|
The limit for the 10D is 13 X 19, my original stated size. I've produced larger prints by uprezing with the use of Genuine Fractals Pro. It's obvious you don't want to take my word for it and that's fine. I would suggest you visit Michael Reichmann's web site, The Luminous Landscape. Some of the best photographers today are there. Spend some time reading the many essay's, tutorials, product reviews, columns and How To's. I think you'll come away with a better understanding of the power and performance of today's DSLR's.
|
Thanks for the reference Jeff. While I'm already quite familiar with the site, it's helpful that you've selected the industry "expert".
Please read this tutorial found on the Luminous Landscape website entitled Digital Camera Image Quality. It gets right to the matter. Here's a quote for those in a hurry: "A good medium format negative still beats the current crop of digital SLR's." The author's conclusions? A D60/D100 is good for about 11x17. A Canon 1Ds (much more camera than your 10D) can do 13x19. Medium format is good for 24x30. Those are his numbers, not mine. Before you go off complaining that the 10D wasn't tested, the 10D has the same imager as the D60 but with improved noise performance. It's performance won't fair much different than the D60 and certainly won't approach the 1Ds. His medium format example bested the 1Ds by a whopping 70%. I'm quite familiar with digital SLR's and own several. My disbelief of your claim is not due to ignorance of the subject. |
For me, I'm sticking with film for a little while yet. While the quality of the current DSLRs is great but the camera features of the Canons just aren't there yet, for my needs at least. The 1Ds is a great camera but too slow for serious sports shooting. The 's' in the name stands for 'studio' and that is what this camera is aimed at, studio work as a replacement/to complement 35mm/MF studio set-ups. THe 1D has the speed but with the 1.3x multiplication factor it kills wide angle/fisheye lenses which are necessery for shooting many sports. However, it's great for beach based surfing, football, baseball etc where you need super-telephoto lenses.
I'm currently using an EOS5 and 1nRS and love both cameras. The pellicle mirror in the 1nRS is a dream as is the 10fps and 6millisec shutter release. If features similar to this are incorporated into say an 8Megapix fullframe camera then Canon would be on a winner. A fream camera would be an 8MP, pellicle mirrored, 5-10fps 1DRS, but it's probably just wishful thinking. |
Craig, I'm glad you've been to Michael's site. Since you seem keen on abridged versions, it might be helpful to point out that the article you link to is not written by Michael Reichmann. The article you refer to is written by Miles Hecker and he is writing in reference to work done by Norman Koren. The article was actually written a little over a year ago, when the D60 was just out. The 1Ds information was not from first hand information, but rather from samples from dpreview. You should have included the next sentence from the quote. For those in a hurry;
"That will change in the coming years" A lot happens in a year Craig. Rather than wait for Craig and I to bring the whole web site to everyone line by line, for those interested in digital photography, I suggest following one of the links and explore the site. It makes for good reading. |
The more recent digital cameras (and I'm thinking here of the Canon EOS-1Ds in particular) do have much higher resolutions, and the images can be enlarged to a greater extent. But the real benefit, IMHO, is the reduced focal length multiplier. The 1Ds's FLM of 1 would be sweet.
Now, where did I leave that $8k? :-) |
<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Craig, I'm glad you've been to Michael's site. Since you seem keen on abridged versions, it might be helpful to point out that the article you link to is not written by Michael Reichmann. The article you refer to is written by Miles Hecker and he is writing in reference to work done by Norman Koren. The article was actually written a little over a year ago, when the D60 was just out. The 1Ds information was not from first hand information, but rather from samples from dpreview. You should have included the next sentence from the quote. For those in a hurry;
"That will change in the coming years" A lot happens in a year Craig. Rather than wait for Craig and I to bring the whole web site everyone line by line, for those interested in digital photography, I suggest following one of the links and explore the site. It makes for good reading. -->>> I deleted that because it's irrelevant. You said now. Nothing's changed since that article was wriitten besides a minor facelift of the D60. Good to know you accept the rest of the text since it refutes your claim entirely. Perhaps you should have tempered your recommendation to only those articles that don't conflict with your point of view. Jeff, you made an absurd claim not supported by any facts nor by any reasonably authoritative source. I'm as big a fan of digital SLR's as anybody but they have their limitations. The fact is that current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses so until that's solved we won't see large increases in resolution "in the coming years". If you had read the article you'd realize that digital has largely matched 35mm film already. They won't exceed medium format until they get better lenses and larger imagers. Your 10D won't be among those. There are digital backs for medium and large format cameras, though. If your claim were true I don't think there's be much market for those. |
My claims are backed up by the hundreds of thousands of professional photographers that have replaced (or left in the closet) their medium format cameras. My almost daily conversations with pro's regarding the digital revolution lead to the only feasible conclusion. Film usage is down. Why? More and more people, pro's included, are shooting digital. For many, many, pro's it has replaced 35mm. My original statement, said it rivals medium format. Last I looked rivals means equals or competitors.
