Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure what your wife's definition of "Barely" is; but I don't have ANY kind of experience that I would call "barely working".

The brokenness of multi-display support in the last two releases of macOS her her biggest issue. It's a battle to get her late 2015 5k iMac to wake her 2nd display after the machine sleeps, which has only been an (widely reported, mind you) issue since Sierra. It's not the Mac, either; nor is it the display. Every Mac we have with Sierra or newer (2 personal laptops, 1 business laptop and the iMac) exhibits this issue when this, or any other display is connected. These are Macs and displays which worked together just fine prior to Sierra.

Milti-display support isn't a niche feature; it's integral to the workflow of many a graphic designer -- drawing tablets with built-in displays are quite popular among that crowd -- and the vast majority of professional users who actually have a desk to work at. It's quite a major issue for them to seemingly be ignoring; it's the kind of thing you'd expect they'd have addressed in an early point release of Sierra, not something they'd let linger nearly half a year into the following release (and still not have fixed).

That's just one of many issues she's encountered in the past handful of years; to someone who remembers Macs "Just Working" since the mid 1980's, though, that's a world-breaking issue.

Well, he did say "high end" monitors. That means models like the Sony Artisan and IBM P275

There were a lot of cheaper models (sub $500) that could do 1600x1200, which is over 90% of 1080p's pixel count - less horizontal space but more vertical.

> what value is there to > 24-bit color?

TL:DR; The eye can clearly see more then 256 levels of primary colors.

There are 3 big problems with 24-bpp.

1. Mach Banding (or Gradients)
2. Blending
3. Limited Gamut

10-bit, 12-bit, or even 16-bit per channel provides more headroom for finer gradients.

The problem is exemplified when you do multiple blends. Since most display devices are still only 24-bit the maximum error we want with 8-bit-per-channel is 1/255 = 0.00392156862745. Using 16-bit per channel means we can literally add/blend/multiply 256 images before we would start to see quantization artifacts.

Another way to think about this is that for every image you add ("process) you need 1 more bit of precision. i.e. Assuming we are "processing" 8-bit per channels, you need a total of n-bits:
  9-bit if you add a total of 2 images,
10-bit if you add a total of 4 images,
11-bit if you add a total of 8 images,
12-bit if you add a total of 16 images,
13-bit if you add a total of 32 images,
14-bit if you add a total of 64 images,
15-bit if you add a total of 128 images,
16-bit if you add a total of 256 images,

Keep in mind that part of the problem is _caused_ by the fact that we are stuck with shitty 100 dpi resolution so 24-bit images are fugly. With 333+ dpi images 24-bit is OK. One of my close photography friend argues that with 1200 dpi you could get away with 6 or 7-bit per channel and I almost inclined to believe him.

With crappy 24-bit one is forced to do Tone Mapping (aka HDR) to get around the limitations of 24-bit to better utilize the color gamut. It is a huge "Hack" / "Kludge" which better approximates what the eye can see but it is still a hack.

There are 10-bit-per-channel monitors but at $1,000 the demand just isn't there. :-( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml

Now with all that said and done the BIGGER problem is "True Blacks" - the state of the industry is even more pathetic compared to 10-bit displays. ;-(( If you google "Pioneer Kuro Black" you'll see that Kuro set the "gold" standard for blacks back in 2007 and it has largely been ignored. :-( https://www.google.com/search?q=pioneer+black

In the audio word we use 24-bit DACS to provide headroom when we add 16-bit audio signals because if you only used 16-bits for A + B you could potentially get clipping. With 24-bits you have more than enough head room to minimize overflow and underflow.

Does this help?

"This is very true, although the Foveon was superior in resolution and lack of color moire only - it terms of higher ISO support it has not been as good as the top performers of the day."

The Foveon has always been inferior in resolution overall photosite-for-photosite, superior only is a small subset of color combinations, and it has been, in fact, a dismal technology in terms of high ISO. It is not simply "not been as good as the top performers", it is notably worse than Bayer sensors categorically. Foveon is horrible in low light.

"Now that Sigma has carried Foveon forward into a newer age of sensors they are having better luck selling a high-resolution very sharp small compact that has as much detail as a Nikon D800 and no color moire..."

