipment cannot beat $500
worth of digital equipment, then the argument of which is better is
moot. You can say that I just need to buy a better scanner or use a
more expensive process or whatever, but I weight quality-vs-cost rather
heavily.
| Quote: | I have to say, I am disappointed by the results. So far, my cheapy
little point-and-shoot Minolta Dimage G500 does as good a job--image
quality-wise--as my 35mm Canon Rebel G with a 28-135 IS zoom lens. I
have been tinkering with this stuff for most of this year, and I simply
cannot take photographs with my 35mm camera that look any better than
What do you mean by "look any better". resolution, color balance,
overall color saturation? You need some measurable parameters to make
the comparison.
|
Here is the link that I posted earlier on this thread:
http://members.aol.com/rekgallery/PupCollage/PupCollage.html
I think the image on the top right looks a lot better than the image on
the top left. I might say this is just because I was using a high-ISO
film (1600 ISO), so color and resolution were not all they could be,
but I have been disappointed on lots of other film types, too.
| Quote: | those on my G500. Considering that I have spent nearly 4x more on my
film setup than on my digital camera, I am really disappointed.
What are you using for a scanner?
|
I am using an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo.
| Quote: | Add to the image quality problem the annoyance of having to scan my own
negatives and keep track of the dates of each roll and the special
processing I need for slide film, and film is just a losing proposition
for me. I've had enough; I'm going to bit the bullet and buy a good
digital SLR, probably the Canon 20D.
You can purchase the film in bulk, use the three step developing
process and have the film strip hanging to dry in 10 minutes. It'll
drop the cost of film to about 1/4 of the standard cost.
|
I didn't complain about the cost... but, since you brought it up, I
might mention that it costs me about $0.02 a photograph (including
storage cost) for digital, which is much less expensive than film will
ever reach.
| Quote: | Me? I use a D70, and old E20N, and a Nikon F4S. The F4S has seen very
little use since I purchased the E20N.
|
I hope to buy a Canon 20D in a few hours. I am just trying to decide on
which vendor to use. I want someone easy to deal with and fast when my
camera needs servicing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in