I know a great many PP of A members that have given up medium format for digital cameras (D1X, D100, S2, 10D, 1Ds). The prints produced from their digital files rival and in many cases exceed their medium format film. Digital has changed the way a number of pro photographers shoot weddings. Superior low light performance is one factor, among many. My former partner in Cincinnati is a well respected studio photographer. He recently purchased a digital back for his medium format cameras. He chooses the digital back when the client needs large prints (usually 30 X 40's or larger). But for just about anything smaller he shoots it with his 1Ds or even 10D. Digital is here to stay, and for many, many photographers it has replaced (dare I say rivals) 35mm and medium format film. My claims may seem absurd to you, but for many pro's (maybe the majority) film is a thing of the past. Just like the buggy whip. |
You said the 10D rivals medium format in resolution, image quality, etc. You did not say it rivaled medium format in desirability among pros although you now do. I don't know about that and have no reason to dispute it. Defend your claim of image quality and resolution. Your link most definitely refutes it.
I'm also certain that digital's good for for prints up to a certain size. I know it to be fact, but that was not your original claim. Larger film formats are king for the applications in which they are used. Those applications are growing smaller with each generation but the 10D is not the camera that will replace them except in your own mind. |
Wow...all this from a 19 year old kid who wanted to replace his Cybershot 707 with a 10D.
There are multiple points addressed in the previous posts which have brought me closer to thinking that its all about what you plan on doing with the camera, and format preference. Many people are fixed on the traditional way of photography, shooting with film. As technology advances, digital will become saturated in the market, and the amount of people shooting with film will be greatly reduced, although there will still be many die-hard film enthusiasts, the digital revolution has just begun, and will undoubtedly continue to grow. For me, I was brought up in the digital age. The farthest i've gone into film was a 13-dollar disposable camera from a local drug store. I then got my 707 and actually produced lots of quality work and got more than my moneys worth out of it. I've printed up to 8x10, and the print is acceptable, but id say 4x6 or 5x7 is the limit on the 5 mp machine. 2 yrs. past, and I need something better. Better quality, sharper images, greater versatility. For now, I don’t see myself printing anything larger than 13x19. The largest id go would probably be 8x10. It seems as though I have alot more research to do before investing my hard earned money into a new camera. Although i've seen the reviews on other Websites, I guess the only true way to find out which camera is right for me, is to actually work with it. See how I can apply the camera to my everyday tasks. Look at prints and determine which I like the best. Hopefully my choice will be a good one. |
<<<-- Originally posted by John Garcia : Many people are fixed on the traditional way of photography, shooting with film. -->>>
I agree. I'm strictly digital, though. No film for many years. |
My mind and the tens of thousands lining up to purchase them from Canon. I continue to stand by my original claim.
Quote:
|
Is this thread what we could expect in a digital camera forum?
I'm not trying to make anyone angry but If I were to stumble on a digital camera forum that went on and on as this thread has done, I'd not come back.
This thread is going nowhere IMHO. Surely, if there were to be a digital camera forum it would contain information about digital cameras and their applications (other than, perhaps, film replacement :-) ) wouldn't there? I use digital where I want and film up to 4x5 when appropriate. I know which is appropriate because it's what I want to use at that place and time. Sorry if I've made anyone angry. |
I agree Mike. I guess its just a really touchy subject, much the same as "Making DV look like film".
