film vs. digital for prints

I am a pretty dedicated film shooter. Some 4x5, mostly medium format. I typically drum scan my film and have it printed on a Lightjet at sizes ranging from 16x20 to 30x40 with excellent and sharp results - run it through photoshop and typical files sizes are in the hundreds of megabytes. You get within an inch or two of the print and it's as sharp as a tack. Very satisfying.

I am taking a trip to Europe with my wife and am really not looking forward to dragging the Hasselblad Arcbody, tripod, film backs etc. etc. with me - besides, my wife's going to kill me if I spend too much time setting up the camera stuff (that's the real problem if you want to get down to it).

So I was thinking....maybe one of the new Canon 5D 12 megapixel cameras with one of their "L" lenses? I am guessing this will yield a raw 39mb file in photoshop which doesn't seem big enough to make good prints at even 24x30. But others tell me I am all wet.

Help! This isn't a light investment and I don't want to spend a bunch of money and be dissapointed when expectations aren't met.

Does anyone have any advice and perhaps a nice, tack sharp image you could either email me or I could download that's full size and I can see for myself in Photoshop? This would be a God send.

Anyway, I'd appreciate some dialog. I am hoping to get some real answers.

"stereo guy" wrote in message

I am a pretty dedicated film shooter. Some 4x5, mostly medium format. I typically drum scan my film and have it printed on a Lightjet at sizes ranging from 16x20 to 30x40 with excellent and sharp results - run it through photoshop and typical files sizes are in the hundreds of megabytes. You get within an inch or two of the print and it's as sharp as a tack. Very satisfying.

I'd love to see your images. Are your prints on exhibit anywhere?

I am taking a trip to Europe with my wife and am really not looking forward to dragging the Hasselblad Arcbody, tripod, film backs etc. etc. with me - besides, my wife's going to kill me if I spend too much time setting up the camera stuff (that's the real problem if you want to get down to it).

Priorities. Live to photograph another day. :-)

So I was thinking....maybe one of the new Canon 5D 12 megapixel cameras with one of their "L" lenses? I am guessing this will yield a raw 39mb file in photoshop which doesn't seem big enough to make good prints at even 24x30. But others tell me I am all wet.

There's good and there's good. Your quality expectations are obviously beyond excellent. Keep in mind, though, that you're still going to need a good tripod, and the 1D Mark IIn is one heavy camera in any case - at 1555 grams it may actually be heavier than your Hasselblad.

Help! This isn't a light investment and I don't want to spend a bunch of money and be dissapointed when expectations aren't met.
Does anyone have any advice and perhaps a nice, tack sharp image you could either email me or I could download that's full size and I can see for myself in Photoshop? This would be a God send.

Here are some online sample images from the Mark IIn:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1D2/E1D2PICS.HTM

Anyway, I'd appreciate some dialog. I am hoping to get some real answers.

Digital has overtaken 35mm, but not medium format. My guess is you'd best stick with film, and wait for the medium format digitals to come out. Another thought would be to go with something less expensive, and try some panos or mosaics. This may be sufficient to get the format you need, without doubling the cost of your trip.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

So I was thinking....maybe one of the new Canon 5D 12 megapixel cameras with one of their "L" lenses?

A 5D isn't going to produce the sorts of images you're used to. They're good, but it would be a significant step down for you.

You could ask in rec.photo.digital - they're a knowledgable bunch there.

You could ask in rec.photo.digital - they're a knowledgable bunch there.

Ah, you did. For once I was thrown by a *lack* of cross posting. :o)

"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

So I was thinking....maybe one of the new Canon 5D 12 megapixel cameras with one of their "L" lenses?

A 5D isn't going to produce the sorts of images you're used to. They're good, but it would be a significant step down for you.

You could ask in rec.photo.digital - they're a knowledgable bunch there.

-------------------

Contradictions are nothing new on the Internet...
Interpolated images from the 5D "tack sharp" as opposed to "pin sharp" at 36" x 54". Printed on metallic, unbelievably brilliant. On canvas? so popular I can't print enough of them. These links are to some examples of 10D, 20D and 5D interpolated images... Just to convince you it really does work.

