Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: 35mm film VS digital (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t632617-re-35mm-film-vs-digital.html)

RoushPhotoOnline.com 08-27-2008 04:47 PM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 
On Aug 27, 9:03*am, "Bob Donahue" <bobm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
> of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember
> grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
>
> --
> Bob D.


I don't think there is a proper comparision. A print is a second
generation from a negative or slide. so comparing a digital file which
is first generation to a print which is second generation is not truly
a fair comparison. Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
contest. However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
out a scan, which is a second generation again. So, my point it this,
does it really matter?
Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files, so
there really isn't any need to compare them to anything.
Also, print quality varies so much from vendor to vendor that a print
should never be used in any comparisons.

Jeff Roush
photo instructor
http://www.roushphotoonline.com

That80sGuy 08-27-2008 05:24 PM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 
In message
news:183a2a75-ecd9-43c1-a50a-6a480ddb5f08@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> done wrote:

> On Aug 27, 9:03*am, "Bob Donahue" <bobm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the
>> current c

> rop
>> of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
>> (Remem

> ber
>> grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
>>
>> --
>> Bob D.

>
> I don't think there is a proper comparision. A print is a second
> generation from a negative or slide.


Or from a digital.

> so comparing a digital file which
> is first generation to a print which is second generation is not truly
> a fair comparison.


Most people don't view "first generation" digital files. In fact, nobody
CAN view "first generation" digital files at full resolution. A UXGA
(1600x1200) monitor has only 1.9 megapixels; digital files have 12mp.
The highest resolution monitor is WQUXGA (3840x2400, still far short of
displaying a native 12mp file. Oh, and it's $20,000.00 with a 300:1
contrast ratio that will make your "first generation" file look like
crap.).

So digital must be viewed as a print as well if one wants to get full
resolution.

> Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
> original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
> contest. However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
> out a scan, which is a second generation again.


Ever heard of projectors? Ilfochrome? You're a "photo instructor"?
Yikes.

> So, my point it this,
> does it really matter?
> Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files


Yeah, either reduced to 25% resolution to fit a monitor, or by scrolling
to see 1/6th of the picture at a time at full res. Pfft.

Jürgen Exner 08-27-2008 05:39 PM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 
"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,


I repectfully disagree.

First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data. They need to be processed
into some picture format, very often JPEG. So your JPEG file is already
second generation.
And second you cannot view the JPEG file directly, either. It is either
printed on some paper or displayed on a display device like a CRT or LCD
or projector. Thus what you are seeing is third generation at best.

jue

Chris H 08-27-2008 06:25 PM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 
In message <904bb4pdjs6d46f9hpqg208uun31djm5e2@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner
<jurgenex@hotmail.com> writes
>"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>>Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,

>
>I repectfully disagree.
>
>First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data.


Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data
in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it
into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc.

> They need to be processed
>into some picture format, very often JPEG. So your JPEG file is already
>second generation.


No the resultant JPEG/TIFF/PNG is second generation. However I get to
chose the parameters far more than you can in a dark room.

If you screw up the developing you can't go back




--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/




Steve 08-27-2008 10:56 PM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:25:25 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In message <904bb4pdjs6d46f9hpqg208uun31djm5e2@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner
><jurgenex@hotmail.com> writes
>>"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>>>Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,

>>
>>I repectfully disagree.
>>
>>First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data.

>
>Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data
>in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it
>into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc.


You're right, you can view the RAW sensor data. But it won't look
like a picture you're used to seeing. Probably the best way to view
it is just hex data. If you try to visualize it without converting it
into somethine else, you'll be very dissapointed. Your RAW processor
converts the RAW sensor data into something you can see that looks
like a picture. *THAT* is 2nd generation and different RAW processors
might make different looking images from the RAW sensor data.

>> They need to be processed
>>into some picture format, very often JPEG. So your JPEG file is already
>>second generation.

>
>No the resultant JPEG/TIFF/PNG is second generation. However I get to
>chose the parameters far more than you can in a dark room.


You can also choose parameters even just for viewing the RAW data
without saving it as a JPEG, TIFF, etc.

Steve

RoushPhotoOnline.com 08-28-2008 10:52 AM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 
On Aug 27, 12:24*pm, That80sGuy <cl...@griswold.com> wrote:
> In messagenews:183a2a75-ecd9-43c1-a50a-6a480ddb5f08@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>
> "RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jro...@roushstudios.com> done wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 9:03*am, "Bob Donahue" <bobm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the
> >> current c

> > rop
> >> of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
> >> (Remem

> > ber
> >> grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)

>
> >> --
> >> Bob D.

>
> > I don't think there is a proper comparision. *A print is a second
> > generation from a negative or slide.

