My point about using prints as the means of comparison is that it requires neither capture medium to be converted to the other as part of the process, and very fine prints can be made from either by their own native workflow methods.
And on what magic "digital" media do you intend to print ? I don't even bother comparing a slide to a CD or a hard drive or a memory card. ;-)
You made a nice lampoon of the classic film v digital comparisons that use
digital's own native display methods but require film to be converted to
digital format by questionable means
Yes, that was one of my purposes. I plead guilty for that.
That in itself should be the point of your exercise, not any retrospective claim that the test was serious.
And I still submit that there is a serious part to it too, which basically tells that, for projected images, the classic film based workflow produces better results than a full digital workflow. You have to mix some film in the digital process to get to some better results, but then what is the advantage of using digital. In the "pure digital workflow" we have the advantage of fast production without any photo processing lab mixing into our affairs and delaying things. If we mix film there we have the worst of both worlds. Film-like turnaround times and costs, without the quality.
cheers, caveman
cheers, caveman
