Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathan
I'd imagine a 1Ds MkII with 16 mega pixels would out perform a normal ISO 200 film. It'd want to otherwise you'd feel pretty ripped off buying a $12000+ camera.  |
Between my brother and I, and our G3 and 20D, we've taken about 21,000 photos. I'd feel pretty ripped off if we hadn't been using digital. Let's see, ($6.72 a roll of film + $9 development + $2.5 postage)/36 x 21,000 = $10,328.
This is using Kodak ISO200 4 pack, basic glossy prints from extrafilm.com.au.
1 hour development at a pharmacy I found online is $17, which pushes the cost to $13,836.
Quote:
|
MiG, I take it that when you say "noise" from film you mean the grain of the film? Film doesn't (and can't) have noise!
|
Grain is noise. The term noise is much broader than patches of colour inaccuracy. But I think you're right about the colour noise being aliasing due to the scanning process.
Quote:
|
The conclusions that we usually come to are that Kodak Gold 100 (a fairly cheap film) is equivalent to around 12MP before there are any real signs of the grain in the film showing up, and HD200 film is about the same resolution (and costs about $4 a roll). The scanner I use is capable of 4000dpi (equivalent to well over 20MP) and a good quality film won’t show any grain at all.
|
That seems rather optimistic, especially if you look at the issue from an image quality perspective.
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f....summary1.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_film.shtml
Quote:
|
But film has been getting needlessly sledged in recent years with incorrect information and unsubstantiated biased opinions by lots of people who really don’t know what they’re talking about, and all for no particular reason other than they own a digital camera and therefore it’s newer and better than the film camera someone else is using.
|
And on the other hand, here are examples of
some of the people that digital has been getting sledged by:
*people who don't like this new fandangled digital crap and provide lp/mm of slow films on extra high contrast images as evidence.
*people who really don’t know what they’re talking about but use film due to nostalgic value, classic status, digital being mainstream or the x-factor.
*people who shoot large format film
Fair enough.
Having said that, I'm considering getting a film body for experimentation and to have a body to put the opposite focal length range lens on, "just in case".