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/big.htm

For evidence of the process of Interpolation being the modern day equivalent of an optical enlarger start with this one:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/images/screen-shot.jpg (the shutter speed is wrong, BTW) Then see the enlargement:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/images/tanga_005020400 03.jpg

By now you might be getting the idea your plan could just work and your 'mates' might be right. They are with one money saving exception. Canon lenses are overpriced and often unable to produce equal quality images to some of the cheaper ones from independent makers like Tamron and Sigma. Image using a Sigma DX EG f/2.8, 24 -70 Macro lens on a 5D are nothing short of amazing look here for just one example:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/hanging-out.htm

Last time I posted this link, someone suggested I'd forged the picture... Maybe climbed a ladder to the gull hanging from a sky hook and stuck some plastic legs up it's arse?

Other claim it's all Photoshop stuff. Others again though I was a nutter, using
a $850 AUD lens on a 5D. (One sold for $350 AUD on EBay today) They say nothing
though, of the spectacular results I get with it. These speak for themselves.
The Canon rival to this lens is $2500 AUD when you can get one. Personally I can see a lot of use for $1600 AUD other than give it to some couldn't care less
company who sends all their (considerable) profits back to Japan.

You might be more generous than me, eh? Send me a message from a genuine ISP's email address and I'll give you as many "tack sharp" image from a 5D as you like. Email me from my web site, I'll send you a resolution chart
shot with one, OK?
--

Douglas wrote:

"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

So I was thinking....maybe one of the new Canon 5D 12 megapixel cameras with one of their "L" lenses?

A 5D isn't going to produce the sorts of images you're used to. They're good, but it would be a significant step down for you.

You could ask in rec.photo.digital - they're a knowledgable bunch there.

-------------------

Contradictions are nothing new on the Internet...

<snip!>

I haven't the faintest idea what you're going on about.

In article ,
"stereo guy" wrote:

I am a pretty dedicated film shooter. Some 4x5, mostly medium format. I typically drum scan my film and have it printed on a Lightjet at sizes ranging from 16x20 to 30x40 with excellent and sharp results - run it through photoshop and typical files sizes are in the hundreds of megabytes. You get within an inch or two of the print and it's as sharp as a tack. Very satisfying.

I am taking a trip to Europe with my wife and am really not looking forward to dragging the Hasselblad Arcbody, tripod, film backs etc. etc. with me - besides, my wife's going to kill me if I spend too much time setting up the camera stuff (that's the real problem if you want to get down to it).

So I was thinking....maybe one of the new Canon 5D 12 megapixel cameras with one of their "L" lenses? I am guessing this will yield a raw 39mb file in photoshop which doesn't seem big enough to make good prints at even 24x30. But others tell me I am all wet.

Help! This isn't a light investment and I don't want to spend a bunch of money and be dissapointed when expectations aren't met.
Does anyone have any advice and perhaps a nice, tack sharp image you could either email me or I could download that's full size and I can see for myself in Photoshop? This would be a God send.

Anyway, I'd appreciate some dialog. I am hoping to get some real answers.

See if there is a photography store in your area that will rent the equipment. Then you can try out the camera you want, and if it doesn't meet expectations you haven't wasted your money purchasing it.

Mike Russell wrote:

So I was thinking....maybe one of the new Canon 5D 12 megapixel cameras with one of their "L" lenses? I am guessing this will yield a raw 39mb file in photoshop which doesn't seem big enough to make good prints at even 24x30. But others tell me I am all wet.

There's good and there's good. Your quality expectations are obviously beyond excellent. Keep in mind, though, that you're still going to need a good tripod, and the 1D Mark IIn is one heavy camera in any case - at 1555 grams it may actually be heavier than your Hasselblad.

Help! This isn't a light investment and I don't want to spend a bunch of money and be dissapointed when expectations aren't met.
Does anyone have any advice and perhaps a nice, tack sharp image you could either email me or I could download that's full size and I can see for myself in Photoshop? This would be a God send.

