pab
Established
Folks
I have recently been using my R-D1 for the majority of my picture taking. I've been doing some (very unscientific) comparisons with 35mm film images of similar subjects scanned on a Nikon 8000 scanner. When printing on an Epson PS 2100 at say 7 X 5 inches my sense is that the R-D1 images are comparable to the film ones but tend to have more apparent detail in the deep shadows. If I print up to A3 however, I have a sense that the films images are sharper with nicer tonal gradients and more detail in the midtones and highlights. As I say, my comparisons have been very unscientific so far but I was wondering what other peoples experience has been.
PB
I have recently been using my R-D1 for the majority of my picture taking. I've been doing some (very unscientific) comparisons with 35mm film images of similar subjects scanned on a Nikon 8000 scanner. When printing on an Epson PS 2100 at say 7 X 5 inches my sense is that the R-D1 images are comparable to the film ones but tend to have more apparent detail in the deep shadows. If I print up to A3 however, I have a sense that the films images are sharper with nicer tonal gradients and more detail in the midtones and highlights. As I say, my comparisons have been very unscientific so far but I was wondering what other peoples experience has been.
PB
pab
Established
p.s. I've been using Fuji Provia 100F transparency film mostly
PB
PB
Erl
Established
Given time, (Idon't know how much! 
), I will be doing some comparisons myself. As I have my own B/W and Colur processing facilities, to at least 16"x20", it should be interesting.
I will report back, in time. Meanwhile, I have 'real' work to do, like paying bills. :bang:
), I will be doing some comparisons myself. As I have my own B/W and Colur processing facilities, to at least 16"x20", it should be interesting.I will report back, in time. Meanwhile, I have 'real' work to do, like paying bills. :bang:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I don't think that with this type of "test" you're really measuring R-D 1 image quality vs. film image quality.
What you're measuring are the differences between a 6-megapixel captured image and various sizes of scanned images.
Since the scanned images go through an extra step of analog-to-digital conversion, it's no surprise that they will appear of lower quality at enlargement sizes at which a 6-megapixel image supplies adequate data (crude rule of thumb is that you need 240-300 pixels per inch for "photo quality," depending on your output device.)
Once you get beyond this threshold, though, the extra data in the scanned image will start to override the conversion advantage of the captured image. To oversimplify only slightly, the captured image will still be producing cleaner pixels -- but with fewer of them in the image, the pixels themselves will become more and more apparent the larger you go.
Still, this is always an interesting exercise to go through, so you'll know which of your equipment options is best when you want to produce high-quality images for various purposes. I suppose I really ought to run through it again myself... good winter project!
What you're measuring are the differences between a 6-megapixel captured image and various sizes of scanned images.
Since the scanned images go through an extra step of analog-to-digital conversion, it's no surprise that they will appear of lower quality at enlargement sizes at which a 6-megapixel image supplies adequate data (crude rule of thumb is that you need 240-300 pixels per inch for "photo quality," depending on your output device.)
Once you get beyond this threshold, though, the extra data in the scanned image will start to override the conversion advantage of the captured image. To oversimplify only slightly, the captured image will still be producing cleaner pixels -- but with fewer of them in the image, the pixels themselves will become more and more apparent the larger you go.
Still, this is always an interesting exercise to go through, so you'll know which of your equipment options is best when you want to produce high-quality images for various purposes. I suppose I really ought to run through it again myself... good winter project!
pab
Established
Yes, that was sort of my explanation to myself for what I was seeing. At A3 I am right at the pixel limit for 6 MP. The purpose of the exrecise is really to figure out what my equipment is capable of at different print sizes. There's no question in my mind so far that the R-D1 image quality is outstanding for A4 and smaller.