Although, I have learned alot from the arguments, I can see why someone who already knows much of this information would be driven away from such discussions. We'll be good...Dont worry. :) lol... |
Here's my experience:
I started out with 35mm and eventually acquired medium format and 4x5 equipment to do commercial work. The 4x5 was especially valuable when it came to doing anything that would require substantial enlargement or critical control of perspective. Since then I've sold the Bronica and the 4x5 with the Schneider lenses. Sold the Omega D5VXL, Polaroid backs, and Minolta meters. The 4x5 system went unused for three years, as I'd replaced it with a digital workflow. No Polaroids. No film holders to load and unload. No wondering if the camera might have slipped out of adjustment at the last second or if a strobe somehow failed to fire. The test shot becomes the final working shot. That cost savings alone is huge as we'd use several Polaroids just to get the lighting exactly right for wristwatches. Also, if I was working with a graphic artist, he could bring his Quark layout and I could immediately import the images as we shot them to see if they'd work with his design. And, again, once we had something that worked, that was it. The shoot was done. The client would save hundreds of dollars in studio time and get exactly what he wanted. I did some display ads for Pearlridge shopping center -- John Garcia knows where this is :-) One of the displays is a 5x5-foot backlighted transparency sitting over the central escalators. The photo was shot with a Fuji Finepix S1 Pro SLR. I did the color corrections and then enlarged it with Genuine Fractals. The result, even when seen at arm's length, is incredibly sharp. Much sharper than it needs to be under normal viewing conditions. Another display was one for the optical shop in the mall. It ended up being 6 feet high and 2 feet wide. The face of the model was blown up until it was more than two feet high. The first print ended up being displayed at another store since it showed too much detail. You could see every single blemish and pore on her face. And that was after I did substantial touch-ups. I diffused the second print, and that's the one that went on display in the mall. Had I shot with with a medium format camera (forget using a 4x5 on a model), it would have shown grain. Even with Kodak VPS. The digital image, on the other hand, was absolutely clean and clear. With the current technology, making a wall-sized enlargement is limited only by the camera's optics, the capabilities of the output device, and the client's budget. For detailed work I'll rent a Hasseblad with a digital back. For architecture I use a Kodak DCS 760 that provides an 18-meg file. For news work it's a Kodak DCS 620, which is especially good in low-light situations. There are photographic problems that I can solve with digital photography which were nearly insurmountable or extremely painstaking with film. And as for color reproduction -- if you use Colorsync in a color-managed system -- the results are outstanding. These are just my own experiences. Others may argue the point, and that's ok. But I'm getting the job done and getting wonderful results. And things haven't been this good in the 2 decades I've been in the business. I was a nut when it came to exposure and processing. Even went through the extensive process of setting up the Zone system for anything I did with Tri-X for medium and large format. But now that I've discovered what digital can do -- and that it does it darn well -- I'll never go back. Dean Sensui Base Two Productions |
So with that in mind, where’s the best place for me to pick up a 10D? I know id have to buy lenses. Which lens could I use that would give me the most basic photographic capabilities, without breaking the bank? I guess you could say "universal" or “all around” lens?
Also, to all of those out there with "Digital Darkrooms", describe the process you go through to ensure preservation of your digital files from your camera to the final output? What gives you the best results? What are some dos and donts? Ill briefly explain my process...mind you, it may not be correct, but that’s why I’m here...to learn. If you see a better way for me to do it, or tips, id be glad to give them a try... For me, I load the images (jpgs) from my camera into Photoshop. I then save a copy of the image as a tiff, and proceed to color correction and touch-ups. I also convert color modes if need be. (rgb > cmyk) Then, I open a new Photoshop document at final print size (5x7, 4x6, 8x10) and drag the tiff file onto the output document, and resize to fit. I usually like to stay about 250 dpi for output. If I took the picture at highest resolution (2560 x 1920) I can usually produce a full sized landscape 5x7 at about 300 dpi. If I need to go bigger, I just drop the dpi in the output file then drag the tiff until it fits. Let me know how you set your files up... |
<<<-- Originally posted by Dean Sensui : Here's my experience:
I started out with 35mm and eventually acquired medium format and 4x5 equipment to do commercial work. The 4x5 was especially valuable when it came to doing anything that would require substantial enlargement or critical control of perspective. Since then I've sold the Bronica and the 4x5 with the Schneider lenses. Sold the Omega D5VXL, Polaroid backs, and Minolta meters. The 4x5 system went unused for three years, as I'd replaced it with a digital workflow. No Polaroids. No film holders to load and unload. No wondering if the camera might have slipped out of adjustment at the last second or if a strobe somehow failed to fire. The test shot becomes the final working shot. That cost savings alone is huge as we'd use several Polaroids just to get the lighting exactly right for wristwatches. Also, if I was working with a graphic artist, he could bring his Quark layout and I could immediately import the images as we shot them to see if they'd work with his design. And, again, once we had something that worked, that was it. The shoot was done. The client would save hundreds of dollars in studio time and get exactly what he wanted. I did some display ads for Pearlridge shopping center -- John Garcia knows where this is :-) One of the displays is a 5x5-foot backlighted transparency sitting over the central escalators. The photo was shot with a Fuji Finepix S1 Pro SLR. I did the color corrections and then enlarged it with Genuine Fractals. The result, even when seen at arm's length, is incredibly sharp. Much sharper than it needs to be under normal viewing conditions. Another display was one for the optical shop in the mall. It ended up being 6 feet high and 2 feet wide. The face of the model was blown up until it was more than two feet high. The first print ended up being displayed at another store since it showed too much detail. You could see every single blemish and pore on her face. And that was after I did substantial touch-ups. I diffused the second print, and that's the one that went on display in the mall. Had I shot with with a medium format camera (forget using a 4x5 on a model), it would have shown grain. Even with Kodak VPS. The digital image, on the other hand, was absolutely clean and clear. With the current technology, making a wall-sized enlargement is limited only by the camera's optics, the capabilities of the output device, and the client's budget. For detailed work I'll rent a Hasseblad with a digital back. For architecture I use a Kodak DCS 760 that provides an 18-meg file. For news work it's a Kodak DCS 620, which is especially good in low-light situations. There are photographic problems that I can solve with digital photography which were nearly insurmountable or extremely painstaking with film. And as for color reproduction -- if you use Colorsync in a color-managed system -- the results are outstanding. These are just my own experiences. Others may argue the point, and that's ok. But I'm getting the job done and getting wonderful results. And things haven't been this good in the 2 decades I've been in the business. I was a nut when it came to exposure and processing. Even went through the extensive process of setting up the Zone system for anything I did with Tri-X for medium and large format. But now that I've discovered what digital can do -- and that it does it darn well -- I'll never go back. Dean Sensui Base Two Productions -->>> AMEN! lol...awesome Dean, cant wait to learn for yah...;) lol... |
B&H Photo has the lowest price going for a 10D, well, at least as low as any other low prices. Sometimes I think even this price is somewhat regulated by Canon...or a Canon dealer will lose their authorized dealer status. Anyway, the USM 35-135 lens is a workhorse and a truly outstanding lens...I'd recommend it as the most used...at least it is for me.
Another tip: Fredmiranda.com has some OUTSTANDING plugins for Photoshop, customized for the 10D...sharpen filters, highlight filters, and such that are indispensable. Many thanx to Rextillion for turning me on to this site. |
John...
I always save the original camera file in its native format. With the Kodak pro cameras it's a proprietary raw TIFF file. These can be re-acquired again if the software improves, so it always pays to keep them intact and unaltered. If the original is a JPEG, then that gets archived unaltered as well. As for working on the file, I use Photoshop's adjustment layers almost all the time. It's non-destructive and allows me to go back to make additional tweaks if necessary. For output, I can add an adjustment layer for a specific output device (if the profile isn't providing an exact result). These images also are archived as Photoshop files to preserve all the adjustment layers. Re-sizing is done on copies of that file. In general, this is called "re-purposing" in which a file has to be modified to use as a print, for an ad, for a transparency, in video, etc. I'll only convert to CMYK if it's headed for the press. If it's going to be output on my Epson 2200 then I'll let Colorsync do the conversion and also have it display a simulation on my monitor. You'll have to go to a 100 percent Colorsync workflow to do this. If I need to do an extreme enlargement with Genuine Fractals, I'll flatten the file and save it seperately. Dean Sensui Base Two Productions |
<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : The fact is that current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses so until that's solved we won't see large increases in resolution "in the coming years". -->>>
I'm obviously being thick here, but since in most cases the lenses are the same and with the top of the range Canon the focal length multiplier is 1, where's the difference in the optics between digital and 35mm? |
both formats use the same lens. since the digital CMOS is smaller than 35mm film format, there is a slight amount of magnification...i think it's 1.6x.
|
But that's my point. The CMOS of the Canon EOS 1Ds is the same size as 35mm film. Hence it's focal length multiplier is actually 1 (that is, a 20mm lens acts like a 20mm lens, not a 32mm lens.)
And also hence its price tag of a cool eight grand. |
I purchased a 10D about a month ago. I'm using the 100-400 mm and
the 16-35 mm L series lens. I like the results, but HATE canon's fileviewer software. It's really clumsy, slow and . . . well, you get the idea. SO, what I want is that plug-in for RAW images. What is it and where should I go to purchase? I have PS 7. Thanks! |
If I’m not mistaken, Photoshop 8 will be coming out in a few months or so, and will support RAW image formats. If you wait until then, instead of paying for the plug-in, you’ll have the latest version of Photoshop AND a built in plug-in. As for me, ill wait, being that I probably wont have my new camera for a couple of months. Unless someone wants to buy my current camera package, then ill have some money to put towards the 10D ;) lol...
