Film vs. digital cameras

Re: Film vs. digital cameras

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
> "Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family,com .invalid> wrote in message
> news:bob-6D8882.15432724052007@news.verizon,net ...
>> In article <465116AF.4050902@qwest,net >,
>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest,net >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Peirce wrote:
>>>
>>>> Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
>>>> slides.
>>> I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
>>> I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
>>>
>>> http :// www .clarkvision,com /photoinfo/large mosaics
>> Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
>> panoramas together.
>>
>> --
>> Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
>> bob AT peirce-family,com [Mac]
>> rbp AT cooksonpeirce,com [Office]
>>
>
>
> Impressive indeed. From time to time one finds a jewel amongst all the NG
> noise. Off to research Panoramic tripod heads, great, more gear to spend
> $$ on.
>
> Patrick Ziegler
> www .imagequest.ifp3,com
>
>
To potentially save some $$, then consider whether just positional
accuracy (ie rotating the camera around the entrance pupil of the lens),
or whether you need stability to prevent camera shake for longer
exposures as well as positional accuracy.
Something like the panosaurus head (google for it online) is quite
inexpensive, or it's not so hard to make your own.
Something to provide good stability as well, will be expensive and may
not be what you really need.

Re: Film vs. digital cameras

On May 24, 9:43 am, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family,com .invalid>
wrote:
> In article <465116AF.4050...@qwest,net >,
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest,net >
>
> wrote:
> > Robert Peirce wrote:
>
> > > Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
> > > slides.
>
> > I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
> > I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
>
> > http :// www .clarkvision,com /photoinfo/large mosaics
>
> Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
> panoramas together.

I would say more that the program you are using has trouble stitching
panoramas together,
no so much you. You might give PTGui a try, you can down load a free
trial version, I find this
program works very well.

A good panoramic head also does wonders.

It is more a matter of the right gear and software rather then a
matter of skill.

Scott

Re: Film vs. digital cameras

On May 24, 8:43 pm, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family,com .invalid>
wrote:
> In article <465116AF.4050...@qwest,net >,
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest,net >
>
> wrote:
> > Robert Peirce wrote:
>
> > > Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
> > > slides.
>
> > I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
> > I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
>
> > http :// www .clarkvision,com /photoinfo/large mosaics
>
> Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
> panoramas together.

My Canon A70 came with PhotoSttich software which does an excellent
job of stitching panoramas. Got 2nd with a print at the camera club
I'd made with it & the judge couldn't tell - when he found out what
the origins were he said he'd have given it 1st if he'd known, in
effect the software did too good a job! The originals were hand-held.

Suspect PhotoStitch comes with most Canon cameras - if panoramas are
something you are keen on, you could consider buying an old Canon on
ebay for the software! Of course check first that model comes with it
and the one you are buying comes with the original CDs.... :)

Re: Film vs. digital cameras

On May 20, 8:30 pm, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family,com .invalid>
wrote:

>
> I don't think digital is up to the range of 35mm film yet. However, I
> much prefer digital over negative film for color work. I could never
> quite get color to come out right from film, but digital seems to do it
> with no problem. OTOH, B&W still seems to be better on film (although
> digital is catching up fast) and 4x5 color slides are quite remarkable.
> Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
> slides.
>

I think it IS up to medium or high speed color neg film, but not up to
slow transparency or slow B & W film yet. A good 8 to 10 Mp camera
has about the same resolution as the color films, and most all have
good dynamic range.

Re: Film vs. digital cameras

On May 21, 2:29 pm, Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily,net >
wrote:
> On May 20, 8:30 pm, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family,com .invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't think digital is up to the range of 35mm film yet. However, I
> > much prefer digital over negative film for color work. I could never
> > quite get color to come out right from film, but digital seems to do it
> > with no problem. OTOH, B&W still seems to be better on film (although
> > digital is catching up fast) and 4x5 color slides are quite remarkable.
> > Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
> > slides.
>
> I think it IS up to medium or high speed color neg film, but not up to
> slow transparency or slow B & W film yet. A good 8 to 10 Mp camera
> has about the same resolution as the color films, and most all have
> good dynamic range.

I scan Fujichrome in a Nikon scanner at 2,000dpi as I get quite good
enough results at that resolution. However the scanner will scan at
4,000dpi - since a 35mm negative or slide is (approx) 1" x 1.5", that
gives a 24mega-pixel file with the grain beautifully resolved.... I
can crop away at that kind of image and still be able to produce a
good A3 print. However I'm sorely tempted by one of the new Pentax D-
SLRs as it's on offer for £300....