Hot Stuff
Weekly Contest - ReArranger InDesign Plug-In
ReArranger InDesign Plug-In
1 winner selected
The Big Picture Magazine - FREE
Real-world solutions to design challenges
Get Creative Videocast
New every week. Watch what's important to you.
Comments
Login
Login to post a comment. Not a member? Sign up here
Forgot your password?
quality of digital electronics
I'm a proficient amateur not a techie and I'm concerned about how long digital cameras will last. Will the electronics hold up? I don't want to think of spending $1500 for something that will not only be obsolete but may die within 3 or 4 years.
What do you think?
Good premise heavily flawed by inaccuracies
On lenses: While it is true that covering a larger image area (film or sensor) without falloff generally requires a larger lens, the goal of a lens's in-focus "spot" size is the same--infinitesimally small. All other things being equal, the smaller the point size, the higher the resolution. A poor lens will perform poorly whether aimed at a sensor or a piece of film. A lens of a given resolution will yield an apparently better image on a larger rather than smaller image receptor, contrary to Long's assertion.
On film vs. digital quality at high ISO equivalents: Long seems totally off-base; he must not have tried a modern high speed color film.
On resolution: A frame of 35mm film can resolve the equivalent of about 75 million pixels. The finest general photography lenses can resolve about 100 line-pairs/mm, or about 17 megapixels. What Long neglects in his conclusions about ultimate resolution is that the very best autofocus mechanisms--even when mounted on a shake-free lab bench--can achieve a focus accuracy of only 50 line-pairs/mm. That, in the digital world, equates to only a bit more than 4 megapixels! In the real world, even 50 line-pairs/mm is hard to achieve. From a practical standpoint, it would seem that going much beyond 5 megapixels or so is pretty much gilding the lily.
Camera manufacturers: Work on the pixel quality; work on noise reduction; work on ease-of-use; work on price. The pixel-count war of film vs. digital is over--and the pixel-count war of camera A vs. camera B should be.
Thinking
Thanks a lot for the subject. I agree that digital are almost up with film. The last question is speed. As for 16 bit, the cameras now support RAW format, which imports in computer as 16 bit per channel. Anyway, I am going to wait a bit for lower prices.
comparing more brands?
I'm currently searching for the right digital SLR and was hoping you'd have more info on Nikon. Yes, Sony and Canon are hot cameras, but will you include more info on Nikon's offerings in future installments?
Digital lacks richness...
Digital zealots are excited about the technology, but what excites me are the images.
In a conversation I had with an audiophile, we discussed the purity of the sound spectrum with older, tube-based amplifiers and how smooth the sound waves were represented on an oscilloscope. Contrast that, he said, with digital audio, which has blocky wave forms. Such it is with digital images. Film, on the other hand, has the smoothest gradations and tones. I was reviewing some slides on the light table which caused me to do so also on my computer. Hands down, the richness and clarity of my Fujichromes and Kodachromes were far superior.
Long makes a comment about film and $20,000 scanners vs. how most people are thinking 35mm film with desktop scanners and printers. Isn't this a forum for print professionals? Aren't most people here thinking about quality output in publication? Wrong audience.
Black & White
No one seems to talk about doing Black & White images with a digital camera? Why not?
Not sold yet
I appreciated the discussion of an issue I have been struggling with for awhile. But I'm not ready to go out and put my money down yet.
I still see better results from 35mm fine grain film and my Nikon Coolscan 2000 than I have from any digital. Better yet, I can work in 16 bit color depth which is something you don't discuss.
If I was printing out to an ink jet printer, you would probably be right in your conclusions. I want my images to be superior for print reproduction at 150 lpi. I'll give it another year and let the technology improve and the prices come down.
Pure baloney
The aticle is fatally flawed, because it does not address the issue of low light performance: As you crank up the ISO (increasing the CCD amplifier gain) on a digital camera, the thermal noise you get goes up tremendously in the red and blue channels (because of the GRGB Bayer sensor pattern).
On the other end, there is the issue of blown pixels: Shooting digital is like shooting E6 slide film: You have to nail the exposure to within +1/2 to -1-1/2 stops, or you'll get a bad exposure.
With today's epitaxial C41 film, there is plenty of sensitivity up in the ISO 800 range for indoor natural light shooting. Plus, there is plenty of room in the printing process, allowing a -2 to +4 stop exposure range while still getting a usable print.
PS: I shoot both a Fuji S1 Pro & S2 Pro, and a Nikon N90; plus I process my own B&W, C41 and E6 film in my darkroom.