On 17.07.01 11:02, "Jochum Berg" <email@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Dear Santiago!
>
>>> Santiago wrote:
>>>> 1- For QuickTime realtime decompression (25-50%) you loose a GREAT part of
>>>> the original detail and quality. Digital is more convenient.
>>>
>>> -But then it must be better with film since if you have better detail
>>> originally the more details will remain after the compression, right?
>>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>> I have used both 35mm film (PhotoCD, paper and negative) and digital and I
>> sincerely couldn't see more detail in the final film QTVR. That's why I am
>> now using digital.
>> Peter has showed us two panoramas, one with the D1, and the other with film,
>> and for what I have seen the film one is not better than the one shot with a
>> D1.
>>
>> Santiago
>
>
> -Well maybe it depends on the picture and how much work Peter maked in PS to
> bring back dark areas into visible. I always afterlight up dark areas in PS
> to bring forth details and I'm still 75% sure I can bring back a few more
> percent from the shadows before it gets pixelated than you and Peter. What
> really could answere this satisfactory is if you have info about the range
> of the D1 and I had same info about 100ASA Fuji Superia, which I have not.
>
> If you had not wrote "wrong" I should have let this be since this is a
> matter of hairsplitting but now I have to defend myself against something
> that cannot be wrong because I must have right! ;-) Mostly in theory and
> little less practically I cannot have "wrong" about what I wrote, if you
> have a better original to begin with this must yield better result in the
> end after a _moderate_ compression, it must, I cant see why not, it would be
> against all physicals laws. If I can better bring forth as an exampel bushes
> in the shadows a sunny day or a foot of a chair in a dark corner or the
> outside sunny scene through a window its a better chance these details will
> be more visible after compression, and what I've read there is still not any
> better in this very narrow field of matter than film. However if I have
> wrong and your D1 have better range then my film you can dig forth more
> details and then I have so wrong and will be seen crawling on the soil for
> forgiveness. However then the D1 have better range and what I wrote are
> still right: better original - better result! After a compression like 25%
> or worser then the difference are even smaller and sometimes not even
> visible, I can give you that. But what I wrote is still not "wrong", the
> better original the better result in the end!
>
> Though this is hairsplitting in cubics and if I can reveal more info from
> the dark than digital it does not make a big difference for me, I'm glad I
> can but its not alone why I shoot with film and I should gladly buy a D1 if
> I had a lot of money.
If you didn't use "Right" in your text, I would not have to defend my teory
and blabla bla bla bla...
In numbers prehaps you have more "tonal-range" etc etc with your film
camera, but than again you have to face THE Scanner, and end up with a final
image that is a poor copy of the original, before facing THE realtime
decompression.
In my opinion the difference between both (35mm film and good quality
digital cameras) "if exists" is so little that does not justify all the
films, scanning, ASA change etc etc involved in the process.....that ends
with a small window showing a real time moving image with a 25-50%
compression.
Santiago
------------------------
Santiago Ribas
http://www.sribascad.comhttp://www.360portugal.com
email@hidden
email@hidden
