Or one could go one step further in the maximum quality direction and drum-scan the most important negatives. This is not to say that a drum scan should replace the original negative, but only that a drum scan can probably recover more image information from a negative than a normal optical print can recover. From the drum scan one could then recover a hard copy using various technologies.The advantage to shooting film and scanning is simply flexibility. With film you can optically print the important negatives if you want/need maximum quality, and scan the others for less demanding use.
Except how many film users actually drum scan their negatives?Or one could go one step further in the maximum quality direction and drum-scan the most important negatives. This is not to say that a drum scan should replace the original negative, but only that a drum scan can probably recover more image information from a negative than a normal optical print can recover. From the drum scan one could then recover a hard copy using various technologies.
Very few, though drum scanning is available for those who want to pay for it. For example, I have never had a drum scan made of any of my film shots. (None of them are worth a drum scan.) Of course, drum scans also vary in quality, depending on the make/model of the scanner, the skill of the operator, and how much quality the customer is willing to pay for.Except how many film users actually drum scan their negatives?
I found the paper and started reading it. I have not made my way through the entire paper yet. The premise of the paper is very interesting and thought provoking. It is also wrong in at least one important way.
The premise of the paper is that a pixel is a point, not a square. The problem is that the concept that a pixel is a point does not map onto any physically realizable image acquisition system because there is no such thing as a point detector in the physical world. All detectors have size.
I don't think we are in disagreement, but only using different ways of expressing how reality maps onto a conceptual framework.You have it backwards: The camera sensor does not create or establish the points, and does not need to, it records values for many points by mass sampling.
Light heading to your camera comes from an infinite number of points, but since we don't have a way to record each individual photon on its own, we have to bin them together to establish a new value for a mathematically modeled point instead. The values from the camera sensor are not the exact values given to an individual pixel of the final output - Neighbouring sensor sites will be polled to define the final pixel colour.
Pixels are mathematical models of data, not 'little squares with a colour'.
Except how many film users actually drum scan their negatives?
Hi Alan - concerning drum scans (Heidelberg) I got the information from an experience operatorOr one could go one step further in the maximum quality direction and drum-scan the most important negatives. This is not to say that a drum scan should replace the original negative, but only that a drum scan can probably recover more image information from a negative than a normal optical print can recover. From the drum scan one could then recover a hard copy using various technologies.
Film suffers from practical limitations rather than theoretical ones. In the 1970s Eggleston used dye transfer printing, arguably the finest colour print medium that has yet been invented. I read somewhere that a large professionally made dye transfer print cost $500 in the mid-70s. Today you can have a drum scan made of a 35mm negative that will exhaust every grain of information, but very few people do. In the video Jem Southam said the demise of his favourite Kodak paper was one of the reasons he gave up the 10 x 8 camera. The background to film photography is one of gradual contraction and withdrawal. Even getting a quick turnaround C41 isn't easy unless in most areas, you process the film yourself. The Magnum agency printer (who produced Cartier-Bresson, Koudelka and other's work and whose name escapes me for the moment), said black and white printing was so much more difficult since cadmium rich paper finished.
People persevere with film despite the issues. By contrast a straight out the camera jpeg can be printed on fine archival rag paper at the touch of a button. The theoretical boundaries of any medium of format are much larger than their usual application. The difference between theory and practice can be a costly business.
Sorry I must add : from printing with optical darkroom workflow in comparison to print fromHi Alan - concerning drum scans (Heidelberg) I got the information from an experience operator
that the best drumscan with highest resolution isn't able to record all information a negative have!
These highly expensive machines are discontiniued from "Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG"
since decades! A good scanner in probably good used condition (with much operating hours)
will cost between 25000,- up to 35000,- bucks (relative to the service wich is done : replacing parts a.s.o)
A rate of 60% the information within a film negative can be recorded (possible more from best workflow) but there is a real great remaining lost from information!
So I would compare : To print from negative film can't be done without a lost!
But I would expect that a lost (relative to best printing workflow, optical condition = best lens a.s.o.) from printing is the workflow wich serve the best resulting quality also in 2019!
Would you agree?
with regards
I haven't forgotten about this- I just haven't had time to get to the computer at night (it's May, time for soooo many outdoor chores).I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. It's worth mentioning that a printed surface is more forgiving of sharpening than a computer screen. Images that look pin sharp on a monitor can appear to lack sharpness in a print. It's a complicated business!
After recent experiments I've uprated my maximum M4/3 print to 24 x 18"!I haven't forgotten about this- I just haven't had time to get to the computer at night (it's May, time for soooo many outdoor chores).
Micro 4/3 sensor, kit zoom at maximum length of 42mm, f/8, ISO 8000.I am not familiar with 4/3 cameras, but am curious... isn't it more difficult to get a shallow depth of field with the smaller sensors? I know with my RB I get shallow depth with smaller apertures than I can with full frame. It seems that with 4/3 cameras it would have to be a lens with an awfully wide aperture. I'm not sure phones can do it at all, which is why they have to fake it with software.
Nice! Does it work that well at the focal length that is the 50mm equivalent for full frame? ... is that 25mm? I guess that is my real question. At equivalent focal lengths, do they have to have wider apertures for the same bokeh?Micro 4/3 sensor, kit zoom at maximum length of 42mm, f/8, ISO 8000.
Handheld too!
View attachment 223571
The LX7 sensor size is 7.44 x 5.58 mm.Also, is micro 4/3 the same size sensor as a point and shoot? I have an old Panasonic LX7 - is that the same? I've been seeing a lot about micro four thirds, and I am not sure I understand where they fit in the camera ecosystem.
I guess I could just stop being lazy and ask Google.
For depth of field questions, the 25mm setting on the zoom will give the same field of view as a 4/3 crop of a 50mm lens on 135 film, but the same depth of field as a 4/3 crop of a 25mm lens on 135 film.Nice! Does it work that well at the focal length that is the 50mm equivalent for full frame? ... is that 25mm? I guess that is my real question. At equivalent focal lengths, do they have to have wider apertures for the same bokeh?
Also, is micro 4/3 the same size sensor as a point and shoot? I have an old Panasonic LX7 - is that the same? I've been seeing a lot about micro four thirds, and I am not sure I understand where they fit in the camera ecosystem.
I guess I could just stop being lazy and ask Google.
M4/3 manufacturers have addressed the portrait lens issue by using wider apertures - f1.2 and below. While such lenses are not cheap, compared to their full frame equivalent they are complete bargains! Panasonic's 50mm f1.4 for their new full frame system costs around £2.3k.I am not familiar with 4/3 cameras, but am curious... isn't it more difficult to get a shallow depth of field with the smaller sensors? I know with my RB I get shallow depth with smaller apertures than I can with full frame. It seems that with 4/3 cameras it would have to be a lens with an awfully wide aperture. I'm not sure phones can do it at all, which is why they have to fake it with software.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?