Sony Cybershot DSC-F707 Digital still camera 2 Sony 128 MB memory sticks 3 Sony InfoLithium battery packs Sony remote control for zoom and shutter Sony External flash pack Sony Filter pack - ND Polarizing filter and clear lens protector Sony Memory Stick Adapter Sony Tripod Canon WD-58 wide angle converter 1 Tiffen 58 mm ND Circular Polarizing Filter 1 Tiffen 58 mm 6 pt star filter Ultra knit lens cleaning cloth Nylon Carrying case with strap and handle Lens cleaning kit |
Jacques, there is a plug-in for PS7 available from the Adobe site (here). It's $99.
As John stated, the plug-in is expected to be included in PS8, but I'm not sure of its expected release time. Other alternatives include Yarc+ and Breeze-something-or-other. |
Digital Photography Section?
This is another vote in favor of a digital photography section here. I have been shooting stills professionally for 18 years, now 70% of it is digital. It takes a community like this one to keep up with technology. A photography section would be a great asset.
DV Info net is the only board I monitor regularly, here is why; 1. The professional advice and attitude of its members. 2. The wealth of knowledge is amazing. 3. I work hard, I don’t have time to be randomly cruising the net trying to sort through the garbage on other sites. 4. I believe your no alias policy is a great thing, anyone can click on my web button anytime to find out more about me and I look to see who other members are. 5. As a professional, some of the work I do is exciting; the majority of it is very boring! Guys here shoot because they are passionate about it, I come here because that passion is infectious and reenergizes me. Many of the non-professionals here have a technical understanding of things far beyond mine, I need their help. I know of no digital photography site that can match this community, although I don’t look at a lot of them anymore, too discouraging. Steve P.S. Buy the 10D – you wont be disappointed. |
I just bought the Photoshop 7 RAW file plugin and it won't work for the 10D. It's not on the list of supported cameras. I'm sure this will get updated at the next rev but Adobe's customer support couldn't tell me when that would be. I'm in the process of evaluating IMatch from www.photools.com.
|
hmm, thats interesting, because I could swear that someone posted that the plug-in works with the 10D... :-/ hmm...dont tell me ill have to wait for a compatible plug in...
|
<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : The resolution and image quality of the prints rival what I previously made with medium format. Plain and simple. -->>>
Jeff's now changing his story. Before it was the 10D that rivaled medium format. Now it's his smallish prints. I stand by original comment then. My 1MP Casio rivals medium format for 3x5 prints. Woopdedoo. |
<<<-- Originally posted by John Garcia : hmm, thats interesting, because I could swear that someone posted that the plug-in works with the 10D... :-/ hmm...dont tell me ill have to wait for a compatible plug in... -->>>
There are patches for RAW converters that work with the D60 to enable then to support the 10D. I'm not a Canon owner, but my understanding is that D60 owners like BreezeBrowser and CaptureOne. I use Adobe Camera Raw and like it a great deal. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Nigel Moore : <<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : The fact is that current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses so until that's solved we won't see large increases in resolution "in the coming years". -->>>
I'm obviously being thick here, but since in most cases the lenses are the same and with the top of the range Canon the focal length multiplier is 1, where's the difference in the optics between digital and 35mm? -->>> Yes, the lenses we are talking about are the same lenses that 35mm film cameras use. These lenses have their resolution limits and, believe it or not, the performance of today's digital SLR's push their resolving power. You can get more overall resulution by using a full frame imager, like the 1Ds and 14n, but they are expensive and come with their own problems. If you read the test quoted earlier in the thread, you see that the results indicate that the overall performance is dictated by the lens. Cropped sensor cameras did worse than 35mm, full frame matched it and medium format exceeded it. This is because the optics are "in the way" and is a testament to the supurb performance of today's films and digital SLR's. The Kodak 14n has been reported to have overall resolution exceeding all but the finest 35mm film. The 1Ds matches it according to reputable reviewers. Noise performance and lack of grain are superior to film for all digital SLR's and help their images blow up to larger than ideal sizes. Even though these digital SLR's share the same lenses with their film counterparts, the lenses don't perform the same. Digital imagers are actually a stack composed of an anti-alias filter (except 14n), a color filter, a microlens array, and the imager itself. This stackup causes optical problems not anticipated originally by lens designers and is one of the motivations behind the cropping factors of most dSLR's. Nikon started producing "digital optimized" lenses with the D1 and has now shipped its first "DX" series lens specifically made for digital. Canon, on the other hand, is pursuing full frame sensors and has had some quality issues relating to lens interoperability. Kodak has also suffered great problems. Olympus is taking a new tack with the development of an entirely new system specifically designed for digital (E-1, 4/3 system). You may wish to read up on the unique challenges of digital. The short version is that digital likes its light striking the imager orthogonal to the surface and today's film lenses don't do that. The area digital SLR's need to improve is not actually resolution but dynamic range. Look at Fuji's developments in CCD's to see where that manufacturer is headed. Olympus, likewise, is trying to improve dynamic range in its 4/3 system. Foveon is taking a different tack with its full color imaging sensor. So far they remain the underdog but time will tell. On the resolution front, manufacturers will make progress by improving the sensors (more MP) and improving geometry. Expect resolution gains to be modest compared to the past. |
There are patches to use the Canon 10D with Adobe RAW. They were posted on fredmiranda .com. If the instructions on how to patch it can't be found there do a search on Google, looking for the cached version. Any needing help with the Mac version email me and I'll try to help.