Foveon fanboy alert. Anyone who would rate this as informative has never studied this topic nor understands what the D800 is.

Here's an interesting read here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma_dp2m_review.shtml

I despise Luminous Landscape, but if they can recognize technical flaws then they are readily apparent.

The most interesting criticisms of their DP2 review are color problems. The key thing about digital photography is that you are employing a system, and Foveon draws from a small subset of lenses, a small selection of inferior bodies, and poor software support which is a critical handicap.

"Another interesting alternative sensor is Fuji with the X-Trans sensor - randomized RGB filters to eliminate color moire."

Randomizing the Bayer pattern doesn't eliminate color moire.

I see your 85mm f/1.2, and raise you a 600mm f/4. To get an idea of the scale, that SLR attached to the lens in the picture is a medium format camera and it is huge, about double the size of a 35mm SLR in every dimension.

The way I understand it, yes.
12 stops dynamic range on a 12-bit RAW would mean that the darkest stop would get only 1 level while the brightest stop would get 2**11 levels.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Don't ask me why the Nikon D90 gets 12.5 stops on DXOMark even though it shoots 12-bit RAW.
Either they're high, they have a different definition of DR or it involves weird non-linear conversions.

read this: A Photographer's Eulogy for Eastman Kodak a couple of weeks ago and it's a good complement to TFA. Among other things, the author recalls a meeting with a Kodak product manager in the early 90's who's response to digital on the horizon was "How do we stop this thing?" He also notes this wasn't the first time Kodak's ego got in its own way. Anyway, an interesting read.

As a working professional photographer I can easily vouch for the quality of high end inkjet printers such as the Canon Pixma line. The real key to success in using one of these printers is going to the effort of color calibrating your computer monitor.

Buy this video: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/camera-print.shtml

I am in no way associated with the owner of the above site. Trust me it will be money well spent to get you on your way with successfully printing your images in a predictable/repeatable manner!

Remember folks - not all injet printers are created equally! The crappy ones really are crappy and a waste of money. The high end inkjet printers for photographers produce stunning results and will outlast previous wet darkroom prints.

Post-production expenses are higher for film, but the software and equipment(production as well as converting theaters) for 3D digital is very cutting edge and hard to justify the cost of for most studios(who wrongly see Digital 3D mostly as a gimmick). They have film cameras already and so there's really little cost for them other than maybe repairs and replacing damaged units and so on. Yes, the cost is less in the long run, but it's a large one-time sum to make the transition. The entire Digital Cinematography movement didn't even really get started until Lucas used it in 2002. Most studios aren't using digital currently.

I found this online as well in an article about the subject:
"Since not all theaters currently have digital projection systems, even if a movie is shot and post-produced digitally, it must be transferred to film if a large theatrical release is planned."

So film is still used for most every movie out there. And as such, the issues of optics and their limitations are still present with film. You can't get large depth of field with 2D images without making enormous sacrifices. Just ask any professional photographer. That movement in the 1930s unfortunately was the exception to the rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_focus
As you'll note, the article makes mention of how almost no modern films make use of this technique. There are limitations that it creates for the director that most just don't want to deal with these days. Digital 3D is a very quick and simple method to regain this effect and make your film look more realistic without changing your filming style whatsoever. It's a win-win scenario, as Avatar showed. Done properly, it breathes life back into an otherwise aging and limited format.

http://luminous-landscape.com/
This site has a vast number of real experts who frequent it that can explain the mechanics of optics and lenses and why the limitations cannot be overcome without major difficulty. Explore it at your leisure. This forum isn't the place to discuss technical details in depth.

Velvia only has about 5 stops of dynamic range, compared to around 10 for modern digital cameras.

Looking at your clarkvision page, the Velvia graphic (Figure 4) is not there. However Fuji's Provia 100F is better. The bad part is it comes only in 100 ASA. Here's a discussion on Velvia on Flickr.

You ask me for citations? Then tell me what Ken Rockwell's citations are. They don't exist.

I asked for citations because you stated digital is better than film. I want proof before I'll believe it. Even pros don't agree on which is better, digital or film. But it doesn't matter if the only ones worth a dime are the ones you agree with.

Falcon

Well there's no question that 4x5" film scans are going to have more detail than miniscule-sensor-digital shots from 2003-2006. Even a full 35mm digital sensor is puny compared to 4x5" film.

The point of the site's author in the d200 vs 4x5 article is that you can get extremely good quality digital images by using a large format view camera and a film scanner for near (or better) the same price as a decent DSLR.

For your interest, compare 4x5 film to a large format digital sensor scan back:
film http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images36/AcrosFilm-Detail1.jpg
digital http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images36/BL-Detail1.jpg
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml
Large format digital pictures are extremely competitive in quality to film.

Well there's no question that 4x5" film scans are going to have more detail than miniscule-sensor-digital shots from 2003-2006. Even a full 35mm digital sensor is puny compared to 4x5" film.

The point of the site's author in the d200 vs 4x5 article is that you can get extremely good quality digital images by using a large format view camera and a film scanner for near (or better) the same price as a decent DSLR.

For your interest, compare 4x5 film to a large format digital sensor scan back:
film http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images36/AcrosFilm-Detail1.jpg
digital http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images36/BL-Detail1.jpg
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml
Large format digital pictures are extremely competitive in quality to film.

Well there's no question that 4x5" film scans are going to have more detail than miniscule-sensor-digital shots from 2003-2006. Even a full 35mm digital sensor is puny compared to 4x5" film.

The point of the site's author in the d200 vs 4x5 article is that you can get extremely good quality digital images by using a large format view camera and a film scanner for near (or better) the same price as a decent DSLR.

For your interest, compare 4x5 film to a large format digital sensor scan back:
film http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images36/AcrosFilm-Detail1.jpg
digital http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images36/BL-Detail1.jpg
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml
Large format digital pictures are extremely competitive in quality to film.

Until medium format Digital becomes more sane and really up's the resolution... film ain't going nowhere. (...) Even low end DSLR's like the T2i now have better resolution than 35mm film.

The T2i is 18 MP, so if we say 15 MP is equal to 35mm then 4x15 MP = 60 MP should be equal to 70mm. Today you can get a full-size medium format 60MP digital back, the downside is of course that it costs $40000. Still you also get all the advantages of digital such as no film cost, no processing cost and no delay in seeing the results. Oh and the article claims much better ISO too. At a rate of almost 1 fps. Not saying this is for everyone, and digital has always been fairly expensive for the first picture, but it makes me fairly certain that in another ten years even medium format film is dead.

Read about CMOS Active Pixel Sensors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor

The size is dominated by the transistors, the photo-diode shares the same feature size are the transistors since it's manufactured under the same process.

Moore's law applies.

I have printed out that last post of mine and am chewing on the paper as I type this. Interesting to note, though, is these two articles discussing the upper limits of pixel count due to diffraction. Looks like we're not gonna see a 26 GP camera after all, even with Moore's Law applying.

*chokes on mushy pulp*

It's a moral victo-- AACCKKK-*gulp*...ahem, victory.

Read about CMOS Active Pixel Sensors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor

The size is dominated by the transistors, the photo-diode shares the same feature size are the transistors since it's manufactured under the same process.

Moore's law applies.

I have printed out that last post of mine and am chewing on the paper as I type this. Interesting to note, though, is these two articles discussing the upper limits of pixel count due to diffraction. Looks like we're not gonna see a 26 GP camera after all, even with Moore's Law applying.

*chokes on mushy pulp*

It's a moral victo-- AACCKKK-*gulp*...ahem, victory.

Oh well. Canon is better anyway.

Well, not necessarily. After owning two Canon digicams, I recently purchased a Panasonic LX3. There is nothing quite like it (other than Leica's rebadging of the same camera), the camera has caused quite a stir among compact enthusiasts and the black version has been in short supply.

So, I overcame my bias against Panasonic, and so far the camera is very good. But now this battery thing, which sucks!

Indeed, a larger sensor means a larger file (by a wide margin) when shooting RAW, and a lot of pros and semi pros are almost put off by larger sensors since these are slower to work with and of course eat more disk space (and pro and semi pro will only shoot RAW). Unlike computer enthusiasts, camera enthusiasts are not looking for an excuse to buy bigger hard drives and a faster computer; their normal hardware is expensive enough as it is.

