wizard Posted August 10, 2009 Share #41 Posted August 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) But the standards for technical excellence are set in the digital area nowadays,... Aha, are they? Then I must simply be too dumb to get a good slide out of an M8. Ever tried to project one of your digital shots? The standards for technical excellence you are talking about are still much lower in that respect than I am willing to put up with. A slide taken with my IIIg (or any other film Leica for that matter) beats any projected M8 shot by a mile. Not the M8's fault, I know, but still. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Hi wizard, Take a look here Why DO you "Barnack"...?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ismon Posted August 10, 2009 Share #42 Posted August 10, 2009 Some four decades ago, I was shown a projected Kodachrome (via tiny Pradix w/ 50 Elmaron) on the Leitz Wetzlar auditorium wall. It was 10x15 feet. OMG !!! I know that lenses have improved in recent years, but how much better do they need to be? My M3's and Summicrons from that vintage have served well for 8x12 foot enlargements. (My darkroom only had an 8' ceiling.) I can't see digital matching that (yet). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 10, 2009 Share #43 Posted August 10, 2009 Absolute projected or printed size is immaterial. It does not matter if you print or project to two by three miles --- what matters is the viewing angle, because that determines what detail you will see. A 8x10 inch print at one foot and a 8x10 feet print at twelve feet, from the same neg or file, will be seen with the same amount of detail, neither more nor less. If I compare a M8 image file and a file derived from scanning low ISO film, on a good-sized computer screen, I see a clear difference. That difference is not to the advantage of film. Do you seriously claim that the difference would be less if I printed both to meter size? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and not in the asseveration. The old man from the Age of Kodachrome I Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted August 11, 2009 Share #44 Posted August 11, 2009 Lars, while everything you say is correct, you still miss my point: At the moment, there simply is no digital projector available (and by available I mean at a price of, say, less than 20 or 30K Euro) that could even remotely match the quality of a projected slide in home-use situations, i.e. under conditions of a regular slide-show, which is my preferred way of presenting my photographs. I know that the M8 is capable of delivering very good files, but what's the use of it if I am not able to transfer that quality onto a large projection screen. As I said, every IIIg beats digital by a mile under these preconditions. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 11, 2009 Share #45 Posted August 11, 2009 Right, Andy, but this concerns quality under projection, which is a very special matter. Projecting digital pictures is indeed a problem at present, and I understand that this is important for you. I was mainly a wet (and cursing) darkroom man. Making a large exhibition quality silver print was my particular thing. But this concerns projection only. You cannot generalise it into a sweeping general statement that digital is inferior to film. When I switched over to the M8 I was stunned -- with this camera I could do things I needed a 6x9cm medium format camera to do in the old days. The fact is that while for many decades the resolution of film was the limiting factor in the 35mm world, today in the high end digital world lenses are the bottleneck. And this is indeed one reason why the M8 shines. It uses Leica glass at close to its real performance, something that few films could even try to do. Also, when we see a projected picture we are wowed by the sheer size. We >know< that it is big in absolute terms. But compare the actual viewing angle subtended with that of an A4 held at normal reading distance. That takes a good deal of the wow out of it. Also, are you sure that your projection lens is the equal of my old El-Nikkor? There's another limiting factor. The old man from the Age of Kodachrome I Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted August 11, 2009 Share #46 Posted August 11, 2009 You cannot generalise it into a sweeping general statement that digital is inferior to film. And I did not do that, did I? Also, are you sure that your projection lens is the equal of my old El-Nikkor? Well, I use Apogon 2.4/90 lenses on my Rolleivision 330P projector, and have so far been more than pleased with the (projected) results. With today's fantastic films, the good thing in using this 'old' technique is that the projected shots look great from the regular viewing distance (about 4m in my case), but even gain once you move closer towards the projection screen. There is so much more detail to be seen, it is sometimes almost incredible to discover what the lens/film-combination has actually recorded. THIS is what I miss with digital projection, once you approach the screen, everything turns mushy (it wasn't stellar to begin with) and you realize that you could as well have used the bottom of a glass bottle as your lens, the results would probably not have been much different in terms of projected quality. Cheers, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share #47 Posted August 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Guys, let's just agree to differ on this one, eh? We have strayed far from the point. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted August 11, 2009 Share #48 Posted August 11, 2009 Bill, you are not trying to cut off an interesting discussion, are you? As a matter of fact, I believe Lars and I are not far apart on this topic anyway. Regards, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 13, 2009 Share #49 Posted August 13, 2009 I agree fully that a good projected Kodachrome has an awesome presence, mostly because of the intensity of the colour in a darkened room. It is not only larger than life (I did a lot of macro work, hunting grasshoppers and jumping spiders) but probably also better than life ... But digital projection is certainly a sorry thing. The digital equivalent of the projected 'chrome would be a square backlit LCD or plasma screen with a side of some sixty inches, and the same pixel count as the camera, plus some. But such beasts are rare, and people who can pay for them are probably even rarer. For the present, the best we can achieve is a good, and good-sized computer screen and appropriate software. The old man from the Age of Kodachrome, period (1936) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.