Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > why do digital supporters compare it to digitized film?

Reply
Thread Tools

why do digital supporters compare it to digitized film?

 
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004

"Lionel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >trying to justify a forthcoming purchase to my wife.

>
> You think /you've/ got it bad? - I have to justify my spending to my
> *accountant*!


Do you have a same-sex, or opposite-sex accountant?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004

"Brian C. Baird" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> In article <7YVtc.7701$IB.6825@attbi_s04>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> > This is true....Once you have passed your work through a digitization
> > process, it's resolution will be reduced to digital from that time on.

This
>
> How can resolution be "reduced to digital"? Digitizing a slide or
> negative doesn't "reduce" anything, it merely converts it to a fixed
> size determined by the user. When you scan at a high enough resolution
> to reproduce film grain, you've basically maxed out whatever usable
> detail the film had.
>
> > is why discussing the difference on Usenet is such a waste of time. The

only
> > way to compare prints on the net is by digitizing them and sending them

thru
> > cyberspace, and so all resolutions from that time on are digital. The

only
> > way to really compare is to bring your work down to the local camera

store
> > or camera club meeting, where you can show others the film product
> > completely un-digitized.

>
> And it won't make a difference! A good print is a good print, and top-
> end digital SLRs like the 1Ds make prints every bit as good as film
> prints! Of course, they have better color accuracy and are easier to
> manipulate, but hey, if you want to be a Luddite, I'm not going to stop
> you!


So what you are saying is that the pixel size of digital sensing planes has
now surpassed the molecular size of film emulsions.......Perhaps you are
right, but I hadn't heard that. I have been running under the impression
that there was still a 10x difference......I just know for sure that my
computer screen is much too crude to reproduce my slides with the excellent
resolution that I get with a loup or a film projector. And, in my case, the
only practical way I have of viewing anything digital is on this 17" Sony
Trinitron screen that I am looking at right now....I can see the "grain" on
this screen without even using a magnifying glass!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (Mike Henley) wrote in news:6005702b.0405282102.4a023f66
@posting.google.com:

> I mean, seriously, what's the point of comparing digital to digitized
> film? What's the point of comparing a digital camera output to a 35mm
> film *scan*?
>
> Why *not* compare a digital camera print to a *purely analog* 35mm
> film print? you know, not a 35mm film that is *scanned* and then
> printed, but one printed the regular way 35mm had been printed for
> decades.


Point 1.

For most purposes the habit of taking 35 mm film photos
and then printing them using an optical enlarger is more
or less dead - at least if high quality is the goal.

Point 2.

It has been shown that a drum scanner can get more information
out of a negative than is possible with an optical enlarger.

Point 3.

You can do lots of stuff with your picturs if they are digitized;
stuff that improves the quality and expressitivity of the pictures.

Point 4.

The possibility to make a good comparison of the quality of printed
pictures and presenting it in an unbiased way is almost nil.


/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sander Vesik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Lionel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Kibo informs me that (E-Mail Removed) (Mike Henley) stated that:
>
> >I mean, seriously, what's the point of comparing digital to digitized
> >film? What's the point of comparing a digital camera output to a 35mm
> >film *scan*?
> >
> >Why *not* compare a digital camera print to a *purely analog* 35mm
> >film print? you know, not a 35mm film that is *scanned* and then
> >printed, but one printed the regular way 35mm had been printed for
> >decades.

>
> Basically, because it's pretty much impossible to compare the two on the
> Internet. I agree with you that it'd be a much fairer comparison, but
> how the hell do you do it? - The only practical way would be to print
> two equally sized, identical shots from each technology & hang them on
> the wall side by side, but then the only people who'll be able to do a
> comparison will be those who can actually see the two prints in person.
>


no. you could scan the prints.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004

"William Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > And it won't make a difference! A good print is a good print, and top-
> > end digital SLRs like the 1Ds make prints every bit as good as film
> > prints! Of course, they have better color accuracy and are easier to
> > manipulate, but hey, if you want to be a Luddite, I'm not going to stop
> > you!

>
> So what you are saying is that the pixel size of digital sensing planes
> has now surpassed the molecular size of film emulsions.......


No, what he's referring to is that everyone who has looked closely at 1Ds
images finds them to be a lot closer to 645 images than to 35mm images. The
best films that people actually use have an MTF50 of 40 lp/mm or lower. And
that's just the film. Toss in a lens and a printing system (scanned or
projection) and the system MTF is lower. Meanwhile the 1Ds coughs up 40
lp/mm reliably and noise free.

>Perhaps you are
> right, but I hadn't heard that. I have been running under the impression
> that there was still a 10x difference......


Film types like to talk about limiting resolution. That may be interesting
under a microscope, but the contrast is so low and the noise so high that
that detail can't be used for prints.

The best 35mm films edge out 6MP digital. Slightly. But the digital has more
accurate color (smaller hue shifts).

> And, in my case, the
> only practical way I have of viewing anything digital is on this 17" Sony
> Trinitron screen that I am looking at right now....I can see the "grain"
> on this screen without even using a magnifying glass!


You could get an Epson R800, Canon i9xxx, or whatever and make prints. Being
able to make your own prints is very nice. It's what I found interesting
about photography 1960 to 1980 (I even chose my grad school major based on
which department had the best darkrooms) and it's what I find interesting
about it now.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
MXP wrote:

> The Analog prints I do is Ilfochrome and the Scanned are done with a Epson
> 3200 and
> printed using a Epson 2100 printer. From 6x6 it gives very good quality and
> much faster than
> doing homemade Ilfochromes. A well made Ilfochrome is hard to beat.
>
> Max


My examples on the page below were cibachromes. Now I do
fuji crystal archive as cibachrome is not longer offered
on the lightjet where I have prints done.
Roger
>
>
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i
> en meddelelse news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>MXP wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have always asked the same question myself.
>>>My pure analog prints have more information than my scanned and printed
>>>prints.

