Leaked Nikon D800 Pictures & Specs

[GoSharks]

We've been over this before, and Throckmorton was there.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2158871

 

[Throckmorton]

We've been over this before, and Throckmorton was there.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2158871

According to that thread, 100 iso film is 20 megapixels, which is equivalent to 80 megapixels from a bayer grid sensor.

 

[GoSharks]

According to that thread, 100 iso film is 20 megapixels, which is equivalent to 80 megapixels from a bayer grid sensor.

Firstly, you are quoting a quote from Wikipedia .
Secondly how do you know they haven't accounted for a bayer grid?
Thirdly, what do you have to say about the Luminous Landscape articles from the early 2000s that show digital out-resolving film.

 

[Throckmorton]

Firstly, you are quoting a quote from Wikipedia .
Secondly how do you know they haven't accounted for a bayer grid?
Thirdly, what do you have to say about the Luminous Landscape articles from the early 2000s that show digital out-resolving film.

Because megapixel numbers assume each "pixel" is really a pixel, and so does the image output from a digital camera. That doesn't apply to film at all.

Maybe they should have used a higher res film scanner to compare film to digital.

 

[GoSharks]

Maybe they should have used a higher res film scanner to compare film to digital.

If you had read those articles more carefully, you would have found these:

All this is lead-up to my current opinion; unvarnished and without reservation. Prints that I can make from D30 images are better than the prints that I can make from 35mm film. Period.

Here's what I see. On a 13X19" print there's little to choose between the 1Ds print and the drum scan. I sometimes think that one is sharper or displays higher resolution than the other, and then I look at a different part of the print and think the opposite. Both are clearly higher res than the Imacon scan. As for shadow detail, the drum scan is very similar to the 1Ds, and again both are better than the Imacon scan in this regard.

What else is there to say? Someone will inevitably ask — why didn't you do a comparison with a traditional wet darkroom print? The answer is because I no longer do them, and the reason is because current inkjet prints surpass chemical prints in every respect. No contest.

Finally, one can argue that the drum scan can produce bigger prints. Yup, they can. But since there clearly isn't really any significant amount of additional real information in the drum scan, ressing up the digital file will essentially accomplish the same thing. And, when you figure that the digital file is virtually noise free while the drum scanned film image will display grain in a large print, the choice is clear — at least for me.

Goodbye film. Goodbye medium format.

They were using some expensive scanners back then. I have a feeling that digital camera tech has advanced more than scanners have since then.

 

[Gintaras]

We've been over this before, and Throckmorton was there.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2158871

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

 

[Throckmorton]

If you had read those articles more carefully, you would have found these:




They were using some expensive scanners back then. I have a feeling that digital camera tech has advanced more than scanners have since then.

But looking good as an 8x10 print doesn't mean digital is capturing more information. That print by definition involves guessing pixel color values because you're interpolating from a bayer grid.

 

[GoSharks]

But looking good as an 8x10 print doesn't mean digital is capturing more information. That print by definition involves guessing pixel color values because you're interpolating from a bayer grid.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

That's basically what you are turning this into.

 

[Throckmorton]

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

That's basically what you are turning this into.

If interpolating pixels and producing results that look good is good enough, why not do comparisons where you upscale an image and then apply sharpening? Serious question... Where do you draw the line and say that interpolation is cheating?

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Firstly, you are quoting a quote from Wikipedia .

As long as this thread is hijacked anyway....

Has anybody else equated Wikipedia with the Encyclopedia Galactica project from the Foundation novels?

And if so, who is the Second Foundation?

JR