Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

[photo-3d] 3-Digital


  • From: Gabriel Jacob <3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [photo-3d] 3-Digital
  • Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:03:30 -0400

I read with interest the thread about digital technology vs. film but didn't
have time to chime in till today. I think everyone agrees that digital is
inevitable and that it will one day surpass film. For some, that day has
already arrived!

I've seen a lot of numbers being thrown around, here and on the
Internet, from nobodies, to multinationals. Some of them were also
inconsistent. All of them were right and wrong! I've read that Kodak
says film has a resolution of 60M. I've also read that they mentioned it
had a resolution of  only 12M. Now I might be taking this out of context
or missing some other important parameters, but nevertheless, those
were the numbers reported. Is it 60M or is it 12M? Or is it 3M as some
others state? I think the answer lies in the type of film image being
compared. Is this compared to motion picture film, print film,
photographic paper prints (also what size print), snapshot quality
slide film, quality slide film taken with a tripod, premium lenses, film,
optimum exposure and focus, scene contrast, B&W or color, projected
vs. in a viewer, motion vs. still, etc. All these will translate to different
amount of mega bytes required to equal "film".

For motion pictures, Lucasfilm and Disney feel about 2000x1000 is
enough. If they think it's sufficient, I'm pretty sure they have done their
homework to verify this. As for myself, I've gone from slide film, to print
film, to inclusively all digital. Some might see this as going all downhill,
but I see it as going uphill! Overall slide film in a good viewer is great,
but I always found the images to look smallish (this can be a whole
other thread and won't go into it now). Projection was an apparent
solution, but the hassle of viewing images whenever one wanted to,
was not worth it. Solution, or trade off (see additional comments at
the end of this email message) was prints, especially when the price
decreased to less than slides years ago. I'm in good company
because prints did get more popular as the price of prints went down
and the price of slides went up !

Enter digital. I dabbled with digital for the last few years, either by
playing with my snappy and video cam (which served me very well in
it's day), to renting, buying an inexpensive sub mega pixel camera,
scanning prints, converting print and slide film to Kodak PhotoCDs, to
borrowing the company digital camera.

I very much liked that results of the Kodak PhotoCD but that was
getting a bit expensive, even if I got complete uncut rolls of Realist
format or full frame images converted at a time, which was cheaper
than converting one image at a time. I thought long and hard about
buying one of the new 3M digital cameras (I had outgrown the
company digital camera!). I couldn't really justify the price since it
would probably be half price in less than a year and I wouldn't use
that much film, in even a whole year!

What changed my decision? The freedom of taking many more
images (more than the many I took with film) that I otherwise would
never take (of mundane events at present but that I would look back
fondly in the future), experimenting, reduction of space by putting them
on CD compared to storing them in massive 400x 4x6" albums, and
the projection like quality of viewing the images on a monitor.

Now some might argue that the images on a monitor are very coarse. I
don't think it's all that great too but I don't think it's as bad as many
portray. First of all, for those that take 4x6" prints (or 2x 3x3" traditional
stereo pairs), the resolution of a monitor is lower than a 4x6" print but
this is misleading. Monitors are usually specified as being around
72dpi. Prints around 200dpi. I can set my 19 inch monitor to
1600x1200 (~120dpi). It seems like prints are almost twice a good!
Problem with that is the amount of information on a 4x6 print is less
than on a 19 inch monitor by two to one (~2M pixels vs. ~1M pixels).
Secondly the viewing distance will be greater when viewing the
monitor compared with the 4x6. Net result will be the eye will see
approximately the same effective resolution.

Now some might argue that prints are not that sharp to begin with.
Compared to slides I would tend to agree, but numerous studies
indicate that the eye judges an image looks sharp when it has about
8 lines per mm, viewed from a distance of roughly 10 inches away
(granted there are other variables that make slides look more
realistic). Higher than 8l/mm, the eye would have a difficult time
resolving. This is roughly what a 4x6" 200dpi resolution image
(or 1600x1200 pixel image at ~24 inches) represents.

Digital cameras have reached that state awhile back with the mega
pixel cameras, but still, as Mike had pointed out, not all pixels had
individual red, green, and blue sensors per pixel. This is not as bad
as it sounds, since the eye doesn't resolve as well in the red and blue
region. Still,  I wasn't too impressed with the Mega pixel cameras,
especially for scenics. When the 3 mega pixel cameras came out I
felt they reached that state of being equal or better than film based
print 4x6" images.

I bought the Canon G-1 soon after it came out. I looked at the Nikon
990 and it had dropped a few hundred dollars soon after the introduction
of the G-1 but still went with the G-1. The Kodak 4800 was another
contender but was almost as expensive as the G-1 at that time, with
less features. The Kodak would now be a strong contender since it
has dropped a few hundred dollars since that time. Now if I can only
get another G-1. Since that is not going to happen anytime soon, I've
resigned myself to shooting 3-D images with my trusty Realist, or
twin cameras and wait for the inevitable for when I get a film scanner.

Additional comments.
Now before anyone says they wouldn't trade off their sharp slides for
prints or digital images, I wonder why everyone isn't shooting B&W
slides. They're apparently sharper. Also, can most people tell if a
slide was originally a digital image, especially in projection? I also
wonder why everyone jumped off the 8mm and 16mm film bandwagon
and joined the video revolution. Same thing is going to happen with
digital fim, for better or worse. As to traditional cameras being a better
investment, sure they are, but then they aren't advancing technology
wise very fast either.

Now before anyone thinks I'm digitally nuts, I gotta say I don't recommend
to any of my friends (or enemies) buy a digital camera at the moment,
unless they are into photography, take zillions of pictures, or have money
to burn. Oh yeah, I still do take the occasional slide, and recently even
bought a Saturday night special (Sputnik) to dabble in medium
format. I'm leery on the Sputnik with all it's reliability problems and
average image quality but that is all I could afford at the moment. Yes,
I know medium format is amazing. :-)

011-D

Gabriel


 

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