Many pros want larger sensors, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for medium format and large format digital backs. And speed doesn't depend on sensor size so much as pixel count. Many pros also shoot both raw and jpeg, or tiff. Me, I'd like to get the 21.1 MP Canon EOS 5d Mark II and if I get one I'll save both jpeg and raw. Unfortunately it doesn't save in tiff otherwise I'd also use that format. I'd also like to get a medium format, perhaps a 645, with a film back to start with but eventually a digital back.

Falcon

Here's a chart to see how many MPs you need for photo quality digital prints.

Of course, that doesn't take into consideration noise, dynamic range, or color accuracy of the sensor.

You forget to mention that on the Antarctica trip you mentioned, of 77 total 70% of photographers were using Canon, and 30% Nikon. Fifty percent of Canon users, so 35% of the total, were using 5D IIs, or 26 people.

They don't mention specifically how many people were using D700s, only "lots". I have no idea of course, but let's say for arguments sake that 50% of Nikon users had the D700 - though their wording lends me to believe it's probably less. That's approximately 12 D700s. Three dead 5D IIs out of 26 is 12%. Twelve percent of 12 rounds to 1. That means to have an equal failure rate, there had to be 1 dead D700.

Can you see that there simply weren't enough Nikons to provide equivalent statistics? How about the fact that maybe those with the failed cameras were people who simply took more risks with their equipment? We can't know.

Yes, it's disappointing of the 5D II that so many failed, but the 5D series and the XXD series are not marketed as being incredibly rough and rugged and waterproof. These are things you want in a camera you take to Antarctica.

Despite that, I personally would not hesitate to take my 40D to Antarctica. In fact I hope to have the opportunity sometime in the next few years (though perhaps I will have upgraded to something newer, it won't be a much more expensive weather-sealed one - in fact, my next upgrade will likely be to the 5D series, or whatever the equivalent is in the future.) I have used the 40D in moderately extreme conditions before, including being splashed with salt water and in light rain and snow, with no problem. I would hope that it wouldn't fail, but I accept the possibility that it might if I let too much moisture in, because it is not designed for that. And I wouldn't trust an equivalent Nikon to be any better, unless it was designed for it, which they aren't.

Not that I wouldn't ever use Nikon, I think they have good cameras and lenses. And Canon, I agree, is having serious problems right now. Having a few mediocre or problem-ridden releases is not enough for hobbyists, and most pros, to write them off completely, though. These companies go through cycles and you can guarantee that Canon will be back eventually. And they'll go through more downturns, too.

Here's the Luminous Landscapes article, for reference: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml

Because this is one of their flagship products and it has according to early reports performed a bit sub-par?
Canon

But there is no way that a Canon 5D Mark II can compete with even medium format film, let alone 4x5 sheet film.

Of course a 5D MkII will never compete with MF. It doesn't compete with it now; I don't think anyone expects it to compete with MF film sometime in the future. That's not even a fair comparison, really, because the 5D sensor is 35mm on the long side, whereas MF is 60mm on each side. Apples to apples, right? Googling for information (and ignoring the ever-controversial Mr. Rockwell) suggests that a 10Mp DSLR is better than 35mm film. Also, modern digital MF backs are comparable to 4x5 film, at least when printed at 40"x60" or less.

If you're feeling lazy, I found this link to be the most helpful: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html . There is also an interesting comparison between 4x5 and a P45 digital MF back here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml, which is in rough agreement with the other article. In my worthless opinion, large format is mostly good for using movements and making contact prints. Aside from that, digital is probably better in every way, including quality.

That said, I think this photographer should have used at least a 1Ds MkIII or D3x. On the other hand, the only other presidential portrait that's even a photograph is Bush Jr's, and I'm not really sure how you compare "image quality" between photographs and paintings.

This pro concludes that his 2002 11MP Canon 1Ds is superior to his Pentax 645 film camera.

Moore's law applies to camera's also(well, the computers in cameras). Todays 24MP 1Ds mkiii is twice the resolution and probably better then twice the overall quality.

You can always get a Hassie

Why would you need more detail than 5D mark II and/or 35mm format lenses can give in a portrait?