>
> Or from a digital.
>
> > so comparing a digital file which
> > is first generation to a print which is second generation is not truly
> > a fair comparison.

>
> Most people don't view "first generation" digital files. *In fact, nobody
> CAN view "first generation" digital files at full resolution. *A UXGA
> (1600x1200) monitor has only 1.9 megapixels; digital files have 12mp.
> The highest resolution monitor is WQUXGA (3840x2400, still far short of
> displaying a native 12mp file. *Oh, and it's $20,000.00 with a 300:1
> contrast ratio that will make your "first generation" file look like
> crap.).
>
> So digital must be viewed as a print as well if one wants to get full
> resolution.
>
> > Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
> > original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
> > contest. *However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
> > out a scan, which is a second generation again.

>
> Ever heard of projectors? *Ilfochrome? *You're a "photo instructor"?
> Yikes.
>
> > So, my point it this,
> > does it really matter?
> > Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files

>
> Yeah, either reduced to 25% resolution to fit a monitor, or by scrolling
> to see 1/6th of the picture at a time at full res. *Pfft.


You comments are correct, but most people don't have access to any
type of projection system that could possibly be of any quality.
Plus, he wasn't asking about "what would BE the best comparison
technique" - he was referring to prints in his statements. Full res
on a the best monitor you can find/afford is the only way to view them
acurately - agreed - but once again few have that type of system to
view image files of any type.
Jeff Roush
photo instructor
http://www.roushphotoonline.com

Dave 08-28-2008 12:00 PM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 
Steve wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:25:25 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <904bb4pdjs6d46f9hpqg208uun31djm5e2@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner
>> <jurgenex@hotmail.com> writes
>>> "RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>>>> Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,
>>> I repectfully disagree.
>>>
>>> First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data.

>> Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data
>> in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it
>> into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc.

>
> You're right, you can view the RAW sensor data. But it won't look
> like a picture you're used to seeing. Probably the best way to view
> it is just hex data. If you try to visualize it without converting it
> into somethine else, you'll be very dissapointed. Your RAW processor
> converts the RAW sensor data into something you can see that looks
> like a picture. *THAT* is 2nd generation and different RAW processors
> might make different looking images from the RAW sensor data.


One could argue a 35 mm slide is second generation, as the data is first
recorded on the film, but then has to be processed (developed) to
produce an image. You could take that argument back further and consider
the lens does processing. Hence talking of first or second generation in
this context is a bit pointless IMHO

Steve 08-29-2008 04:33 AM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:00:48 +0100, Dave <foo@coo.com> wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:25:25 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <904bb4pdjs6d46f9hpqg208uun31djm5e2@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner
>>> <jurgenex@hotmail.com> writes
>>>> "RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>>>>> Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,
>>>> I repectfully disagree.
>>>>
>>>> First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data.
>>> Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data
>>> in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it
>>> into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc.

>>
>> You're right, you can view the RAW sensor data. But it won't look
>> like a picture you're used to seeing. Probably the best way to view
>> it is just hex data. If you try to visualize it without converting it
>> into somethine else, you'll be very dissapointed. Your RAW processor
>> converts the RAW sensor data into something you can see that looks
>> like a picture. *THAT* is 2nd generation and different RAW processors
>> might make different looking images from the RAW sensor data.

>
>One could argue a 35 mm slide is second generation, as the data is first
>recorded on the film, but then has to be processed (developed) to
>produce an image. You could take that argument back further and consider
>the lens does processing. Hence talking of first or second generation in
>this context is a bit pointless IMHO


I don't think so. To me, it's pretty clear and while you may not
agree, that's irrelavent to me.

What I think of first generation is the earliest "thing" that gets
archived for making subsequent prints. You don't archive the photons
going through a lens. You don't archive undeveloped film. But you do
archive negatives so you can make further prints from them. Same with
slides, but not for prints, for direct viewing.

I archive RAW files so I can make subsequent prints and the RAW file
is the earliest "thing" that can get archived, so that's what I
consider first generation. But unlike a 35mm slide, you can't "see" a
RAW file. You have to do further processing on it to be able to see
an image. So what you're seeing when you view a RAW file on the
screen or a print is 2nd generation. Just like what you're seeing
when you view a print enlarged from a negative is 2nd generation.

If your camera outputs only JPEG, then that's 1st generation even
though the quality might not be as good as something you can
post-process from RAW data. And that's only because it's the earliest
thing you can archive.

You can use the same analogy in other media also. For instance,
recording. The multitrack recording is something like a "pre 1st
generation" because it's not what you use to make copies of. But when
you mix it down and then master it, the master recording is a 1st
generation because that's what's used to make further copies from.

