Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000?

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 13:32:12 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf RemoveThis @no.spam> wrote:

>
><mark.thomas.7 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1154648787.423540.40590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Bas van de Wiel wrote:
>SNIP
>>> I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above
>>> the 6MP resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just
>>> pixel count, I mean real detail that's actually there. Not noise
>>> and grain.
>>>
>>> http://www.kompasmedia.nl/fileadmin/crop0004.jpg
>SNIP
>> That image is lacking any detail down to pixel level.
>
>That is indeed not a very sharp scan example. However, for better
>examples of scanners and digital captures and comparisons one can take
>a look at:
> <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/> .
>
>I also made a comparison between several scan resolutions some time
>ago;
><http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-2.htm>,
>which show the enormous potential of film, but it takes a good capture
>technique to get that detail on film in the first place (same
>technique is required for digital capture). Higher resolution scans do
>not only produce larger files, but also finer graininess (in fact less
>grain-aliasing). I've stopped updating those pages because I've by now
>switched to digital capture.
>
>Technically a scan of lower ISO film will exhibit higher resolution
>(despite graininess), but with a lower modulation than a capable
>lens+sensor array setup can achieve. The CMOS/CCD sensor arrays in
>general perform rather good (or better) right up to their limiting
>resolution (as fixed by the sampling density or sensel pitch) but is a
>bit lower than what film achieves.

So what you're saying is that film is better than digital, but you
can't manage to demonstrate that, and besides, it's a lot more work
than digital.
But film really is better than digital.
Take your word for it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> I showed that my digital photo was better then yours, especially when
> you claimed better grain/noise.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"
I think you are confusing Bart with Bas

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

MikRin wrote:

>nikon is coming out with a new slr in about 4 days - more info at:
>http://www.another_spammed_blog.com

In fact there is *not* more info at the blog URL you spammed.
If your blog really had any worthwhile content you wouldn't need to
try to trick people into viewing it.

--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

"Bill Funk" <BigBill.RemoveThis@there.com> wrote in message
news:dic7d2d0tq7hrversu0dknedib53fee7fb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 20:23:36 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
> <bvdwolf.RemoveThis@no.spam> wrote:
SNIP
>>By all means, prove me wrong ...
>
> I showed that my digital photo was better then yours, especially
> when you claimed better grain/noise.

I assume you are confusing me with the other Dutchman.

--
Bart
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:21:44 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf DeleteThis @no.spam> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill DeleteThis @there.com> wrote in message
>news:dic7d2d0tq7hrversu0dknedib53fee7fb@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 20:23:36 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
>> <bvdwolf DeleteThis @no.spam> wrote:
>SNIP
>>>By all means, prove me wrong ...
>>
>> I showed that my digital photo was better then yours, especially
>> when you claimed better grain/noise.
>
>I assume you are confusing me with the other Dutchman.

Then, pardon me.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

"Bill Funk" <BigBill RemoveThis @there.com> wrote in message
news:pnu6d21vdfc0jl7fo3plptgjrfd3ic89fh@4ax.com...
SNIP
> So what you're saying is that film is better than digital,
> but you can't manage to demonstrate that,

I don't know what gave you that idea.
I'll recap in short sentences.
I said film has higher resolution, than digital.
Digital has higher modulation, at the same level of detail.
I'll now add; on the sensor, so it depends on output magnification.
Digital has a resolution limit imposed by its spatial sampling
density.
Film+scanner exceed that limitation, hence higher resolution.
That higher resolution does have a low modulation.
Therefore it only shows with high contrast subject matter.

Demonstration?
Well besides examples shown over the past years, how about this;
<http:/www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/SFR_Graphs.png>
for an objective measurement (it's a bit dated, model wise).