Anyway: exif tags of the official photo only tells the focal length used, which was 105mm. So, perhaps even 24-105mm f/4L ? It was sold as a "kit lens" for the original 5D and the mark II.

TFA is wrong, btw, the camera used is 5D mark II, not the original 5D.

Also see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml for an interesting take on medium format superiority.

That isn't the conclusion that the author came to. If you compare http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-85/h2.jpg and http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-85/g10-comp.jpg there is definitely a different between the yellows and the depth of focus on the expensive camera is far better (compare the red leaves on the upper left).

Depth of field isn't a question of better or worse, you know, it's just different. If you want to poke at that story, you might just point out that a the limited image size makes the comparison pointless. These days, cheap digital cameras make incredibly expensive pro cameras more useful for either flexibility or niche markets (like >13" prints). That doesn't mean professional cameras aren't worth it, just that they're not worth it for everything.

That isn't the conclusion that the author came to. If you compare http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-85/h2.jpg and http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-85/g10-comp.jpg there is definitely a different between the yellows and the depth of focus on the expensive camera is far better (compare the red leaves on the upper left).

Depth of field isn't a question of better or worse, you know, it's just different. If you want to poke at that story, you might just point out that a the limited image size makes the comparison pointless. These days, cheap digital cameras make incredibly expensive pro cameras more useful for either flexibility or niche markets (like >13" prints). That doesn't mean professional cameras aren't worth it, just that they're not worth it for everything.

That isn't the conclusion that the author came to. If you compare http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-85/h2.jpg and http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-85/g10-comp.jpg there is definitely a different between the yellows and the depth of focus on the expensive camera is far better (compare the red leaves on the upper left).

That isn't the conclusion that the author came to. If you compare http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-85/h2.jpg and http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-85/g10-comp.jpg there is definitely a different between the yellows and the depth of focus on the expensive camera is far better (compare the red leaves on the upper left).

Well, that kind of takes the fun out of this kind of story in which images from a Canon point-n-shoot are indistinguishable from those taken by a $40,000 Hasselblad.

Sorry, maybe I worded my post badly - maybe I shouldn't have used the decibel unit? Or maybe the equations on Wikipedia give an "average" value (like the ones that tell you how much data can be stored in half a bit or whatever?).

There's a good explanation of the imaging equivalent of what I meant here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

my XTI looks terrible at ISO 800 too, to say nothing of 1600 which is borderline unusable on both (I'm picky about noise)

Do you expose to the right? I'm picky about noise too, but I regularly used ISO 800/1600 (overexposed 0.5-1 stop) on my old EOS 400D (XTi) and dragged down the exposure in post-proc. ETTR kills noise because the S/N-ratio is higher.

Read http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/jpg-follies.shtml and be enlightened.

If you have a Hasselblad V-system and want to use a modern digital back you should get the new Mamiya/Phase One 645 AFDIII with a V-adapter. Its an open system so it'll take all your old blad V-lenses (as well as Contax, Zeiss Ikon, Pentax lenses as well). Also the 50MP sensor will be available to Leaf and PhaseOne later. Not to mention the availability of cheap backs (the Mamiya ZD back is around $8k now)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase645.shtml

Happily this sort of development drives down prices on consumer grade products over time. I wonder how this compares to scanning low iso medium format film on a drum scanner.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
Is a good example of such a comparison, though I've seen differing results with older digital cameras.

You're confusing three different aspects of quality:

1. Resolution (the number of pixels in am image, here increased by stitching overlapping images)
2. Dynamic range, color fidelity, noise (the quality of a particular pixel). This can be somewhat ameliorated by HDR photography or just averaging identical shots (all with no moving subjects and a sturdy tripod). Google Photomatix for details.
3. Whether the shot is interesting, well composed, in focus, without motion blur, etc. Panorama photography is most interesting for its artistic potential; more pixels is just a delightful side effect.

#1 and #2 can be addressed by money and a willingness to prostrate yourself to the camera gods. #3 requires talent!

And to put a final nail in the megapixel coffin: check out http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Equivalent-Lenses.shtml (particularly Nathan Nyhrvold's comments) for a discussion of how sensor size and f-stop place an upper bound on resolution irrespective of sensor density. Physics can be a pain sometimes!

