| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/21/2003 12:51:10 AM · #1 |
When reviewers compare the quality of digital output with that of film, they use a file photo (i.e. originally digital) and contrast that with a scanned film photo. Why don't they even the playing field and first print out the file photo then scan that for comparison?
I realise that using a digital file based source is easiest, but really, they are comparing two unlike objects. |
|
|
|
08/21/2003 12:58:44 AM · #2 |
Maybe my brain is fried this late, but here's my opinion...
You're starting with two images, one digital, the other film, so one exists only as data, the other is a physical object.
You could either do one of two things, translate the film to digital (what they do) or translate the digital to a physical medium.
The reason they take the first path is that scanners are capable of higher resolution than the film will support, thus the scanner does not impact the comparison.
A monitor also is a better place to compare the two images than in print.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2003 01:08:58 AM · #3 |
Drum scans...reminded me of the Leica M6 review at photo.net. The scans are stunningly beautiful.
Leica M6 review |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 10:34:44 AM EDT.