In my experience, slide film has a dynamic range of about 5 to 6 stops. In very controlled studio situations I've been able to get maybe 7 or a little higher. Color negative film usually allows me at least 8 stops of dynamic range. I find digital to be very similar to slide film in both it's exposure characteristics and dynamic range. Digital cameras like the D60 and 10D have on average 5 to 6 stops of dynamic range. Through the use of Photoshop, this can be expanded in the shadow areas. Tremendous detail can generally be pulled from the shadows. However, like slide film (and DV) it is important not to blowout the highlights. Once the highlights are gone, very little can be done to recover any lost detail. This is basically true of slide film, where a 1/2 stop of over exposure and all detail is lost. |
Yes, I just found the directions on how to modify the Adobe CameraRaw Plugin for the 10D and it works. The only problem is that you get erroneous color mapping since the mod uses the D60 mapping. It's not a problem, tho', because you can see the preview window to see what the sliders are doing. For directions on how to modify, go to:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1019 and do a search for EOS 10D. After you page thru a few threads, you'll find the right patch. |
So when do we get a digital camera forum?
|
<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : the lenses we are talking about are the same lenses that 35mm film cameras use. These lenses have their resolution limits and, believe it or not, the performance of today's digital SLR's push their resolving power. -->>>
So I think what you meant , Craig, when you stated earlier that "current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses", is not that they're limited in comparison to 35mm which uses the same lenes, but that they're limited in what they could technically achieve. If this is the case, then you're earlier comment is no longer the contradiction that I thought it was and which confused me. Thanks for clarifying. |
Dylan -- I'm currently entrenched in NYC for a couple of trade shows; new forum in a day or two hopefully.
|
I just received an email from a developer of tools for RAW image processing. His statement is that Canon is late delivering the SDK for the 10D, and hence, all the problems with supporting software. He also made the point that Canon may drop the RAW format at a future date. There seems to be 50 gazillion different implementations of RAW(even within the canon digital line of products), non of them cross compatible....*sigh*...how utterly typical of this business...no damn standards!!
|
<<<-- Originally posted by Nigel Moore : So I think what you meant , Craig, when you stated earlier that "current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses", is not that they're limited in comparison to 35mm which uses the same lenes, but that they're limited in what they could technically achieve.
If this is the case, then you're earlier comment is no longer the contradiction that I thought it was and which confused me. Thanks for clarifying. -->>> That's right. |
Bill,
What do you mean no standards? There are thousands of 'em! ;) |
Maybe I missed it but this comparison of the 10D and film it was mentioned comparing prints. How were these prints made?
If you're talking about comparing the 10D and a film negative printed on an Epson printer (or other), then you're not making a proper comparison because you're downgrading the film negative to the abilities of the printer. If you take a medium format negative and make a proper paper print in a dark room, then make a digital transfer and everything required to make a dark room print on paper, the digital print will be god awful in comparison. But if you download the digital file into a computer and use an inkjet to print it, then scan the film negative into the computer and inkjet print it, you won't be able to tell much difference. Film runs circles around digital. Remember digital circuits are made using film lithography. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Dylan -- I'm currently entrenched in NYC for a couple of trade shows; new forum in a day or two hopefully. -->>>
awesome, i cant wait. I have alot of questions! :) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:53 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network