>>
>>Then I would say your scans are not very good. Get a drum scan.
>>My experience is that good scans get more information than
>>you get from traditional professional enlarger printing. See:
>>http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...advantage.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian C. Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
In article <iE4uc.13898$eY2.6547@attbi_s02>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > And it won't make a difference! A good print is a good print, and top-
> > end digital SLRs like the 1Ds make prints every bit as good as film
> > prints! Of course, they have better color accuracy and are easier to
> > manipulate, but hey, if you want to be a Luddite, I'm not going to stop
> > you!

>
> So what you are saying is that the pixel size of digital sensing planes has
> now surpassed the molecular size of film emulsions.......Perhaps you are


It doesn't need to surpass the "molecular size", only the effective
resolution of the film. Film isn't some homogenous mass with infinite
detail down to a molecule. Its resolution is limited by its
formulation, light diffusion and the chemical development process.
Thus, a 11.1 megapixel 1Ds can indeed produce images with the detail of
film.
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2004

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c9b3i9$qee$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "William Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > > And it won't make a difference! A good print is a good print, and

top-
> > > end digital SLRs like the 1Ds make prints every bit as good as film
> > > prints! Of course, they have better color accuracy and are easier to
> > > manipulate, but hey, if you want to be a Luddite, I'm not going to

stop
> > > you!

> >
> > So what you are saying is that the pixel size of digital sensing planes
> > has now surpassed the molecular size of film emulsions.......

>
> No, what he's referring to is that everyone who has looked closely at 1Ds
> images finds them to be a lot closer to 645 images than to 35mm images.

The
> best films that people actually use have an MTF50 of 40 lp/mm or lower.

And
> that's just the film. Toss in a lens and a printing system (scanned or
> projection) and the system MTF is lower. Meanwhile the 1Ds coughs up 40
> lp/mm reliably and noise free.
>
> >Perhaps you are
> > right, but I hadn't heard that. I have been running under the impression
> > that there was still a 10x difference......

>
> Film types like to talk about limiting resolution. That may be interesting
> under a microscope, but the contrast is so low and the noise so high that
> that detail can't be used for prints.
>
> The best 35mm films edge out 6MP digital. Slightly. But the digital has

more
> accurate color (smaller hue shifts).
>
> > And, in my case, the
> > only practical way I have of viewing anything digital is on this 17"

Sony
> > Trinitron screen that I am looking at right now....I can see the "grain"
> > on this screen without even using a magnifying glass!

>
> You could get an Epson R800, Canon i9xxx, or whatever and make prints.

Being
> able to make your own prints is very nice. It's what I found interesting
> about photography 1960 to 1980 (I even chose my grad school major based on
> which department had the best darkrooms) and it's what I find interesting
> about it now.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>

Oh.....I am still learning about this.....I found a reference at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml


 
Reply With Quote
 
MXP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2004

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i
en meddelelse news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> MXP wrote:
>
> > The Analog prints I do is Ilfochrome and the Scanned are done with a

Epson
> > 3200 and
> > printed using a Epson 2100 printer. From 6x6 it gives very good quality

and
> > much faster than
> > doing homemade Ilfochromes. A well made Ilfochrome is hard to beat.
> >
> > Max

>
> My examples on the page below were cibachromes. Now I do
> fuji crystal archive as cibachrome is not longer offered
> on the lightjet where I have prints done.
> Roger
> >

Interresting that Ilfochrome can be done on a lightjet. The chemistry is
probably more
complicated than using Fuji crystal archive. The Ilfochrome paper has been
quite expensive.
So maybe that is the resaon.
A lightjet is probably to expensive a printer for private use......

Max


> >
> > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev

i
> > en meddelelse news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> >>MXP wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have always asked the same question myself.
> >>>My pure analog prints have more information than my scanned and printed
> >>>prints.
> >>
> >>Then I would say your scans are not very good. Get a drum scan.
> >>My experience is that good scans get more information than
> >>you get from traditional professional enlarger printing. See:
> >>http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...advantage.html

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2004
MXP wrote:

> Interresting that Ilfochrome can be done on a lightjet. The chemistry is
> probably more
> complicated than using Fuji crystal archive. The Ilfochrome paper has been
> quite expensive.
> So maybe that is the resaon.
> A lightjet is probably to expensive a printer for private use......


The cost of production was not the paper but the cost to
calibrate the system. At Reed Photo in Denver, where I
got my Ilfochromes done, Mr Reed said it took a third of
a role of paper to calibrate. That kept the costs
high. They dropped ilfochrome about 2 years ago.

The Fuji Crystal Archive is pretty close to the
ilfochrome in terms of color on the lightjet, and costs have
come way down. A 16x20 Fuji is now $31.50 if you give them
a CD that has the image ready to send to the printer.

If you meant by private use to have the printer yourself,
probably. I think the cost is a couple hundred thousand.
I guess it would depend on your income . But for us
income challenged, we'll just have to go to the photo store.

Roger

 
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
For the Human Rights Act supporters: StevieO Computer Support 0 11-16-2010 01:34 PM
Fascist HD-DVD supporters raise the white flag Kuskokwim DVD Video 2 01-22-2008 07:07 AM
wanted: sets of digitized old photographs name Digital Photography 3 04-03-2007 10:02 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Digitized Photos to CD to Television Display? Jim Mohundro Digital Photography 7 01-01-2004 07:22 PM



Advertisments