Digital snap shots?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Anubis

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
Originally posted by: Metron
Current digital technology EXCEEDS the maximum resolutions possible with film, even when using the most expensive film cameras.

Tell your friend film died a few years ago when 10 megapixel CCD's appeared on the scene, which is why you see so many used high end film cameras for sale.

I took these pictures with my trusty Canon S500 (5MP) in Hawaii:
Sunset 1
Sunset 2

I'll reinterate, film is dead.

Metron
Click to expand...

Film is NOT dead

35mm Color Film is dead

35mm B&W film still has a quality that cant be matched by digital especially at ISOs less then 100
and Medium and Large Format Film absoutly destroys digitial, the only camera that can come close is Canons new 16mp one, the MF Digital Backs do it as well but they cost like 20k$

even with the best intorplation algorithm you can not push a 35mm shot to 20x30 without noticable quality loss, with a 4x5 or 8x10 camere that is pretty damn easy to do
 
D

DBL

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2001
2,637
0
0
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DBL
What digital camera would I need to exceed the resolution contained in a 4"x5" or 8"x10" negative from a Large format camera?
Click to expand...

Haha, nicely done. :)

I'm a fan of digital fan, but this man wins.
Click to expand...

I?m also a fan of Digital Photography. I have a 20D and love it. However, blanket statements such as "film is dead" are ridiculous. For the regular consumer, film is surely slipping very fast but as for professional photographers and other interested in the art of photography, film and digital are just two different mediums, either of which can most likely accomplish your goals. However, ultimate resolving power still belongs to large format photography, although I'd expect that barrier to be broken in the next few years.



 
Anubis

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DBL
What digital camera would I need to exceed the resolution contained in a 4"x5" or 8"x10" negative from a Large format camera?
Click to expand...

Haha, nicely done. :)

I'm a fan of digital fan, but this man wins.
Click to expand...

I?m also a fan of Digital Photography. I have a 20D and love it. However, blanket statements such as "film is dead" are ridiculous. For the regular consumer, film is surely slipping very fast but as for professional photographers and other interested in the art of photography, film and digital are just two different mediums, either of which can most likely accomplish your goals. However, ultimate resolving power still belongs to large format photography, although I'd expect that barrier to be broken in the next few years.
Click to expand...

yes it will be broken but at what cost? the digital backs for the 645 cameras cost around 20000$, the canon 1ds mark 2 is like 8000$ they make digital backs for rangefinders that cost over 50000$

consumers might never see that quality at a price they can afford,
 
Anubis

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
F

flot

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2000
3,197
0
0
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: flot
Sorry for the slow speed, but here is one of my shots from hawaii.

From a $300 Kodak camera.

Hawaii Coast
Click to expand...

Did you sharpen that picture? It looks way overdone.
Click to expand...

No, I typically leave all my photos just as they came out of the camera - but I'd say that it's a pretty accurate photo.

Some of my shots came out a little odd, since the weather on my trip was either VERY bright and sunny or medium bright with overcast/grey skies, but I'd say the camera handled everything better than I expected. The downsized collection of shots is here - and I definitely stand by my assertion that they're every bit as good as I would have gotten out of any film point and shoot.
 
D

DBL

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2001
2,637
0
0
Originally posted by: flot
No, I typically leave all my photos just as they came out of the camera - but I'd say that it's a pretty accurate photo.

Some of my shots came out a little odd, since the weather on my trip was either VERY bright and sunny or medium bright with overcast/grey skies, but I'd say the camera handled everything better than I expected. The downsized collection of shots is here - and I definitely stand by my assertion that they're every bit as good as I would have gotten out of any film point and shoot.
Click to expand...

Maybe the in-camera sharpening is turned way up then? Look at the outline of the mountain against the sky. Do you see the halo? Something over-sharpened that picture.



 
F

flot

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2000
3,197
0
0
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: flot
No, I typically leave all my photos just as they came out of the camera - but I'd say that it's a pretty accurate photo.


Maybe the in-camera sharpening is turned way up then? Look at the outline of the mountain against the sky. Do you see the halo? Something over-sharpened that picture.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, I do see what you're talking about (sorry, my monitor is at 1600x1200, I imagine that's much more pronounced at lower resolutions) - the rock formations really *were* that sharp, and the edge was really that defined - but I do see your comment in regards to the white line seperating the mountain from the sky. I'm not sure, but I'd almost peg that as a jpeg artifact? (or perhaps the camera trying to avoid a jpeg artifact due to the sudden contrast change?)

I didn't have the card space to take uncompressed photos, but it would be an interesting test...
Click to expand...
 
