Re: Digicam vs. Scanner resolutions

["dickbo" <dickbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Methinks you are attempting to swim upstream when the water is all going
downstream my man.

As a sum total of all images produced by all professional photographers in
any given period of time, the number required to be used for giant
enlargements is minimal.

I believe it would be fair to claim that the vast majority of photographic
images eventually end up on the printed page and are no more than a few
inches (r Cm if you will) in size.

The need for 'big ones' may indeed exist but that need is nowhere as great
as that required to produce small and fast and cheap.

To the best of mu knowledge that market for new drum scanners is no longer
growth related and indeed at least two of the major drum scanner
manufacturers no longer - to all intents and purposes - exist.

The drum scanner will no doubt have a place - just like hot metal supplies
still exist, but the number and regularity of use will eventuall fade down
to an own level of existance.

That is the way of the world and we had all better accept it. Technical
issues hardly come into it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil.Lippincott" <phil.lippincott@worldnet.att.net>
To: <scan@leben.com>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: Digicam vs. Scanner resolutions


> You are absolutely correct about film Harvey,
>
>     I think most people under estimate how good film is and what means.  I
know your
> in New York City.  I now use for an example of film quality a print
produced by one
> of Aztek's Digital PhotoLab Premier drum scanner customers, as their very
first scan
> during installation last year,  Big Apples Sign scanned an Ektachrome
E100SV 35mm
> slide for me at 8000 dpi optical.  This scan produced a 250 mega byte
flawless with
> no grain full fidelity histogram file that they directly printed from the
Aztek
> Digital PhotoLab scanning software (without Photoshop) on their Lambda to
a 50 inch
> by 150 inch print.  We have a one of these prints on our wall (in
California) from
> this picture and you can walk up with your nose to the print or look at it
from
> across the room, and it is perfect.
>    If pictures like these can be taken from any 35mm camera and when
captured
> digitally to the quality of the film be used in the most demanding
applications.
> Then digital cameras have a long ways to go before they can duplicate the
quality
> and cost effectiveness for professional applications of film.  By the way
with 120
> /220 film we can conquer the world (1 GB) and 4 x5 has over 4 giga bytes
of 24 bit
> RGB equivalent optical data.
>    Beyond the optical resolution discussions there are many others too,
i.e.
> latitude of exposure comparison to negative films.  Where one exposure can
have over
> 16 stops of exposure, for example a fine art sunset shot of the sun going
down at a
> beach. The direct sun without blooming,  blow out, or over exposure in on
corner and
> the sand of the beach and shadows without closing up into black or under
exposure in
> the other corner.  And with your drum scanner at Skip you can capture all
of this
> density digitally.  This discussion also leads to the comparison of color
capture
> fidelity differences and the film again has the dramatic benefit over
digital
> cameras due light sensitivity and over a hundred years of technical
refinements.
>    Of course there are a lot of other digital camera benefits like
convenience and
> avoidance of developing where its use for applications not driven by
quality allow
> it to  shine.  And I expect that if given enough substantial time for new
technology
> discoveries we can find ways for digital cameras to compare to what we
already have
> with film.  The Foven chip seems like an evolutionary step however small,
in the
> right direction.  It doesn't address however how they are going to produce
a 24 bit
> 250 MB full fidelity response like just loading my 35 mm camera with a $5
roll of
> E100SV or Portra NC.   We still seem a very long way from duplicating with
digi cams
> the performance of films.
>    It may be instead that we professionals are being asked by some
marketing people
> to be caught up in the excitement, for the newest technology announcements
or to
> except with their wild claims ultimately lower quality results for the
instant
> gratification convenience of digital cameras.
>
> Sincerely
> Phil Lippincott
> Aztek, Inc.
>
> SKID Photography wrote:
>
> > byard pidgeon wrote:
> >
> > > Supposedly, 6 megapixels is the threshold point for making "real"
photos
> > > with a digicam...but, making a "real" photo quality neg or slide with
a film
> > > recorder requires just under 12 megapixels (and a good FR, like a PCR
II at
> > > least).
> > >
> > > So, it seems to me that what we really need are 12 megapixel digicams,
and
> > > we're only halfway there.
> > >
> > > I'm defining the quality factor as being sufficient to make a neg that
> > > produces a photo print of at least 11X and preferably 16X that's
> > > indistinguishable from a camera neg.
> > >
> > > Along the same lines, my film scanner yields about 14
megapixels...doesn't
> > > it make sense that 12-14 megapixels is what we need in a pro quality
> > > digicam?
> >
> > Well, sort of.  A '6 megapixel' capture chip in a digicam really has
only a 1/4
> > to a 1/3 of those stated pixels, as the camera manufacturers are passing
a huge
> > lie off on the public.
> >
> > When a spec sheet says it has 6 megapixels, what they really mean is
that there
> > are 6 million receptors, each receptor being an R,G,G, or B (only).
(These
> > cameras use 2 G receptors for every pair of R&B receptors.)  A 'pixel'
is made
> > from an R,G, & B component, but each sensor only captures a third of a
pixel's
> > worth of information, the rest is interpolation, which is to say:
Making up the
> > information.  Albeit, through a very good and sophisticated algorithm,
it's not
> > 'real' full pixel info it's capturing...Unlike what one gets from a
scanner,
> > which are real RGB pixels.
> >
> > So draw your own conclusion as to how big a chip they will need to
replace
> > film.   Also, the new 'Foven' chips might be just the ticket, as they,
at each
> > sensor point, capture an RG & B component (a pixel) at different
wavelengths
> > (they focus at different depths on the chip).  Some have said that these
chips
> > will have other shortcomings, but that remains to be seen.
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> > -
> > Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
> > subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
>
> -
> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
>


-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.