Slashdot Mirror
The Presidential Portrait Goes Digital
alphadogg writes "Barack Obama's election to US president has already brought a string of firsts, and on Wednesday there came another. The official presidential portrait was shot on a digital camera for the first time. The picture was taken by the White House's new official photographer, Pete Souza, and issued by The Office of the President Elect through its Web site. It was taken on Tuesday evening at 5:38 p.m. using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, according to the metadata embedded in the image file."
http://www.dpreview.com/
.: Max Romantschuk
One acronym will suffice as an answer to your question : RTFA.
You just got troll'd!
"Whereas film could be re-mastered to higher quality"
Only to a point. The particles on the film that actually compose the picture are effectively pixels, and you can only attempt to remaster to some maximum quality before the limitation becomes apparent.
"As we move towards digital photography, the limitations of the format are going to become apparent as the technology progresses to the point where today's 16MP shots simply don't have enough detail to compete with 8x10 sheets of Kodachrome."
Except that digital photography can and does compete with film quality. The film photographers I know do not dispute that, they have moved on to claiming that there are things that can be done to photographs with film that cannot be done digitally; while they are correct, the techniques they describe are not common needed, and are not technologically impossible with a digital camera.
Digital formats will prevail in the end, simply because they are more versatile. It is easy to store digital photographs, easier to make copies, easier to print, and altogether less expensive and less polluting. This is not like film-vs.-tape, this is more like film-vs.-painting.
Palm trees and 8
Mod it funny if you want, but he's right. It's the first SLR still camera to take full high-quality 1080 24p video footage. Given the camera's incredible sensor and lens selection, it's a still camera that threatens to cannibalize Canon's entire prosumer video line - which is why they had to artifically hamper some features, like disallowing manual exposure in video mode.
I work with video every day, and I have a hard time not using our 5D mkII over our $8000 Sony XDCAM on many shoots.
Is the posted 1916 x 2608 version not sufficient?
Film resolution is measured by granularity of the crystals used. In other words, MOLECULES. Digital resolution is measured in pixels. Molecules are more granular than pixels.
Actually the grains in film are much larger than individual molecules. Film grains, even in very good films, are around 2 microns in size. This is MUCH larger than the size of the individual molecules that make up the grain. Now the pixels in a good digital camera are around 6 microns, not that much larger than film grains. The big difference is that the digital sensors can detect multiple levels of light whereas a film grain is either exposed or not exposed. It actually takes a bunch of film grains (on the order of a couple of dozen) to accurately represent the levels of light that one digital sensor can represent. This means that digital cameras can actually have higher resolution than film.
The other thing to remember is that digital sensors can also map the intensity of light over time, all that film can do is measure the cumulative amount of light that it is exposed to. This means that with the right software a digital camera can use the minute vibrations of its mounting to produce an interpolated image with far higher resolution than a film image.
Color saturation of prosumer image capture devices are about an order of magnitude worse than good film.
Saturation is a difficulty with both film and digital photography but digital is more sensitive to it. With the proper use of lighting, filters, and decent software you can pretty much eliminate any problems in both film and digital photography. This is especially true of a controlled setting such as a presidential photograph. In that situation you control everything, it's not hard to produce a properly saturated image.
Longevity. What's the longevity of a pixel on digital media? I have lots of negatives and slides, over 100 years old, which still produce very nice prints.
The longevity of digital media is far better than that of film. At its worst you can just reproduce your digital image onto film and store it that way. At its best you can pay to have the digital information engraved on some sort of durable physical media, such as a metal disc. Although you may not notice it, film degrades quite a bit over time. It loses contrast and fine details and it gets brittle. The thing is that you don't have a reference to compare it against so you don't notice the degradation until it's too late. Digital information is protected by the fact that it's easy to make several perfect copies, protect them with checksums and other methods, and compare each against each other for degradation. Yes, eventually all information will degrade but it's much easier to keep a digital photograph pristine than it is to keep a film photograph pristine.
Sapere aude!
1) Get a tripod and use it, even if you dont think you need to! Even the cheapest POS camera can take okay stuff if you have a tripod.
2) For got your tripod? Use a rock, a stick, a mailbox. Use something besides your body to stabilize your camera.
3) *Learn The Rule of Thirds*!! Most. Important. Thing. Ever.
4) Visualize what the picture will look like before you take it. Move yourself and your camera until you like what will show up in the final result.
5) Move! Get that damn kid out of the way. Move until an annoying shadow is out of your shot. Look out for that wire that will show up in the middle of the mountain shot. This is #4 restated. Think about what you compose.
6) Dont use Photoshop. At least until you take good stuff without using it.
A good camera isn't important. Knowing how to compose a shot is the most important.
the term is not new. the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 establishes explicitly that the president-elect (and vice-president-elect) has an "office". you're correct that the office, like Obama himself right now, doesn't have any real power in government, but it is not a new creation. even the particular phrasing "Office of the President-Elect" can be found in 1992. we're just hearing so much more about it now because people are paying more attention to Obama than previous presidents-elect, and even former opponents say the transition is being run so well.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.