Here are some online sample images from the Mark IIn:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1D2/E1D2PICS.HTM

He's not thinking about the 1D MkIIN (8 Mpixel), but the 5D (12 Mpixel). That's a completely different camera. Just one try in Google gives several links to sample pictures:
http://www.google.com/search?q=examples%20canon%20eos%205d

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

Douglas wrote:

Contradictions are nothing new on the Internet...

<snip!>

I haven't the faintest idea what you're going on about.

According to you Derek... A 5D is not equal to a 'blad in quality of image and I contradict you. I believe it is not only as good but in most areas of image quality, better than any but the wider120 film formats. I have the evidence on the walls of my gallery. Where is yours?

"Keith" wrote in message

In article ,
"stereo guy" wrote:

See if there is a photography store in your area that will rent the equipment. Then you can try out the camera you want, and if it doesn't meet expectations you haven't wasted your money purchasing it.

Best piece of advise so far.

"Douglas" wrote in message

[...] I have the evidence on the walls of my gallery. Where is yours?

Mine is on the walls of your gallery, too. ;)

tag!

"stereo guy" wrote in message

I am a pretty dedicated film shooter. Some 4x5, mostly medium format. I typically drum scan my film and have it printed on a Lightjet at sizes ranging from 16x20 to 30x40 with excellent and sharp results - run it through photoshop and typical files sizes are in the hundreds of megabytes. You get within an inch or two of the print and it's as sharp as a tack. Very satisfying.

I am taking a trip to Europe with my wife and am really not looking forward to dragging the Hasselblad Arcbody, tripod, film backs etc. etc. with me - besides, my wife's going to kill me if I spend too much time setting up the camera stuff (that's the real problem if you want to get down to it).

So I was thinking....maybe one of the new Canon 5D 12 megapixel cameras with one of their "L" lenses? I am guessing this will yield a raw 39mb file in photoshop which doesn't seem big enough to make good prints at even 24x30. But others tell me I am all wet.

Help! This isn't a light investment and I don't want to spend a bunch of money and be dissapointed when expectations aren't met.
Does anyone have any advice and perhaps a nice, tack sharp image you could either email me or I could download that's full size and I can see for myself in Photoshop? This would be a God send.

Anyway, I'd appreciate some dialog. I am hoping to get some real answers.

I got the Canon digital because we already had a large investment in the lenses, primarily the EF300 mm/2.8, the 70-210 is decent at most light conditions with hand held.
if you plan any low light situation or any telephoto you MUST use a tripod it is more sensitive to shake.
If you can afford it, get the IS series lenses to go with your Canon (internal stabilizer)
it is a real shame they didn't include this in the camera bodies because you CAN use the EF lenses but I would've liked to have known about the shake issue before buying.
if you plan on a lot of shooting you may need a laptop or photo shop to transfer your cards too, if you will shoot RAW you need big cards (more $) foreign country with 220 you will need a transformer too do you want to be uploading pix every night?

sigh..a nice Hasselblad digital body was only around $22,000.00 last time I checked
the quality of digital has gotten a lot better but 35mm is never going to beat larger format especially digital to digital and
especially since you make such large size blowups, you didn;t say the subject matter, we do lot of portraits and super sharpness is not the main thing, 35mm is faster easier to set up and carry around (film or digital)

If you are in any major city you can rent a camera (good suggestion) not just to try it but to take it with you too, no risk to your own stuff in travel
NY Paris Miami Milan London all have lot of photo rental places

Douglas wrote:

"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

Douglas wrote:

Contradictions are nothing new on the Internet...

<snip!>

I haven't the faintest idea what you're going on about.

According to you Derek... A 5D is not equal to a 'blad in quality of image and I contradict you. I believe it is not only as good but in most areas of image quality, better than any but the wider120 film formats.

Oh right. You seemed to be on a rant about interpolation, overpriced Canon lenses, forging and manipulating pictures and sodomising seagulls.

I don't care to debate the issue with you.

--
----m0o0m
"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

Douglas wrote:

"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

Douglas wrote:

Contradictions are nothing new on the Internet...

<snip!>

I haven't the faintest idea what you're going on about.

According to you Derek... A 5D is not equal to a 'blad in quality of image and I contradict you. I believe it is not only as good but in most areas of image quality, better than any but the wider120 film formats.

Oh right. You seemed to be on a rant about interpolation, overpriced Canon lenses, forging and manipulating pictures and sodomising seagulls.
I don't care to debate the issue with you.

For someone who chimed in on a post intended to assist the OP, you sure are a sweet one.

On 16 Jan 2006 20:28:11 -0800, "stereo guy" wrote:

I am a pretty dedicated film shooter. Some 4x5, mostly medium format. I typically drum scan my film and have it printed on a Lightjet at sizes ranging from 16x20 to 30x40 with excellent and sharp results - run it through photoshop and typical files sizes are in the hundreds of megabytes. You get within an inch or two of the print and it's as sharp as a tack. Very satisfying.

I am taking a trip to Europe with my wife and am really not looking forward to dragging the Hasselblad Arcbody, tripod, film backs etc. etc. with me - besides, my wife's going to kill me if I spend too much time setting up the camera stuff (that's the real problem if you want to get down to it).

So I was thinking....maybe one of the new Canon 5D 12 megapixel cameras with one of their "L" lenses? I am guessing this will yield a raw 39mb file in photoshop which doesn't seem big enough to make good prints at even 24x30. But others tell me I am all wet.

Help! This isn't a light investment and I don't want to spend a bunch of money and be dissapointed when expectations aren't met.
Does anyone have any advice and perhaps a nice, tack sharp image you could either email me or I could download that's full size and I can see for myself in Photoshop? This would be a God send.

Anyway, I'd appreciate some dialog. I am hoping to get some real answers.

I switched to digital from 35mm. The best of the digitals right now exceed the capabilities of 25mm film in most respects. For me, the "break even" point between 35mm and digital was about 6MP. I currently shoot with a Nikon D2X, and I'm very satisfied. However, I also know that if I compared a large print from my camera with one made from a 4 x 5 negative, the latter would be much sharper up close.

Given that you are coming from medium format, though, I'd guess you will not be satisfied with the results from a 12MP digital.

Another poster suggested that you rent a digital camera and try it out. That is excellent advice. Perhaps you have a friend locally that owns a good digital camera and who would help you with a comparison.

Leonard

Leonard Lehew wrote:

I switched to digital from 35mm. The best of the digitals right now exceed the capabilities of 25mm film in most respects. For me, the "break even" point between 35mm and digital was about 6MP. I currently shoot with a Nikon D2X, and I'm very satisfied. However, I also know that if I compared a large print from my camera with one made from a 4 x 5 negative, the latter would be much sharper up close.
Given that you are coming from medium format, though, I'd guess you will not be satisfied with the results from a 12MP digital.

That remains to be seen. I went to a 1Ds MkII from a Pentax 67, and I haven't regretted it for one single minute. Granted, the 1Ds MkII is not 12 Mp but almost 17 Mp, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. He may be pleasantly surprised.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

In article <43ccf1ad$0$38184$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:

I haven't the faintest idea what you're going on about.

This is the guy who keeps claiming that image interpolation is just as good as starting with high-res images to begin with. You can safely disregard him.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <43ccf1ad$0$38184$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:

I haven't the faintest idea what you're going on about.

This is the guy who keeps claiming that image interpolation is just as good as starting with high-res images to begin with. You can safely disregard him.

Will do. Killfile updated.

"jjs" wrote in message

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <43ccf1ad$0$38184$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:

I haven't the faintest idea what you're going on about.

This is the guy who keeps claiming that image interpolation is just as good as starting with high-res images to begin with. You can safely disregard him.

Will do. Killfile updated.

Before disregarding him why don't you read what he has to say and make up your own mind instead of blindly accepting one person's opinion.

Unless of course you are, like many in this newsgroup, unable to see past your own pre-conceived prejudices.

I find the amount of ill-conceived comment here amazing. I read it regularly as I get a good laugh out of it and they say laughter is good for you.

nb

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <43ccf1ad$0$38184$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:

I haven't the faintest idea what you're going on about.

This is the guy who keeps claiming that image interpolation is just as good as starting with high-res images to begin with. You can safely disregard him.

--

And Tacit is the one who knocked back the opportunity get a brand new Canon 5D camera for free. All he had to do was prove me wrong. You can safely disregard anything he has to say. It's all obsolete information and anyway... Tacit is like so many other who hog newsgroups, when it comes to substance, he has none.

Hey Tacit...
That camera is a honey too. Have a look at the incredible detail it captures: http://www.photosbydouglas.com/hanging-out.htm With stuff this sharp, my new 60" wide printer is going to make me some serious money printing "tack sharp" enlargement on canvas and photo paper ...the likes of which you can only dream about - Hang on, that's right, you can't even imagine it, how could you dream it? Much less actually comprehend it.. See what you missed out on by having a closed mind?

Look here at Interpolation results from a 35mm film scan. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/pano2.htm Not even in your wildest dreams can you perceive reality. Why don't you just stop now before you really make an idiot of yourself, not just the fool you are making of yourself now?

If my digital enlargements were as dud as you try to make others believe, they wouldn't adorn the boardroom walls and foyers of companies involved in photography. Companies like Rural Press who publish regional newspapers in Australia and employ 40 or so professional Photographers who themselves, have me enlarge and print their private work.

You really have to question your statements here Tacit, the people buying my enlargements are not just Joe citizens, they are Photographers, Companies who employ Photographers and sell Photographic goods. It just wouldn't be in their interest to put poorly produced stuff on their walls, would it? Get on the program mate, it's never too late you know?

Leonard Lehew wrote:

On 16 Jan 2006 20:28:11 -0800, "stereo guy" wrote:
Another poster suggested that you rent a digital camera and try it out. That is excellent advice. Perhaps you have a friend locally that owns a good digital camera and who would help you with a comparison.

Yes, I was one who suggested same, possibly in response to the exact
o.p. in rec.photo.

I wish you well, Paul, and please post back the results of whatever route you take.

--
John McWilliams

"nb" wrote in message

Before disregarding him why don't you read what he has to say and make up your own mind instead of blindly accepting one person's opinion.

I have read enough of his posts to know.

"Douglas" wrote

And Tacit is the one who knocked back the opportunity get a brand new Canon 5D camera for free. All he had to do was prove me wrong.

If you put that thing into a legal agreement, with escrow, then maybe any one of us can go for it. Post the legals. Make it so, please.

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message

"Douglas" wrote

And Tacit is the one who knocked back the opportunity get a brand new Canon 5D camera for free. All he had to do was prove me wrong.

If you put that thing into a legal agreement, with escrow, then maybe any one of us can go for it. Post the legals. Make it so, please.

So another fraudster crawls out of the woodwork, hiding behind a layout artist's page filler for a name and using a fake Email address to raise you hand and claim you can, even if Tacit can't, doesn't want to or is too busy (snigger)... Bullshit. You are just as much an idiot as he is. Jokers like you amaze me. At least Tacit identifies himself.

Hide your identity, falsify your contact details and make your slanderous accusations through an anonymous news server and expect to have credibility? How stupid do you really think people are? Bugger off and get a life.

In article <K0Bzf.220336$>,
"Douglas" wrote:

And Tacit is the one who knocked back the opportunity get a brand new Canon 5D camera for free. All he had to do was prove me wrong.

And what, exactly, do I have to prove wrong?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Nothing can interpolate an image ***AND CREATE DETAIL WHICH DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL**.

If I create a high-resolution image of a scene, and you create a lower-resolution image of the same scene and interpolate it, my image will contain more detail than yours. Take it to the bank.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <K0Bzf.220336$>,
"Douglas" wrote:

And Tacit is the one who knocked back the opportunity get a brand new Canon
5D camera for free. All he had to do was prove me wrong.

And what, exactly, do I have to prove wrong?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Nothing can interpolate an image ***AND CREATE DETAIL WHICH DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL**.
If I create a high-resolution image of a scene, and you create a lower-resolution image of the same scene and interpolate it, my image will contain more detail than yours. Take it to the bank.
--

In other words... You have bee behaving like a troll all along. At least you have the decency to admit it now.

"Douglas" wrote in message

So another fraudster crawls out of the woodwork, hiding behind a layout artist's page filler for a name and using a fake Email address to raise you hand and claim you can, even if Tacit can't, doesn't want to or is too busy (snigger)... Bullshit.

Put up or shut up. Seriously.

"Douglas" wrote in message

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <K0Bzf.220336$>,
"Douglas" wrote:

And Tacit is the one who knocked back the opportunity get a brand new Canon
5D camera for free. All he had to do was prove me wrong.

And what, exactly, do I have to prove wrong?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Nothing can interpolate an image ***AND CREATE DETAIL WHICH DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL**.
If I create a high-resolution image of a scene, and you create a lower-resolution image of the same scene and interpolate it, my image will contain more detail than yours. Take it to the bank.
--

In other words... You have bee behaving like a troll all along. At least you have the decency to admit it now.

It looks like the deal will never happen because Douglas isn't mentally competent to enter into a contract.

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message

It looks like the deal will never happen because Douglas isn't mentally competent to enter into a contract.

What? with a piece of paragraph filler?
Get real child. This is about real people, not idiots hiding their identity.

"Douglas" wrote in message

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message

It looks like the deal will never happen because Douglas isn't mentally competent to enter into a contract.

What? with a piece of paragraph filler?
Get real child. This is about real people, not idiots hiding their identity.

Go to bed, Douglas. It's near midnight. You need the sleep.

So post the formal challenge. Put the camera in escrow. Let's have at it.

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message
....

It looks like the deal will never happen because Douglas isn't mentally competent to enter into a contract.

Your point was made long ago. I think you are not an unkind person, and suggest you stop.
---
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

In article <RQFzf.220524$>,
"Douglas" wrote:

In other words... You have bee behaving like a troll all along. At least you have the decency to admit it now.

What the hell are you talking about?

And what are you claiming, anyway? Do you state that an image which has been interpolated has the same amount of detail as an image which was created at the higher resolution to begin with? Yes or no?

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

tacit wrote:

In article <RQFzf.220524$>,
"Douglas" wrote:

In other words... You have bee behaving like a troll all along. At least you have the decency to admit it now.

What the hell are you talking about?

And what are you claiming, anyway? Do you state that an image which has been interpolated has the same amount of detail as an image which was created at the higher resolution to begin with? Yes or no?

I don't speak a lot of French, mais...deja vu.

Tacit is right when we talk about interpolation.

Douglas is (probably) right when we talk about his bank account.

Only they talk about two different things

tacit wrote:

In article <RQFzf.220524$>,
"Douglas" wrote:

In other words... You have bee behaving like a troll all along. At least you have the decency to admit it now.

What the hell are you talking about?

And what are you claiming, anyway? Do you state that an image which has been interpolated has the same amount of detail as an image which was created at the higher resolution to begin with? Yes or no?

Hi Tacit,

how are you? I am with you on this one; one cannot upsize lack of detail and turn it into detail.

This is so simple to solve, it isn't funny. Someone post an image which they took with their digital camera. Say an 8MP image from an EOS 20D. Now, resample a copy of it down to, say, a 3.2MP image. Douglas can upsize it using his secret techniques to the original pixel size.

Now compare the original 8MP image to Douglas' upsized image and post for all to see. Obviously, the upsized image is not going to be even close in terms of quality to the original. The onus falls on Douglas to prove otherwise. If he does prove otherwise, then no-one can argue, right?

There are too many people in this NG with theories and biases, who debate too much and don't just prove their point in 2 seconds. Anyone who seriously believes in their idea, belief, ability - can prove it very quickly. If I could genuinely achieve what Douglas claims, I would proudly do what I just suggested in the blink of an eye to shut everyone up.

Regards,
Brian.