Now obviously it doesn't get into the techy specs but isn't this a fun video.
That decade old question.
(16 posts) (10 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
This got posted here before didn't it? Or am I imagining things? I could have sworn I saw this already.
Posted 3 years ago # -
If it did I didn't know?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Oh no problem Kyoshi. Sorry I'm just asking if this had been posted before because I know I've seen this video before. I guess maybe it was in another forum. It might have been here but it was probably posted within some other topic so it'll be hard to find anyway.
I wonder if they would have used a D3X.
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Oh no problem Kyoshi. Sorry I'm just asking if this had been posted before because I know I've seen this video before. I guess maybe it was in another forum. It might have been here but it was probably posted within some other topic so it'll be hard to find anyway.I wonder if they would have used a D3X.
Probably not, it's a pretty old video. I've seen it in the past too, it's pretty cool.
Posted 3 years ago # -
That video came out shortly after the D700 was released, so the D3x was not an option.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Also they used iso400 film...wouldn't that produce a lot more grain (which they pointed out it had)when blowing it up to that size....
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah saw it before. really silly comparison though.
1) They should have used better PRO film. and lower ISO say 100 or 50. What film was used?
2) not sure how they scanned the film. No technical details.
3) What PP was used? probably none but It does look like the white back ground was removed.Posted 3 years ago # -
should have compared to a chrome, color neg is grainier, and doesn't scan as well.
should have drum scanned the film
in all fairness to film, 35mm was never designed to be blown up that big, and neither was small format digital for that matterwere they to compare a 6x7cm negative or chrome to a D3x, the 6x7 would still easily blow the D3x away, at least in terms of pure image dimensions. It's not hard to get a 12000x14000 image out of a good 6x7 frame.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes Chris, but I still find it hard to believe how much detail a camera sensor actually can get and the fact is that film has maxed will not ever capture more, maybe scanners will improve. But the sensor is and will continue to improve and is now already out resolving many lenses
Even you beloved Medium Format will get to be digital affordable some day
But don't stop loving your film, for you it's working great
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ok, this an invalid compairson - both prints are made with a DIGITAL printer and the negative (I assume it was a neg - slide would have been better)had to be scanned. A crappy scan will make a bad print. This is like telling me your car is better than mine because it has more air pressure in the tires.
Invalid test.
Let see a test of a D3x and a medium format camera - that would be worth paying attention to.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Agree its invalid.. but for most people People with D5000 and D90. Digital is clearly the way to go as they are the people who will be getting ISO400 film. But the person who would be getting a F5 and D3 or D3X will be using the best film has to offer and that is the 50 velvia and wet scanned. It would be really interesting to compare a landscape image between the D3X and velvia 50. or the E100VS properly scanned.
Posted 3 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
Agree its invalid.. but for most people People with D5000 and D90. Digital is clearly the way to go as they are the people who will be getting ISO400 film. But the person who would be getting a F5 and D3 or D3X will be using the best film has to offer and that is the 50 velvia and wet scanned. It would be really interesting to compare a landscape image between the D3X and velvia 50. or the E100VS properly scanned.Sorry hearty, but this makes no sense to me.
For all intents and purposes I'm a d5000/d90 shooter, but I also shoot film, but when I shoot film I make the easy choice to shoot with less grainy decent film as it's not a hard thing to do.but it's also a good chance I am just not understanding the first part of your post, or the entirety, so ignore me please : )!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks for sharing that was very interesting. I agree a D3X image would have been incredible, but like Chris lange says you have to fair and use 6x7 negative. They didn't even use good film. Iso 400 for this kind of project? Where they actually trying to make digital look that good by comparison? Shoot some IIford Delta black and white or use some dreamy Iso 50 film and we'd see a different outcome let me tell ya..
Posted 3 years ago # -
foofiebeast said:
Sorry hearty, but this makes no sense to me.
For all intents and purposes I'm a d5000/d90 shooter, but I also shoot film, but when I shoot film I make the easy choice to shoot with less grainy decent film as it's not a hard thing to do.but it's also a good chance I am just not understanding the first part of your post, or the entirety, so ignore me please : )!
Look you are not normal :-) The people I know who get the D5000 and d90 are the moms and Dads who have a bit of cash who really dont know that much about photography. They are the people who would have been getting the F601 and loading in ISO 400 neg film. A pro who would have the money to buy the F5 or F6 for film photography will also know his films and how to scan them for the best results. The theory says that the best film is equal to about 35 MP so it would be interesting to pit the best film against the best DSLR(D3X) and see if film still beats it. The theory is that film would beat the D3X. Problem is ts really hard to get wet scans done these days. Let alone drum scans.
Posted 3 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
Look you are not normal :-) The people I know who get the D5000 and d90 are the moms and Dads who have a bit of cash who really dont know that much about photography. They are the people who would have been getting the F601 and loading in ISO 400 neg film. A pro who would have the money to buy the F5 or F6 for film photography will also know his films and how to scan them for the best results. The theory says that the best film is equal to about 35 MP so it would be interesting to pit the best film against the best DSLR(D3X) and see if film still beats it. The theory is that film would beat the D3X. Problem is ts really hard to get wet scans done these days. Let alone drum scans.Most online quotes have placed the best film at app 14-16mp and maybe actual lower. I have compared some of my enlargements from film days, primes, slide film and find detail from my D300 to be very close to be the same. Yes film offer better DR and other certainly the best B&W quality
Here is an old dig vs film comparison
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
Pete
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
