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?

 
 
Mike Henley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
comparison. This is an example...

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
"My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
the DSLR cameras"

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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robertwgross
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
Mike wrote:
>I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
>and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
>comparison. This is an example...
>
>http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>"My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
>DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
>In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
>competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
>properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
>the DSLR cameras"
>
>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.


I'll tell you what, Mike. You post your purely analog 35mm film print on the
net, and then we will find something to compare it to. Think about it, man.

---Bob Gross---

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Mike Henley) writes:

> I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
> and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
> comparison. This is an example...
>
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> "My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
> DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
> In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
> competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
> properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
> the DSLR cameras"
>
> 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*?


Because that's how professional photographers largely work these
days. The film shot is scanned, rather than having darkroom prints
made. Thus, those are the terms that they're most familiar with, and
that's the process they need to match the quality of.

> 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.


There are two main reasons why professionals have mostly moved to
digital darkroom.

One is that for publication work, the result has to be in digital form
anyway when it goes to the printer; by producing that digital form
themselves, the photographer keeps more control and also more of the
money.

The other is that they get better prints that way. There was an
article by Galen Rowell from a year or two before his death explaining
how and why he was moving into digital darkroom; dunno if it's still
available on the web, but if so, he gives quite a good explanation of
his thought processes and the evidence that convinced him to move.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lionel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
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.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger Halstead
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
On 28 May 2004 22:02:49 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Mike Henley) wrote:

>I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
>and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
>comparison. This is an example...
>
>http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>"My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
>DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
>In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
>competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
>properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
>the DSLR cameras"
>
>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 it's done that way cuz there just ain't no other way to do
it except on a one to one basis at some ones house, or mail the
prints. On the web... well... <)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

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

"Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
> and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
> comparison. This is an example...
>
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> "My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
> DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
> In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
> competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
> properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
> the DSLR cameras"
>
> 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.


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
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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
MXP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
I have always asked the same question myself.
My pure analog prints have more information than my scanned and printed
prints.

I noticed some "color noise" on the 1Ds image ...........

Max

"Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i en meddelelse
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
> and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
> comparison. This is an example...
>
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> "My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
> DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
> In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
> competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
> properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
> the DSLR cameras"
>
> 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.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
Just because these comparisons are biased!Everybody thinks that digital
*must* be better.

--
Dimitris Tzortzakakis,Iraklion Crete,Greece
Analogue technology rules-digital sucks
http://www.patriko-kreta.com
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr the return adress is corrupted
? "Mike Henley" <(E-Mail Removed)> ?????? ??? ??????
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
> and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
> comparison. This is an example...
>
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> "My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
> DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
> In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
> competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
> properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
> the DSLR cameras"
>
> 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.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
You're biased, too!

--
Dimitris Tzortzakakis,Iraklion Crete,Greece
Analogue technology rules-digital sucks
http://www.patriko-kreta.com
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr the return adress is corrupted
? "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> ?????? ??? ??????
news:(E-Mail Removed)-b.net...
> (E-Mail Removed) (Mike Henley) writes:
>
> > I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
> > and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
> > comparison. This is an example...
> >
> > http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> > "My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
> > DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
> > In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
> > competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
> > properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
> > the DSLR cameras"
> >
> > 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*?

>
> Because that's how professional photographers largely work these
> days. The film shot is scanned, rather than having darkroom prints
> made. Thus, those are the terms that they're most familiar with, and
> that's the process they need to match the quality of.
>
> > 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.

>
> There are two main reasons why professionals have mostly moved to
> digital darkroom.
>
> One is that for publication work, the result has to be in digital form
> anyway when it goes to the printer; by producing that digital form
> themselves, the photographer keeps more control and also more of the
> money.
>
> The other is that they get better prints that way. There was an
> article by Galen Rowell from a year or two before his death explaining
> how and why he was moving into digital darkroom; dunno if it's still
> available on the web, but if so, he gives quite a good explanation of
> his thought processes and the evidence that convinced him to move.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/>

<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian C. Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2004
In article <7YVtc.7701$IB.6825@attbi_s04>, (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!
 
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