Новый аргумент

[birdwatcher]

Некоторое время казалось, что 35 мм пленка вымрет, причем люди, интересующиеся техническим качеством, будут снимать по крайней мере 6x4.5, а все остальное - цифру; Роквелл впервые указывает на механизм, почему этого не произойдет: I never would have considered shooting serious work on a format as piddly as 35mm film, but after most people, including myself, had lowered their standards to accept what we've been getting from digital SLRs as good enough, 35mm looks really good by comparison.

Comments

[filin.livejournal.com]

Ничего-ничего, еще пара итераций - и все со всем сойдется.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Это не итерации со сходимостью, потому что другая часть (химическая пленка и ее сканирование) тоже все время улучшаются. Так сорок лет подряд говорили, что ленточные бэкапы умрут, когда плотность записи на диск станет достаточно большой -- но плотность записи на ленту росла с как раз требуемой для паритета скоростью.

[dyak.livejournal.com]

Сканирование в смысле оцифровка?

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

В смысле, когда отдаешь пленку проявляться, то из лаборатории получаешь ее вместе с CD, на которым лежат файлы-кадры.

[dyak.livejournal.com]

То есть цепочка объектив->пленка->цифровалка->файл может дать лучший результат, чем объектив->цифровалка->файл?

PS Я человек в фотографии невежественный

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

У промышленной цифровалки в лаборатории результат будет лучше по многим параметрам, да, плюс неограниченные возможности по пересканированию в будущем по мере дальнейшего прогресса в сканировании. См. Film: the real raw (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm) того же автора.

[averros.livejournal.com]

The only problem with his argument that the modern generation of DSLRs is objectively better than 35mm by any parameter one would care to measure. Better sensitivity for the same noise (ahem, grain), better resolution (esp. with in-camera digital lens aberration correction), better defect rate (remember all these scratches?), better gamut, better dynamic range (with RAW), much better workflow. (Try shooting 4000 frames during a dance performance on 35mm, heh).

Frankly, if I you can shoot at ISO 800 without visible grain/noise and with resolution being visibly limited by L-series Canon lenses on 35mm film, I'd like to hear how you managed to do that. Canon 50D does that - heck, I had to upgrade from normal 50mm prime (f/1.4 USM) to L-series prime (f/1.2L) because it became painfully obvious that the cheaper one is not up to the body performance.

I'd take much of what Ken Rockwell writes about technology with a lot of salt - most of it is just grousing about the influx of amateurs who can do just as well as many pros. (I with him, though, on his sentiment that equipment won't help if you are a bad photographer).

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Для фотографирования птиц я предпочитаю цифровые камеры. Но это патологический случай. Все остальные сюжеты совершенно незачем снимать на ISO800.

[averros.livejournal.com]

I tend to shoot in poor lighting conditions, hand-held. Sensitivity, shake reduction, and fast lens basically make difference between a passable image and no image at all.

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

Последние-то два живут в объективе. Чувствительность - да. Но мне легче поверить в появление незернистой чувствительной пленки, чем в дешевый и неустаревающий большой сенсор.

[averros.livejournal.com]

Well, this a good argument (film gets better but you keep the body) - but both films and sensors are close to fundamental limits (diffraction and quantum noise) - and digital cameras are getting better mostly because of better processors and algorithms.

In fact, eyes (which still have much better IQ than any cameras) are quite poor optically and electrically (the bandwidth of optic nerve is about 100Kbps:) The quality is achieved by better interpolation and filling in missing information, and by combining results from many shifted "frames" (facilitated by nystagmus).

The new digital processors already can handle photo-quality images at full-motion video rate (5D Mk II), so it's only a short step from the point when shake will actually improve images, and when digicams will start routinely producing images which are "physically impossible" - i.e. impossible with film.

Also, take a look at that: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/november9/camera-110205.html This is an example of a technique simply impossible with film (although film from a plenoptic camera can be digitized, software can't do a good job recovering light field because of imprecise registration between microlenses and scanned pixels).

[birdwatcher.livejournal.com]

ужос кокой

...more on K.R....

[averros.livejournal.com]

Quote from K.R.:

Film never needs sharpening because it's always sharp.

Yeah. Right-o. A sensor is also always sharp. It's lenses and human eyes which aren't (unsharp masking works by tricking retina into sharper edge detection than it normally does). Sharpening is actually a common film lab technique... but I guess maestros never do lab work themselves.

This quote says pretty much everything about his bias.