Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > digital images: from film vs from digital camera

Reply
Thread Tools

digital images: from film vs from digital camera

 
 
H. S.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003


Is my belief correct that there is a difference between digital pictures
scanned from film and taken with a digital camera? Is it the graininess?
The depth of field? The contrast? The response of the digital sensor
(this *is* different than that of the film)?

In the above, consider that the resolution effects have been removed, in
other words, both pictures have been shrunk such that they appear to
have same resolution.

Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
ones taken with a digital camera.

Am I alone in this feeling, or have you noticed this too?

->HS
--
---------------------- X ----------------------
Remove all underscores from my email address to get the correct one.
Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is to reduce spam.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2003


H. S. wrote:

>
>
> Is my belief correct that there is a difference between digital pictures
> scanned from film and taken with a digital camera? Is it the graininess?
> The depth of field? The contrast? The response of the digital sensor
> (this *is* different than that of the film)?


Scanned film images reveal the grain of the film. In this way they are
certainly different from digital. DOF is the same for the same FL,
distance and aperture. Contrast varries accross a variety of films.
Digital sensors have inherent advantages including lower noise at higher
ISO... yes they are different ... and so what?
>
> In the above, consider that the resolution effects have been removed, in
> other words, both pictures have been shrunk such that they appear to
> have same resolution.
>
> Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
> seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
> ones taken with a digital camera.


I've seen many digital images that look enticing and warm. Seen a lot
of crappy digital images too. It ain't the equipment...
>
> Am I alone in this feeling, or have you noticed this too?


Well done digital images are difficult to tell from well done film
images, esp. on the screen (unless the image is many times larger than
the screen). A large print will show artifacts that are clearly digital.

IAC, there is no real need for digital to look exactly like film.
Digital will eventually cover 99% of our images and we will be happy
with the high quality delivered ... we won't get too warm and fuzzy over
film except for some particular uses. Time...

>
> ->HS


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jim Davis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2003
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:02:16 -0500, "H. S."
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote/replied to:

>Is my belief correct that there is a difference between digital pictures
>scanned from film and taken with a digital camera? Is it the graininess?
>The depth of field? The contrast? The response of the digital sensor
>(this *is* different than that of the film)?
>
>In the above, consider that the resolution effects have been removed, in
>other words, both pictures have been shrunk such that they appear to
>have same resolution.
>
>Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
>seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
>ones taken with a digital camera.


I think the difference is scanned images tend to have lousy unreal
colours while digital images have incredible tonal ranges and ultra
realistic colours. I might add, without frigging around with the
images either.

Images tend to feel more personal after you spent an hour scanning,
cleaning and adjusting them just so...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2003
The ONLY difference is in the header of some file formats that can
identify the source. As far as the editing software is concerned, a
JPEG file is a JPEG file, a TIFF file is a TIFF file, etc. There is NO
difference as far as the computer or printer is concerned.

A scanned print will tend to have less dynamic range than a digicam
image or one scanned with a film scanner, depending on exactly how you
define dynamic range.

"H. S." wrote:
>
> Is my belief correct that there is a difference between digital pictures
> scanned from film and taken with a digital camera? Is it the graininess?
> The depth of field? The contrast? The response of the digital sensor
> (this *is* different than that of the film)?
>
> In the above, consider that the resolution effects have been removed, in
> other words, both pictures have been shrunk such that they appear to
> have same resolution.
>
> Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
> seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
> ones taken with a digital camera.
>
> Am I alone in this feeling, or have you noticed this too?
>
> ->HS
> --
> ---------------------- X ----------------------
> Remove all underscores from my email address to get the correct one.
> Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is to reduce spam.


--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rafe B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2003
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:02:16 -0500, "H. S."
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>Somehow, the pictures scanned from film (negative as well as slides)
>seem, how shall I put it, more 'familiar', more 'personal' ...than the
>ones taken with a digital camera.



It's the absence of grain that makes digicam images a
bit unreal and unfamiliar. Way easy to fix in Photoshop --
sprinkle in just a tad of gaussian noise, if you're so inclined.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2003
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Rafe B. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>It's the absence of grain that makes digicam images a
>bit unreal and unfamiliar. Way easy to fix in Photoshop --
>sprinkle in just a tad of gaussian noise, if you're so inclined.


You probably want to upsample the image quite a bit before doing this.

Photoshop has an actual "film grain" filter, and again, I would severely
upsample the image before applying it, so it has the texture you want,
but maintains most of the detail.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rafe B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2003
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:13:56 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Rafe B. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>It's the absence of grain that makes digicam images a
>>bit unreal and unfamiliar. Way easy to fix in Photoshop --
>>sprinkle in just a tad of gaussian noise, if you're so inclined.

>
>You probably want to upsample the image quite a bit before doing this.
>
>Photoshop has an actual "film grain" filter, and again, I would severely
>upsample the image before applying it, so it has the texture you want,
>but maintains most of the detail.



I don't propose this as something terribly useful, and it's
not something I do with my own images or prints. But I have
noticed that the addition of noise to an otherwise "noiseless"
digital capture has a startling and dramatic effect, and goes
a long way toward making the image feel "more like film."


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Flycaster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2003
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Rafe B. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >It's the absence of grain that makes digicam images a
> >bit unreal and unfamiliar. Way easy to fix in Photoshop --
> >sprinkle in just a tad of gaussian noise, if you're so inclined.

>
> You probably want to upsample the image quite a bit before doing this.
>
> Photoshop has an actual "film grain" filter, and again, I would severely
> upsample the image before applying it, so it has the texture you want,
> but maintains most of the detail.


The upsampling helps some, but as is the case with most of the Adobe
"artistic" plug-ins, "film grain" is pretty funky. Noise-gaussian is also a
bit weird...I don't care too much for how it color fringes, if that's the
right term. Gimmicks, imo.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim Davis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2003
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:46:13 GMT, Rafe B. <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote/replied to:

>I don't propose this as something terribly useful, and it's
>not something I do with my own images or prints. But I have
>noticed that the addition of noise to an otherwise "noiseless"
>digital capture has a startling and dramatic effect, and goes
>a long way toward making the image feel "more like film."


Yuck!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2003

I think this film grain problem is being emphasized too much. If you are
using decent film, and only sampling to about 3 to 5 megasamples per
image, the grain should not be intrusive at all. I use a print scanner,
and even at 10 megasamples grain is not a problem for ISO 200 film.

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
(E-Mail Removed)
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Looking for a digital camera with wide angle lens (equivalent of 28mm on a film camera)... Doghouse Riley Digital Photography 19 08-10-2004 07:55 PM
Re: Looking for a digital camera with wide angle lens (equivalent of 28mm on a film camera)... Julian Tan Digital Photography 0 08-09-2004 03:02 AM
Re: Can someone explain how digital camera optical zooms compare to film camera zooms? fruitbat Digital Photography 1 09-17-2003 10:11 PM
Night shots are better with digital camera- No film vs camera debate zxcvar Digital Photography 4 09-01-2003 06:38 PM



Advertisments