Lee Jones wrote:
>>
>> Much better results are achieved by using the raw mode (Canon: CRx;
>> Nikon: NEF) of higher end cameras where the actual photosite readings
>> are kept as 14 to 16 bit values  and the conversion is done later in
>> a higher end computer where you can see the resuls of your adjustments
>> and tweak them to get what you previsualized (i.e. with Photoshop or
>> equivalent).

> Yes, that would definitely be better.  I haven't used a high end
> digital camera yet and wasn't aware this was a option.  I expect
> the image files are much larger in raw mode?

Rule og thumb, they are the same size as the sensor resolution;
e.g. 12 megapixel EOS 5D creates 12 megabyte .CR2 image files.

> Still, with the price of 10s of Gbytes little with respect to a
> high end camera, this doesn't sound like a problem.

Biggest issue is when traveling.  You need to carry enough memory
card to see you through the day (or multiple days) until you can
upload to your laptop & external disk drive (image on 2 seperate
devices before erasing card).

> As long as the companies publish the raw mode image file format
> spec, this would definitely be how I'd use such a camera.

They don't but Adobe has published their Digital Negative (DNG)
file format and is pushing for it to be an industry standard.
Some camera manufacturers write raw images as DNG files directly
in the camera.  Nikon & Canon have their proprietary formats but
you use Photoshop to convert to DNG before archiving.

Lee Jones wrote:
>> Scanned film picks up all 3 colors at each pixel location.  So it
>> takes roughly 2-3 times the resolution of a digital sensor to match
>> the _color_ capture capability of 35mm film -- my opinion is that
>> 20'ish megapixel digital finally beats 35mm film.

> Only sortof.  Film does record all three colors everywhere, but if
> you look at a scan of film at 100 pixels/mm you will see noticeable
> grain.  If you use finer grain film you decrease the sensitivity.

You betcha.  Nikon film scanners all went to 4000 PPI resolution
(over 157 pixels per millimeter).  I think there was a better sweet
spot when they scanned at 2700 PPI.

> It seems to me that the output of Nikon's 12Mpix sensor will be
> higher quality than a 100 pixel/mm scan of a normal film.  In
> other words in film terms, the 12Mpix sensor has better
> speed/grain tradeoff than ordinary film.

I've been using EOS 5D with 12 megapixel sensor for over 2 years
now (and stopped using 35mm film (but not all film)).  Resolution
is better but scanned film has a slightly richer color fidelity.

I think 12 megapixel digital and 35mm film are _really_ close.

By the way, enough people like film's "look" that there are
products that add grain & color cast to make your digital
images look like specific types & speeds of film.

						Lee Jones

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist