Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape

[digitaldog]

No digital dog, now you're not being fair as to what you said. Let me refresh your memory:

Guilty as charged! I wasn't clear and again, I was NOT directly this comment towards Roger but instead Ken who does say (in a Quote I posted), he invented some color chip, the internet and mixed I did up the sources.

I've have nothing "against" Roger, I haven't studied his work. I have studied Ken's, its bogus.

Also, your articles are not peer reviewed scientific journals, which require vastly more rigor than trade magazines:

That may be true (well they are reviewed and by peers, some of the magazines have and use technical editors) but to dismiss this outright and on the other hand, say that any and all peer reviewed articles hold water isn't going to wash with many (there are plenty of peer reviews that said climate change was bogus). Now more peers may jump on one or the other bandwagon, especially as time goes on and more "science" is on covered, but that doesn't make a peer reviewed piece necessarily the word of god, or for that matter, agreeable to all scientists let alone readers. I would agree it has more weight than non peer reviewed pieces however. The question becomes, who are the peers.

We've seen studies after studies of so called peer reviews from drug companies that claim their drugs are safe and effective. We all know how well these reviews end up in terms of accuracy.  

I'm sure I can find peer review articles that state intelligent design not evolution is the scientifically sound, just as I could probably find peer reviewed articles, of various dates that say film can out resolve digital.

As for Roger, I apologize by mixing him up with Ken in terms of the scientist (although again, Ken seems to claim some such fame).

[digitaldog]

You mean the histogram lies?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you're shooting Raw, absolutely. Its the gamma encoded histogram of the JPEG you may or may not be getting.

[drew]

I agree with the first part, but I must take issue with the last point. I browsed KR's site once and found a lot of simplistic and trite stuff, a lot of misinformation, and nothing very amusing.

I get better amusement by reading the reactions to KR on LL. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

'nothing very amusing' or, 'a bit amusing'. Sorry Eric, what is the difference?

[digitaldog]

In terms of the PBS show, which is dated and I should say I haven't seen, there's a very good article in this month's Wired about the new Chris Nolan Batman sequel. It was actually shot on Imax film! That's roughly 10X the size of a 35mm frame. The article goes on to say:

While conventional films are digitized at 2K resolution (2000 pixels across), or 4K at most, adding visual effects to Imax footage requires digitizing each frame up to 8K.

The input resolution is tied to the output. Conventional work is output back to 35mm stock. In the case of Imax, they need more input resolution because about 100 theaters in the US will show the output on actual Imax screens.

[drew]

Whow! I did think when I wrote that KR was a fruitcake with a massive ego, that that would put an end to it fairly quickly. That was obviously hopelessly naive (and a bit egotistical on my part). So, we have got to seven pages and DWDAllam still does not seem to be satisfied with the answers to a question that for most people was resolved years ago now.
The point that MR made nearly six years ago and the methodology still holds water as far as I am concerned, is that the original 1DS had a resolution comparable to rollfilm. The mark II and mark III versions of this camera have each shown a small, but noticeable improvement in resolution over the original. If we take the simple and not unreasonable premise that the current 1DS produces images of comparable resolution to 6x9 film exposed and scanned under optimal and mostly accessible conditions, then three 1DS frames stitched together are comparable to 5x4 film with the same qualifications. This does not take into account the greater ease with which the 1DS files can obtained and the lower consumable costs and other flexibility factors. This I think answers DWDallam's question.
MR has made the point and I will repeat it, that it is essential to understand the difference between resolution in one step digital capture and final resolution that results from exposing a piece of film and then secondly capturing digital data with a film scanner.

[Andy M]

Otherwise try catching up on some of the information available from competent photographers...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Amen!

[bjanes]

I've have nothing "against" Roger, I haven't studied his work. I have studied Ken's, its bogus.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew, I think that you should take a look at Clark's work. He summarizes it on the link below using a mathematical construct he calls AIQ (apparent image quality). AIQ takes into account both resolution and signal:noise, and the concept is widely accepted in information theory. Norman Koren provides additional information.

[a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html]Clark Summary[/url]

Koren Information Theory

Exactly how resolution and signal:noise should be weighted has not been determined, but trends are apparent and the ultimate validity of the model depends on how well it correlates with observational data. Until recently film has had better resolution than digital, while digital has a much better signal:noise.

From Roger's data, a 16 MP digital dSLR is better than 35 mm Velvia film and also exceeds medium format Velvia. This has been confirmed by Michael in one of his shootouts and also in this well done experiment comparing a Canon 5D with 35 mm and medium format film.

Roger predicts that a 39 MP medium format back would approach a 4by5 Velvia scan in AIQ, and this is confirmed in Michael's megapixel shootout, which was very well done and represents more than 100 years of combined experience of professional level photography.

That may be true (well they are reviewed and by peers, some of the magazines have and use technical editors) but to dismiss this outright and on the other hand, say that any and all peer reviewed articles hold water isn't going to wash with many (there are plenty of peer reviews that said climate change was bogus). Now more peers may jump on one or the other bandwagon, especially as time goes on and more "science" is on covered, but that doesn't make a peer reviewed piece necessarily the word of god, or for that matter, agreeable to all scientists let alone readers. I would agree it has more weight than non peer reviewed pieces however. The question becomes, who are the peers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The peer review process is not perfect, but it tends to be self correcting when the original observations are confirmed or refuted by additional work. In practical photography we don't have a lot of peer reviewed sources and we have to go with the best information available, and the opinions of our more experienced colleagues such as Chris Sanderson, Michael Reichmann, Charles Cramer, Bill Atkinson are invaluable. Rockwell's methods are obviously deficient and do not deserve additional comment.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

'nothing very amusing' or, 'a bit amusing'. Sorry Eric, what is the difference?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To clarify, what I meant by 'nothing very amusing' was 'nothing sufficiently amusing for me to want to waste time visiting his site again.' It's a completely subjective and personal distinction. I have no quarrel with others who may find his writings more hilarious. From my tiny sample I'd have to say I remain skeptical of anything he says is truly useful or valuable to anyone.

One thing I find amusing in some of these LL threads about KR is the fact that there are so many posts by his supporters of the form "When KR says xxx, what he really means is yyy." If that is true as often as it seems to be asserted, I wonder why KR doesn't say "yyy" in the first place. (A prime example is comments like: "When he says 'your  camera doesn't matter', what he really means is 'the photographer is more important than his/her equipment.'")

As for 'a bit amusing', I'll have to admit that I have no interest in studying any of KR's stuff enough to see whether I might find any of it barely perceptably amusing. It is astonishing how much noise his pronouncements do regularly produce on this forum.

-Eric

[michael]

It is astonishing how much noise his pronouncements do regularly produce on this forum.

-Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ever notice how many people slow down when passing a gory accident site?  

[dalethorn]

It's amazing how many people complain about Rockwell's noise on this forum, when Rockwell doesn't post here.  And just to show how much they don't like Rockwell, they add hundreds of words that extend and amplify the legend.  Rockwell must be right, judging by the evidence here.  "Your camera doesn't matter": Partly true.  "Film is better than digital": Not necessarily, but it can be in some cases.  Good things to think about.

[Slough]

It's amazing how many people complain about Rockwell's noise on this forum, when Rockwell doesn't post here.  And just to show how much they don't like Rockwell, they add hundreds of words that extend and amplify the legend. 

I cannot speak for others, but I have never met Ken, and he might well be a nice chap. I am critical of the nonsense he comes out with. I think you need to distinguish between criticism of the person, and criticism of his 'work'.

However, you ignore the fact that he makes libelous claims about others, and regularly insults goodness knows how many people, many of them highly respected professionals. If he can't take abuse, he should not give it out.

Rockwell must be right, judging by the evidence here.  "Your camera doesn't matter": Partly true.  "Film is better than digital": Not necessarily, but it can be in some cases.  Good things to think about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No. "Your camera doesn't matter" is an absolute statement. So it can't be partly true. Just as you can't be partly pregnant. Or partly dead. Oh my God, it's deja vu all over again, please let's not go there ...

[michael]

I think that this thread has now reached its best before date, and therefore is closed.

If anyone feels compelled to start a new Rockwell thread, so be it, but I think that this dead horse is best left unflogged.

Michael