D

DBL

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2001
2,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Anubis
yes it will be broken but at what cost? the digital backs for the 645 cameras cost around 20000$, the canon 1ds mark 2 is like 8000$ they make digital backs for rangefinders that cost over 50000$

consumers might never see that quality at a price they can afford,
Click to expand...

As I said, it's just a matter of time. Certainly, whether it's 3 years of 10 years, the quality of digital cameras will continue to improve to the point where they do end up surpassing comparable LF film cameras and at reasonable prices (eventually). Not that the average person needs such quality, though.

Megapixels are probably not going to increase at the pace they have been recently. In fact, I think it is starting to slow already a bit. I'm expecting breakthroughs from some fo the major manufactures similar to Foveon technology. Depending on the type of picture, Bayer sensors only really provide a certain percentage of their actual amount of pixels claimed. So an 8mp Bayer may only be equivalent to a 4 - 6MP Foveon type sensor. It will be interesting to see how things progress.




 
Metron

Metron

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2003
1,163
0
0
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: Metron
Current digital technology EXCEEDS the maximum resolutions possible with film, even when using the most expensive film cameras.

Tell your friend film died a few years ago when 10 megapixel CCD's appeared on the scene, which is why you see so many used high end film cameras for sale.

I took these pictures with my trusty Canon S500 (5MP) in Hawaii:
Sunset 1
Sunset 2

I'll reinterate, film is dead.

Metron
Click to expand...

What digital camera would I need to exceed the resolution contained in a 4"x5" or 8"x10" negative from a Large format camera?
Click to expand...

Shame on me for not qualifying my response, but the discussion here is in terms of P&S cameras.

However, to address your point:

Three to five megapixels is sufficient to lay 35mm to rest for most sizes of print. I regularly print 13" x 19" prints from five megapixels. Quite a number of photographers have compared prints from the 11MP Canon against professionally made drum scans from 6x7 chromes and found the 11MP image equal or superior. While calculations may show that this is impossible, we are dealing with visuals. If the detail is superior to the eye - well that is why we make photographs instead of spending the days making spreadsheets.

quoted from http://www.larry-bolch.com/film-vs-digital/

Metron
 
D

DeafeningSilence

Golden Member
Jul 2, 2002
1,874
1
0
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: edro13
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Here are some of my best from my recent trip to Bolivia... taken on the 3.2MP Canon S1.
The background almost looks fake :)
edit: No post-processing done.
Click to expand...
HOLY COLOR OVERLOAD!! Nice picture! All of those are very very good...
Click to expand...

thats canons digic chip at work, super saturate right out of the camera

personally i hate that
Click to expand...

I know what you're talking about, but actually there's not a ton of exaggeration there. That picture is from the city of La Paz, at 13000 feet, and the sky is crystal clear. It even looked unreal in person.
 
D

DBL

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2001
2,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Metron
Shame on me for not qualifying my response, but the discussion here is in terms of P&S cameras.

However, to address your point:

Three to five megapixels is sufficient to lay 35mm to rest for most sizes of print. I regularly print 13" x 19" prints from five megapixels. Quite a number of photographers have compared prints from the 11MP Canon against professionally made drum scans from 6x7 chromes and found the 11MP image equal or superior. While calculations may show that this is impossible, we are dealing with visuals. If the detail is superior to the eye - well that is why we make photographs instead of spending the days making spreadsheets.

quoted from http://www.larry-bolch.com/film-vs-digital/

Metron
Click to expand...


6x7 Chrome is 6cmx7cm, no? That's MF. No one (That I have seen) compares digital to large format yet. There is still a big difference and if one wants the ultimate resolution w/ just one short exposure, you need LF. The gap is closing fast though.

 
L

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: DBL
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: DBL
What digital camera would I need to exceed the resolution contained in a 4"x5" or 8"x10" negative from a Large format camera?
Click to expand...

Haha, nicely done. :)

I'm a fan of digital fan, but this man wins.
Click to expand...

I?m also a fan of Digital Photography. I have a 20D and love it. However, blanket statements such as "film is dead" are ridiculous. For the regular consumer, film is surely slipping very fast but as for professional photographers and other interested in the art of photography, film and digital are just two different mediums, either of which can most likely accomplish your goals. However, ultimate resolving power still belongs to large format photography, although I'd expect that barrier to be broken in the next few years.
Click to expand...

yes it will be broken but at what cost? the digital backs for the 645 cameras cost around 20000$, the canon 1ds mark 2 is like 8000$ they make digital backs for rangefinders that cost over 50000$

consumers might never see that quality at a price they can afford,
Click to expand...


Hah! Like "consumers" use medium format / large format anyways. Perhaps a very very small percentage of serious amatuers. Otherwise the only ones who uses those formats are professionals. And if that's the case, then $$$ is off the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom