Re: [photo-3d] Digital vs Film

[Project3D@xxxxxxx]

I've been following the digital vs film discussion, and I think I must be one 
of the few able to make direct comparisons - but sadly, only with budget 
digital cameras.

I've been playing with a Ricoh RDC6000 which has a 2.3 Megapixel sensor. I've 
heard it said that film can only hold about this amount of information, and 
it's the lenses that limit performance above this point. Could be - I don't 
know. I haven't tested the results from the lens on this camera other than in 
the "package" of the complete camera.

What I _have_ done is write some of the images from the camera to film. And 
fairly ordinary film at that! (Elitechrome Extra Color 100 ASA)

Now, this film is yielding excellent slides from scans of Pat Whitehouse's 
"Tribute to Handel" and other images.

The results from the digital camera were "gutless". Now, I guess I could get 
a bit more into the images by manipulating in Photoshop, but I really don't 
think I'll get them up to the standard of the 40 year old slides from Pat 
Whitehouse's home made cameras!

Of course, top end cameras might yield better results. But I suspect that not 
everybody can afford two digital cameras at $2000 - $3000 each when they can 
get equivalent results with film for $100 - $200! Even if you add in £1000 
for a film scanner...

For the record, my film recorder writes about 11 megapixels to a 35mm frame. 
So much for film only holding 3 or 3 megapixels of information :-)

Bob Aldridge

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/