Steve

NigelCummings 08-29-2008 01:21 PM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 
Hmmmmmm.....

Now that the last few Fuji Finepix S5 DSLRs are left in the shops, I wonder
have we come to the end for cameras that can deliver 'film like' richly
gradated images witha good dynamic range?

After all, images from conventional DSLRS seem to resemble sldes rather than
images derived from film negatives, it seems a pity to me that a camera such
as the Fuji Finepix S5 has been, or is being discontinued. It would be nice
to think there were still DSLRS available which were capable of providing a
wide dynamic range.

Personally I use Nikon DSLRs and keep a Finepix S5 mainly for portraiture.
Even with Nikon's proprietary D-Lighting emnabled, the Fuji images are
always more tonal.
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:o7-dnU3MVPtmiCvVnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> That80sGuy wrote:
>
>>> I don't think there is a proper comparision. A print is a second
>>> generation from a negative or slide.

>>
>> Or from a digital.

>
> A proper point, but a poor comparison. A digital sensor is much more
> perfectly flat than film. There is no dimensional grain in a digital
> sensor (there is noise in dynamic, but its always within the bounds of the
> pixel).
>
>> Most people don't view "first generation" digital files. In fact, nobody
>> CAN view "first generation" digital files at full resolution. A UXGA
>> (1600x1200) monitor has only 1.9 megapixels; digital files have 12mp. The
>> highest resolution monitor is WQUXGA (3840x2400, still far short of
>> displaying a native 12mp file. Oh, and it's $20,000.00 with a 300:1
>> contrast ratio that will make your "first generation" file look like
>> crap.).

>
> Ahem. You zoom into the area of detail of interest. But again, that's
> not the same as viewing a print which cannot have the dynamic range of the
> image in any case. Never mind the 100 dpi or so of a typical monitor v.
> the 300 dpi of a typical print. (Even your drool-monitor above is
> somewhat less than 300 dpi.)
>
>> So digital must be viewed as a print as well if one wants to get full
>> resolution.

>
> Hmm. Odd you mention that now...
>
>>
>>> Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
>>> original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
>>> contest. However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
>>> out a scan, which is a second generation again.

>>
>> Ever heard of projectors? Ilfochrome? You're a "photo instructor"?
>> Yikes.
>>> So, my point it this,
>>> does it really matter?
>>> Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files

>>
>> Yeah, either reduced to 25% resolution to fit a monitor, or by scrolling
>> to see 1/6th of the picture at a time at full res. Pfft.

>
> Pfft yourself. A monitor is on the order of 100 dpi and a print on the
> order of 300 dpi. So yes, in editing you have to zoom in for critical
> detail.
>
> And yes, you display it resized to see the entire image for overall
> effect. And so what? This has absolutely nothing to do with film v
> digital. Once you've digitized film, it is no different in this sense
> than a digital original.
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
> -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.




Dave 08-29-2008 05:58 PM

Re: 35mm film VS digital
 
Steve wrote:

>> One could argue a 35 mm slide is second generation, as the data is first
>> recorded on the film, but then has to be processed (developed) to
>> produce an image. You could take that argument back further and consider
>> the lens does processing. Hence talking of first or second generation in
>> this context is a bit pointless IMHO

>
> I don't think so. To me, it's pretty clear and while you may not
> agree, that's irrelavent to me.


That is rather rude of you.

> What I think of first generation is the earliest "thing" that gets
> archived for making subsequent prints. You don't archive the photons
> going through a lens. You don't archive undeveloped film. But you do
> archive negatives so you can make further prints from them. Same with
> slides, but not for prints, for direct viewing.
>
> I archive RAW files so I can make subsequent prints and the RAW file
> is the earliest "thing" that can get archived, so that's what I
> consider first generation. But unlike a 35mm slide, you can't "see" a
> RAW file. You have to do further processing on it to be able to see
> an image. So what you're seeing when you view a RAW file on the
> screen or a print is 2nd generation. Just like what you're seeing
> when you view a print enlarged from a negative is 2nd generation.
>
> If your camera outputs only JPEG, then that's 1st generation even
> though the quality might not be as good as something you can
> post-process from RAW data. And that's only because it's the earliest
> thing you can archive.
>
> You can use the same analogy in other media also. For instance,
> recording. The multitrack recording is something like a "pre 1st
> generation" because it's not what you use to make copies of. But when
> you mix it down and then master it, the master recording is a 1st
> generation because that's what's used to make further copies from.
>
> Steve


You have made a pretty good argument for what is first generation in
this case. I can't really argue with that. I just think you are a bit rude.

Dave


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.