Prev: help: Panasonic Scanner: RTIV bundled software
Next: Canon scanner problem
From: Raphael Bustin on 18 Jul 2007 01:12
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:09:46 -0400, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote:

>I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
>a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
>inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either film photography or film
>scanning, but in my view film scanning (and I have a Nikon film scanner)
>is for conversion of shots that were originally shot and planned to be
>used in a "film mode". I think that the ideal of shooting film and
>PLANNING to then scan to digital is a mistake. If you KNOW that you
>will want digital images, shoot digital. Conversion (in either
>direction) is for unexpected situations, or archiving film media to
>digital. It shouldn't be a process that is planned for every single
>shot (or even the majority of shots), if that's the case, just shoot
>digital to begin with.


If by "film" you mean 35 mm, then I quite agree. Given the
current state of digital cameras, there's almost no reason at
all to shoot 35 mm film. The market reflects this.

OTOH if you're talking MF, it's a close call, particularly for
anyone who's already got the gear. (And used MF gear
can be had for cheap these days.)

When you get to 4x5 film or larger, digital can't compete,
unless you've got a money tree in the back yard.

A $500 4x5 kit plus an Epson 4990 scanner will blow away
any direct-digital capture for under $10K or $20K.

Now back to the MF case, you basically have to choose
between a $2000 scanner (eg. Nikon LS-9000) and a
$2500 "full-frame" digital camera body (eg. Canon 5D.)

A fellow named Shayok Mukhopadhyay did an excellent
comparison along these lines, posted here:

<http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/>


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Talker on 18 Jul 2007 20:10
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:42:37 +0100, John <batm(a)bile.com> wrote:

>
>Digital is not the best format for some types of photography.
>Landscape photography is one. Astrophotography is another.

>John
>

Sorry John, but for astrophotography, digital is by far the best
way to shoot. Digital cameras like the Starlight Express are 100
times more sensitive to light than are film cameras. CCD sensors can
also be used to help accurately track the object being photographed.
Using a digital camera for astrophotography does present problems
like noise being generated by the CCD sensor, but they resolved that
problem by incorporating a built in cooling system to keep the sensor
cool during long exposures.

Talker
From: John on 19 Jul 2007 16:37
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:10:16 -0500, Talker <Talker(a)thegood.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:42:37 +0100, John <batm(a)bile.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Digital is not the best format for some types of photography.
>>Landscape photography is one. Astrophotography is another.
>
>>John
>>
>
> Sorry John, but for astrophotography, digital is by far the best
>way to shoot. Digital cameras like the Starlight Express are 100
>times more sensitive to light than are film cameras. CCD sensors can
>also be used to help accurately track the object being photographed.
> Using a digital camera for astrophotography does present problems
>like noise being generated by the CCD sensor, but they resolved that
>problem by incorporating a built in cooling system to keep the sensor
>cool during long exposures.

Only if you have megabucks to afford such a digital camera ;) The ones
with built in cooling how much are they going to set you back? Perhaps
for the World's exclusive astronomers who have the funding to afford
them?

John


From: Talker on 19 Jul 2007 21:56
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:37:51 +0100, John <batm(a)bile.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:10:16 -0500, Talker <Talker(a)thegood.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:42:37 +0100, John <batm(a)bile.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Digital is not the best format for some types of photography.
>>>Landscape photography is one. Astrophotography is another.
>>
>>>John
>>>
>>
>> Sorry John, but for astrophotography, digital is by far the best
>>way to shoot. Digital cameras like the Starlight Express are 100
>>times more sensitive to light than are film cameras. CCD sensors can
>>also be used to help accurately track the object being photographed.
>> Using a digital camera for astrophotography does present problems
>>like noise being generated by the CCD sensor, but they resolved that
>>problem by incorporating a built in cooling system to keep the sensor
>>cool during long exposures.
>
>Only if you have megabucks to afford such a digital camera ;) The ones
>with built in cooling how much are they going to set you back? Perhaps
>for the World's exclusive astronomers who have the funding to afford
>them?
>
>John
>

Yes, they are expensive. I bought my Starlight Express several
years ago, and I got it on sale for $1,800.(then you need a telescope
to mount it on). Keep in mind that they are black and white cameras,
since you can't take accurate color pictures through our atmosphere.
My camera is only a 1 megapixel model. The 6 mexgapixal cameras are
around $6,000....a little out of my budget.<g>
Oh, if you're wondering how they take color pictures with a black
and white camera, they use a color wheel to generate color. The only
true color pictures of outer space come from the Hubble telescope, or
any camera that was outside of our atmosphere when it took the
pictures.

Talker
From: John on 30 Jul 2007 18:04

> Yes, they are expensive. I bought my Starlight Express several
>years ago, and I got it on sale for $1,800.(then you need a telescope
>to mount it on). Keep in mind that they are black and white cameras,
>since you can't take accurate color pictures through our atmosphere.
>My camera is only a 1 megapixel model. The 6 mexgapixal cameras are
>around $6,000....a little out of my budget.<g>
> Oh, if you're wondering how they take color pictures with a black
>and white camera, they use a color wheel to generate color. The only
>true color pictures of outer space come from the Hubble telescope, or
>any camera that was outside of our atmosphere when it took the
>pictures.
>
>Talker

For most amateur astronomers then I think 35mm or preferably medium
format film is still going to be your best bet because you will be
able to pick them up cheap, they won't drain batteries as you will be
able to get a full manual control camera. $1800 is an awful lot to
spend on a camera you would have to be into it in a big way.

For people that can afford this type of digital camera with cooling
then go for it, I would.

But if it is a straight decision bang for buck wise between regular
digital camera and film cameras, for the amateur astronomer you would
still pick film every time. Less hassle and less expense, and less
faffing around stacking your 1 minute exposures on top of each other
in software. Incidentally, would you not be able to get a much better
picture using medium format and scanning it with a film scanner than
with 1mp digital?

What telescope have you got mate? I've not got one yet but am hoping
to get into this in the near future. Perhaps when some of my shares go
up in price I will sell half of them, and get a decent telescope.

John


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: help: Panasonic Scanner: RTIV bundled software
Next: Canon scanner problem