daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
CAMBRON
May 19, 2014 8:28:57 GMT -5
Post by daveh on May 19, 2014 8:28:57 GMT -5
Just passing through again, and just a quick comment.
I've scanned low ASA film and there is more in there that the scanner can reproduce. I think the thing is that digital is relatively new: 20 years or thereabouts. Film is 150 years old, so who knows where digital will be by the middle of the next century.
Digital has a restriction different to that of film - that is the camera is in effect the film in digital, while in analogue the two are entirely separate. Thus, the restriction is in the camera. The pixel question is muddied, though, with the ability to stitch together each image. In that sense there is no limit to the number of pixels available to a digital camera.
The big question always is "how much quality is actually needed?" In truth 6 megapixels is more than enough for most.
Testing: it has always struck me that many, or perhaps most (all?), magazines tests gave nothing more than an indication.
What is also true is that, for the average person, photographs are much better since digital has come in. I think it's particularly true for "cine", particularly with the relatively easy sound recording and its synchronisation.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
CAMBRON
May 19, 2014 12:00:44 GMT -5
Post by Stephen on May 19, 2014 12:00:44 GMT -5
It looks like the situation may be dealt with by Leica research, reported to be working on physically moving the full frame target to three positions during the exposure, trebling the digital information for the camera software to assemble the image from. Fuji also tried a cluster pixel system that vibrated during the exposure to a similar effect, but it required a level of computing power and speed to do it that cameras do not yet have.
What annoys me is that they do have the computing power to remove all chromatic aberrations, colour fringing and also lens distortion, but are not fitting it to all models, yet they waste time on face recognition, and building phones into cameras.
Stephen.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
CAMBRON
May 19, 2014 14:13:06 GMT -5
Post by daveh on May 19, 2014 14:13:06 GMT -5
Film, of course, basically holds all the information within the frame. A photo of a white wall takes up exactly the same space as the most complicated scene. Digital frames differ from frame to frame. A blank white frame will use considerably less storage space than a view of, say, a busy town street.
Here, now, I am confronted with the limitation of the way this forum is set up. I can only refer "on this page" to my last post and that of Stephen, whereas I want to refer to an earlier post from Stephen's and one from Phil.
Higher end camcorders have for some time used the three CCD system for splitting up the colours. This does seem to improve the final result but I've never seen any proper detailed research on this, just typical advertising blurb (not that I've done a thorough research of the available information).
The conclusion I constantly come up with is that no one really wants to tell us all the facts as that would destroy all the mystique.
This sort of thing annoys me too. I suppose the trouble is "face recognition" is a better advertising slogan than "removes lens problems". The latter also implies that the lens isn't really that good, so would be giving something of a negative image.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
CAMBRON
May 19, 2014 14:26:58 GMT -5
Post by daveh on May 19, 2014 14:26:58 GMT -5
It doesn't fully contradict the earlier post: it merely points out that the occasional good-un can slip through a bad batch (and of course vice versa is possible).
As regards the lensed adapters, I presume some are better than others. Whether the cost of the item is the ultimate decider is open to debate.
Phil, whatever else, that's an excellent photo.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
CAMBRON
May 19, 2014 15:37:44 GMT -5
Post by Stephen on May 19, 2014 15:37:44 GMT -5
The Micro 4/3 adapters, for instance, are just as good on the cheap ones as expensive, within the limits that less masking is done, aluminium instead of chromed brass or nickel on the flanges, more plastic, and where electrical connections are made, may be poorer sealing etc., but amazingly the actual contacts all come from the same makers. But then how often are they used? Wear and tear is quite minimal.
The "German" branded ones are made in the far east anyway, but probably have stricter quality control. One or two brand are superior, but at a cost.
Convertors with lenses are always in the superior price area as well, not so common on Micro 4/3 but Canon mount needs some I believe.
I have re-sprayed the interior of the converter tubes with dead matt black or my more widely used Leica screw and M42 to micro 4/3 adapters.
I was pleasantly surprised that the extension tubes for micro 4/3 were as good when cheap as the more expensive versions. A Hong Kong sourced one is excellent, and about £5.....
Stephen.
|
|
|
CAMBRON
May 19, 2014 16:23:44 GMT -5
Post by philbirch on May 19, 2014 16:23:44 GMT -5
This has been an interesting topic and I've learned a lot about lens testing! And how film is different to sensors but written in non-technical language. Thanks Stephen. To reply to Dave, thanks for the compliment on the photo. I have a couple of adapters allowing me to use Rokkors on my Nikon and of course one for M42 lenses too. The lens appears to be fairly standard amongst the different brands. Expensive ones exist from Canon and Minolta allowing them to use older lenses on new AF bodies. But I understand they are not much better and over ten times the cost. The general consensus of opinion is avoid them but I love my Rokkors and its great to use them on a DSLR - with limitations. Anyway back to the original topic - in a manner of speaking. I did a test of the Helios 44-M on my D3200 using a lensed adapters. The building is my favourite test subject. Camera on a tripod and manually focused. The first image is a full frame and the other two are 100% crops. The adaptors are good enough for me as is the lens. At full aperture Just two stops down
|
|