1) The images are false colour. All images taken by the rovers (or any probe for that matter) are never true colour. They generally take images through various infra red and green and ultraviolet filters. When combined, they create unnatural coloured images. So that blue soil you see wouldn't really be blue if it were to be seen with the naked eye.

2) The specific image shown were taken on the rim of Endurance crater, not at the floor of it. Water can't exactly pool on a slope.

I don't doubt that there is water on Mars, but I don't think it can pool on the surface (due to the low atmospheric pressure), nor do I think this photo contains any evidence of pooling water either. It may contain evidence of past water how ever.

Even 14 year old kids on Myspace can figure out CSS.

Or at least so I hear...somebody over at Luminous Landscapes ran a comparison of a PhaseOne P45 39-megapixel back against drum-scanned 4x5 Velvia 50. These are guys whose standard print size is 30"x40", so fine detail is pretty crucial to them, as is color accuracy. Bottom line? The film had a slight edge, but not enough to offset the huge increase in convenience and versatility of digital. Granted, the P45 alone lists for $32,990 at Calumet, plus another $6-10,000 or more for the camera and lenses, but apparently over the 3-year warranty period it works out to ~80% the cost of a view camera, lens, film, lab fees, and drum scanner maintenance.

I know what I want for Christmas this year :)

The amazing thing with these is that all you need to but one is the money - I mean they aren't only available to NASA and the like.

I see the resolution differences between the 4X5" drum scan and the P45 as quite minor, but with a slight edge still going to the drum scanned film, But when you consider the time and cost of shooting film, processing it, and then scanning, the advantages of a 39MP back like the P45 are compelling.

Yes, no doubt that the crap coming out of your typical camera phone is no match compared to what comes out of a 4x5 or even a TLR. However, your typical consumer camera in the 1920s would also have quite poor quality compared to a 4x5. And the resolution of digital cameras actually stacks up quite well against large format (4x5) film. If you look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-test ing.shtml, you'll see a comparison of the latest pro gear (from 11 all the way up to 39 megapixels) against drum scanned 6x4.5(cm) and 4x5(in) Velvia (arguably the best color film available).

It's pretty clear that the medium format film isn't measurably higher resolution than the 35mm digital camera and the large format film isn't measurably higher resolution that the medium format digital. Any resolution advantage that the film might have is covered up by the noise of the grain. Of course the large format scanning back was the best of all, but it can't take pictures of moving subjects. The test didn't measure dynamic range, but there's no obvious advantage for the film. A negative film would have better dynamic range than the film they tested, but it would have much lower resolution, so it wouldn't have been useful in the test.

In other words, a 4x5 camera with transparency (slide) film has less than 50 megapixels of information, and no more dynamic range than a typical professional digital camera.

The only advantage film has is purchase price of the camera. You can get a cheap 4x5 monorail with a Rodenstock lens for $1500, while the digital cameras tested range from $3000 to $30,000 just for the back (the MF camera body and lenses add another few thousand dollars, more if you want the flexibility of a view camera). Once you start shooting, though, the $5/shot you pay for 4x5 film starts to add up. Sure, you can buy lots of film for $30k, but when you start paying $100 per shot for drum scans (which you would if the $3000 camera wasn't good enough), the digital camera starts looking pretty good.

dom

You mean exactly like this camera?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/ kodak-760m.shtml

Unfortunately the Bayer CFA is a collection of colored filters bonded to each pixel on the chip. The only way to remove it would be to replace the whole sensor chip with a replacement monochrome chip.

There have been some mono digital cameras in the past (e.g. the DCS 760M) but unfortunately they've all had their flaws and there are none currently on the market.
While I would love a good mono camera I'm not sure any camera manufacturer has been convinced that there's enough of a market out there to introduce one...

Thanks for that! I am going to check this camera out ASAP. Some review links for others:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/ lx1.shtml

The truth is the bayer pattern is good enough for some things but it has obvious limitations. You've obviously never seen an image from a digital scanning back that takes seperate red, green and blue exposures. Have a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/ better-light.shtml for a comparison between a scanning back, film and a canon 1Ds Mk II (canon's top of the line $7,000 dslr). The difference is clear in the photos.