And to help with the interpretation:
- The green line is the modulation transfer function (MTF) of a
particular film in a particular scanner, as noted in the graph. Here
its modulation is higher than for the digicams shown, because I've
levelled the playing field for comparison by accounting for the sensor
size differences (and thus output magnification needed for equal size
output).
- The triangles are the physical limits of resolution (Nyquist
frequency), imposed by the sensel pitch of the CCD/CMOS device (camera
or scanner).
- The horizontal axis represents the resolution in number of lines per
picture height (the same metric as used in DPReview tests), and that
resolution limit is roughly twice as high for the film, but only
visible on high contrast features due to the low modulation.
- Sharpening the filmscan (broken green line) will even improve the
modulation, but also the graininess, so noise reduction a la NeatImage
or NoiseNinja will help a lot if applied before sharpening.

> and besides, it's a lot more work than digital.

I didn't say that in so many words, but it is true. That's one of the
reasons I swtched to digital capture, but only after I got a 16.7Mp
camera. Its resolution e.g. is as good as film but without the
graininess, but there are also other reasons and for those an 8Mp
sensor would also suffice.

> But film really is better than digital.

I said it has higher resolution. If that's your only criterium for a
qualification of "better", then yes. Personally I wouldn't qualify on
resolution alone. There's more to the story than black or white.

> Take your word for it?

By all means, prove me wrong ...

--
Bart
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 20:23:36 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf RemoveThis @no.spam> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill RemoveThis @there.com> wrote in message
>news:pnu6d21vdfc0jl7fo3plptgjrfd3ic89fh@4ax.com...
>SNIP
>> So what you're saying is that film is better than digital,
>> but you can't manage to demonstrate that,
>
>I don't know what gave you that idea.
>I'll recap in short sentences.
>I said film has higher resolution, than digital.
>Digital has higher modulation, at the same level of detail.
>I'll now add; on the sensor, so it depends on output magnification.
>Digital has a resolution limit imposed by its spatial sampling
>density.
>Film+scanner exceed that limitation, hence higher resolution.
>That higher resolution does have a low modulation.
>Therefore it only shows with high contrast subject matter.
>
>Demonstration?
>Well besides examples shown over the past years, how about this;
><http:/www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/SFR_Graphs.png>
>for an objective measurement (it's a bit dated, model wise).
>
>And to help with the interpretation:
>- The green line is the modulation transfer function (MTF) of a
>particular film in a particular scanner, as noted in the graph. Here
>its modulation is higher than for the digicams shown, because I've
>levelled the playing field for comparison by accounting for the sensor
>size differences (and thus output magnification needed for equal size
>output).
>- The triangles are the physical limits of resolution (Nyquist
>frequency), imposed by the sensel pitch of the CCD/CMOS device (camera
>or scanner).
>- The horizontal axis represents the resolution in number of lines per
>picture height (the same metric as used in DPReview tests), and that
>resolution limit is roughly twice as high for the film, but only
>visible on high contrast features due to the low modulation.
>- Sharpening the filmscan (broken green line) will even improve the
>modulation, but also the graininess, so noise reduction a la NeatImage
>or NoiseNinja will help a lot if applied before sharpening.
>
>> and besides, it's a lot more work than digital.
>
>I didn't say that in so many words, but it is true. That's one of the
>reasons I swtched to digital capture, but only after I got a 16.7Mp
>camera. Its resolution e.g. is as good as film but without the
>graininess, but there are also other reasons and for those an 8Mp
>sensor would also suffice.
>
>> But film really is better than digital.
>
>I said it has higher resolution. If that's your only criterium for a
>qualification of "better", then yes. Personally I wouldn't qualify on
>resolution alone. There's more to the story than black or white.
>
>> Take your word for it?
>
>By all means, prove me wrong ...

I showed that my digital photo was better then yours, especially when
you claimed better grain/noise.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

"Bill Funk" <BigBill.TakeThisOut@there.com> wrote in message
news:7km7d2187ho24dlrqp9ihk3du6migsc2ai@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:21:44 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
> <bvdwolf.TakeThisOut@no.spam> wrote:
SNIP
>>I assume you are confusing me with the other Dutchman.
>
> Then, pardon me.

No problem, to err is only human, as they say.

--
Bart
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000?