M8 + Nocti Pics :)

[ywenz]

The magic is in the lenses...😀

Let's just hope that as the picture gets clearer that the M8 is true to maintaining lens fingerprint.

Yes, that would be the advantage of M8 definitely.

 

[edodo]

obvious, the 1 is digital, cause the sun reflects on the spoon are burnt and highlights are poor

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Looks just like any other Digicam.

Alas the knee reaction is inevitable.

Could you post some pics from a digicam that look like this?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Or are you just bad M8 picture bullies 🙂

Bullies don't have it in them to praise anything that threatens them. 😉

 

[jaapv]

ywenz, have a look at the m8 images thread and tell me if that is plasticky..(especially the 100% crop)

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

well then, I'd like to know which of these is digital.

cup 1 is the white one

cup 2 is the brown one

Uh-oh, we're off to a bad start: "brown"? It looks brick red to me.

Besides, it's a trick question: they're both digital. They're both showing as JPEGs on my browser. 😛

If you mean which one was originally taken on film, well, so much gets filtered, the scanning, the processing, the colorspace, the contrast, to the point that the qualities of film can get lost and what we have is indeed a digital rehash of what could have been a film print.

That said, the highlights are the only thing that seem to be different here, so by that alone, I say cup 1 is "digital", and cup 2 is "film". As it were.

 

[Roger Willco]

Cups

Cups

Everyone has a 50/50 chance of being correct. My guess is that 1 is film and 2 is digital.

A better comparison would be digital/film shots of the same subject and the same lighting.

Even better would be to post five pairs of digital/film shots, and see who gets all the answers correct.

Rog

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Word "Look" means tonality texture and light, also it means bokeh, but bokeh is secondary, because if you mount f/1 lens on any camera on earth will give you bokeh, you want it or not 🙂

If you drink beer it will give you a buzz, whether you want it or not.

Whether the buzz comes with a palatable taste, I guess only those with a palate can taste the difference.

 

[Honus]

I love lens tests. I usually fail them miserably, but enjoy them nonetheless.

Certainly #1 has blown highlights, but it's also easy to do shooting transparencies. I believe I detect some noise in the spoon of #2, so I will guess that it is the digital file. Nice shots, btw.

What I would really like to see would be for ywenz to produce a 'digicam' shot that looks like the M8/Nocti. I won't hold my breath.

 

[ywenz]

What I would really like to see would be for ywenz to produce a 'digicam' shot that looks like the M8/Nocti. I won't hold my breath.

What do you mean? You want me to find a shot that has the similar f1.0 bokeh and the purple fringe? Or another shot from a DSLR that has the same plastic look? It sholdn't require too much work I suppose. Just do a search on flickr.com.

I'm watching mah Tigers on tv right now. Maybe I'll look for it later if I remember or care to...

 

[devils-advocate]

well then, I'd like to know which of these is digital.

cup 1 is the white one

cup 2 is the brown one

let me know if cup 1 is digital or cup 2


OK, you got me. If you told me that one if film and one is digital, I would guess that cup 1 is digital capture and cup 2 is film. But in truth, I have no idea.


In colour, with truly fine, low ISO, shots, ***properly and expertly** post processed, one can only tell digital from film because of grain and dust. In my experience, it is only with black and white images, and only those in which the visual texture of film is palpable, that the difference is visible. Most of the time, the digital 'look' is a consequence of incompetent or intentional post-processing choises.

Isn't it ironic that one of the hardest things in digital image capture is the emulation of film?

 

[Trius]

FWIW, I think Cup 1 is the film original.

On the topic of the Nocti/M8 shots here, I like the second set of un-processed originals better. That said, I'm not thrilled with two things: the bokeh doesn't do anything for me, and the cropped FOV for the 50 in these shots leave me cold.

I conclude nothing from these shots.

 

[danielnorton]

I'll play 🙂 cup 1 seems digital to me as well, which probably means 2 is since you are trying to prove a point :angel:

 

[SteveM(PA)]

I'll play 🙂 cup 1 seems digital to me as well, which probably means 2 is since you are trying to prove a point :angel:

Aw crap, now I have to go and quote Sarah Michelle Gellar from "The Scooby Doo Movie." It always comes back to this... 🙂

Voodoo Maestro: Whatever you do don't go into that spooky island castle
[points to castle]
Daphne: AH-HA you want me to go into that castle
Voodoo Maestro: didn't you hear what I just said?
Daphne: But you're scary and you knew I'd do the opposite of what you said so you told me not to go up to that castle so i would go up to that castle where you've set a trap to capture me
Daphne: [thinks for a second] unless... unless you knew I'd figure it out so you told me not to go up to that castle so I would think that you wanted me to go so I wouldn't go just like you didn't want me to... I'll find out what you're hiding in that castle you'll see
[daphne walks away]
Voodoo Maestro: [to himself] what in the world

 

[wooch]

How about both of the pictures are digital?

 

[truando]

A better comparison would be digital/film shots of the same subject and the same lighting.
Rog

well in real life you don't see comparison photos, do you? The question is: do you recognize a picture as digital when you see it. BTW - I love analog, I am not trying to prove anything and I am not biased.

If you mean which one was originally taken on film, well, so much gets filtered, the scanning, the processing, the colorspace, the contrast, to the point that the qualities of film can get lost and what we have is indeed a digital rehash of what could have been a film print.

These pictures are not altered in any way. One is a jpeg right off the camera the other is a scanned positive. Besides, working in the darkroom is as much filtering, colorspace, processing and contrast altering as in PS.

This got me started with this little test, anyway:

Images taken on film by a shaky hand and under flourescent lighting, scanned and saved to JPEG at medium quality still looks like film on the computer screen.

so - more answers please, it's interesting even if it's not scientific.

 

[Jim Watts]

1 is digital.

 

[Eelco Amsterdam]

1 is digital

1 is digital

1 is digital

 

[Artichoke]

my guess

my guess

well then, I'd like to know which of these is digital.

cup 1 is the white one

cup 2 is the brown one

let me know if cup 1 is digital or cup 2
snip
quote]
1 is digital
the differences aren't all that great
nice comparison

 

[truando]

OK folks

Cup 1 is a Canon EOS 1Ds file taken in jpeg and not altered in any way, bright sunlight

Cup 2 is taken with a Linhof Technika IV 4x5 inch camera on Fuji Provia 100F, tungsten light, with a 80B color correcting filter. This file has also not been altered.