The foveon sensor is targetted to do what a scanning back does except in one shot. In addition they also use a different pixel shape that helps. If nikon or cannon had invested in foveon I think we'd see the chip a lot further along now.

I am one of those photographers. I make large prints often 30x40 and shoot largeand medium format film. I am pretty nervous about the day I can no longer get a box of 4x5 film and hope technology makes it possible to still get great prints at these sizes. 8 megapixels doesn't cut it. Of course, a large format camera can take a digital back if you have the money for such a beast, but it isn't so practical if you do photography that is off the grid like I do.

There is a medium-format digital back that came out recently with 38-megapixels. Something tells me that by the time your film goes the way of the dodo there will be quite a few options available for you to do the same quality work with digital that you've been doing with film. Printing at 30x40 is a piece of cake even for the 16MP Canon 1Ds Mark II. Is it going to have the same resolution if you look at it with a magnifying glass? No, but what are you doing looking at a poster with a magnifying glass? Unless you're printing billboard-size, you aren't actually seeing all that resolution under most circumstances. If you really do have the skill and the audience that require all that resolution I'm sure you'll be able to afford a digital solution in the near future that will closely approximate what you're doing with film, if not surpass it eventually. Think of it as an opportunity rather than a roadblock.

A good site to check out if you haven't seen it already is luminous-landscape.com, where the owner of the site is an experienced professional photographer who has done some interesting comparisons between digital and film and found to his own amazement that digital has now surpassed the image quality of 35mm film and is working on overtaking even medium-format. That was a couple of years ago. Looks like there is a recent article by another large-format photographer that you may find very interesting, comparing the 4x5 film you use with the very 38MP back that I mentioned earlier. Happy reading:

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

You mean a 4x5 "large format" camera, or a 4 foot by 5 foot print? I'm assuming you mean the former.

And I'd answer to that: Just barely. Charlie Cramer did a nice piece looking at the new 39MP digital back over here at the Luminous Landscape a few days back. Note, however, that he's switching despite a marginal loss in detail resolution, and that that's not merely a matter of geekery-for-geek-sake, it's toward the end of making better images.

Now, that's $40K or so for a full-setup, which isn't precisely consumer-priced. But it shouldn't be too long before Canon, which already makes 16MP cameras in full-frame 35mm format, catches up. At this point, it's my firm belief that improvements in the Canon sensors are starting to be less important as the sensors reach and exceed the limits of the quality of existing Canon EF lenses, particularly in the wide-angle focal lengths.

Wrong again. The average 35mm SLR camera with an average roll of film still comes out with a resolution equivalent to a 25 megapixel digital shot, which you can't find anywhere.

Sorry but this 25 megapixel value you claim is untrue. Years ago I measured for myself some fine grain films and came out roughly to 15 megapixels. However here a fellow has measured this in a more scientific manner than I did. According to him the best film peaks at about 16 megapixels. Yet Canon make a 16.7 megapixel camera.

Here you can see that camera producing photos which are comparable to 4x5 MEDIUM FORMAT and certainly better than that film in 35mm format.
Here the older 11 megapixels version of that camera really shows how great digital can be with low noise and the resolution even at 11 megapixels is fantastic even against a 6x7!
Here is another.
Here is another again. Look at the detail of the tiles on the roof of the windmill.
Here the excellent contrast of digital stands out.
And here something which I expected, medium format transparency looking a lot better than the "35mm" digital.

Now consider that this 16.7 megapixel is at least comparable with some medium format images! 35mm film has no chance against the 16.7 megapixel digital.

That 25-30 megapixel number that is thrown around is a load of garbage.

PS, this is my current primary camera. There has certainly been no bias towards digital for me. However I imagine I'll be making the move in the next few years. Only because a Canon's best DSLR is WAY too expensive for me at the moment.

From what I've read for all but the most extreme uses digital (as in dSLR) beats film across the board. In your example I'd be more inclined to believe that it's either psychosomatic (as you put it) or that you just are more experienced with film. Most people spend as much (or more) time tweaking the RAW files from a dSLR as they would in the old developing studio.

Also consider that the D50 is pretty much the lowest level of current dSLR (though that doesn't mean it's bad). If you compare a high end camera like the Canon 1Ds even professionally scanned medium has a hard time stacking up (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootou t.shtml).