[Leica] digital vs film

[Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>]

Peter K.,

Your depth of knowledge in these areas is far too shallow for you to be
able to make rational arguments. You are spouting bits and pieces of
incidents that, collectively, don't mean anything. And the "quotes" are
totally irreverent. What is that old saying...?  "You know just enough to
be dangerous".

Now about the MegaVision. It's old technology. We have one here. Fits on a
Hasselblad, Mamiya, Bronica, and someday, Fuji. It's sensor is 2048x2048
which makes it a 4 megapixel. Divide by four (one red, two green, one blue
pixel per "real" pixel) makes it a 1 megapixel sensor. The pixel size is 15
microns, times four = 60 microns per real pixel. We have sensors in house
that are 5 microns. The MegaVision pixel depth is 12 bits. The resulting
file size is 12 MB, which is roughly half of Photo CD resolution. An 18 MB
Photo CD image will produce a "reasonable" 8x10 print. The MegaVision back
requires a large pack (battery, storage, and associated electronics -
computer) hanging from your shoulder if you want to be mobile. Remember the
old strobe battery/electronics shoulder packs? The head shots on out web
site ( www.photoaccess.com ) were taken with this MegaVision back, on a
Hasselblad.

A high resolution 35mm transparency has between 80 and 320 times (depending
upon film and lens) the amount of available information that is available
from digital sensors, such as the MegaVision. Scan a 35mm transparency on a
good drum scanner and it will make files obtained from digital sensors
(such as the MegaVision) look like it came from a Holga.

It will be a very long time before the amount of information, and quality
of that information, as recorded on a high resolution 35mm transparency,
can be beat by digital capture. And we still have MF and LF, which is 4, 8,
12, 16 times the information in a 35mm slide. Whoa...

And then you will have to store that 100-400 Megabyte file somewhere.
Imagine capturing a whole roll (36 exposures) of 100 MB files. 3.6
Gigabytes. I took 40 rolls in Europe during September. WOW. Where would I
put it all? 144 gigabytes. The JPEG files from todays P&S under $1000
digital cameras make great "happy snaps". But this is NOT serious photography.

So the by-word, for a very long time, will be... photograph with film, scan
the film at the resolution that you need for the job, store the film. Or
photographically print the film. The chemical/physical image on film is
unique. It is storing information at the atomic level. Something that, as
of yet, is not available in the digital world.

And don't forget... Alpha particles don't destroy Kodachrome and sunlight
doesn't destroy Classic Cibachrome. The converse is: Alpha particles (and
other atomic gremlins) will destroy some digital storage, and sunlight
kills ink jet output.

Aaahh, but the Leica S1 digital camera is a 25 megapixel digital camera and
can produce a digital file worthy of a 16x20. But it's exposure is ALWAYS
in seconds, and it requires a very large and fast desktop computer to be
umbilically attached. Hardly portable. You can buy a hellova lot of M and R
equipment for $40,000 (base price, no computer, no printer, no anything!).
And you will be able to carry it (the M & R stuff) around and store the
results in a simple drawer. Or project it on a screen, enlarge it, scan and
ink jet it, whatever the heck you want. And your original ALWAYS carries
the COMPLETE AND FULL resolution. Which is many times that of anything less
than a $250,000 digital image.

Yes, of course, in fifty years, things will be different. But the
technology we have now is against the wall. A new and innovative technology
will have to emerge in order to make digital photography better than film
technology.

Jim

At 02:54 PM 2/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>If you think film and lenses are better than new digital equipment, your
>daydreaming in technicolor.
>I have seen the Megavision S2 take a Hassy image of a person down to the
>iris in an eye and with software it actually made it clear. You just can't
>do that with film.  I guess if I had $10K invested in an ancient M system, I
>would probably be in denial too!  Thinking like that reminds me of what H.M.
>Warner of Warner Bros. Pictures said in 1927, and I quote "Who the hell
>wants to hear actors talk?" 		
>
>Peter K