Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film

[Ryan K. Brooks]

William Robb wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan K. Brooks"
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film

The 14/32mb argument is a different one, IMHO.  And in my experience
with the 1Ds, there's no way it's pulling in less information than
scanned 35mm film.   This argument is the subjective one.

Finally, an honest response on the subject.
What you are saying is that film is limited by the process used to generate
an electronic facsimile, not by any inherent failure in the media itself.
Since this is what P�l, Rob, myself and a few others have been saying for
some time now, it's nice to know that you have come out of your fog on the
subject.

No fog- I just said that my work with the 1Ds is technically better than my work with film- that's it.

It's nice to know you have an opinion on this without personally working with the equipment.

I think you're lumping me in with your digital stereotype.

R

William Robb