comparison photos - Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, Canon 1DMkII, Nikon D2X with FILM

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by gnnyman, Jul 5, 2005.

  1. gnnyman

    gnnyman Guest

    I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
    with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
    gnnyman, Jul 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. gnnyman

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > I could not resist to do it as well - on my website

    You need to work on your website and get the thumbnails smaller ... a
    couple are over 65 KBytes, another over 165 KBytes when they should be
    2-4 KB each ... takes too long to load for those w/o cable.
    Bill Hilton, Jul 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. gnnyman

    Scott W Guest

    gnnyman wrote:
    > I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    > sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
    > with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com


    Neat comparison, I predict that you will get a bunch of people telling
    you how you did it wrong.

    BTW it helps to step back about 8 feet from your monitor to get an idea
    of how this might look printed.

    Do you happen to have the 20D raw file still? I would love to see what
    I could do with it.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jul 5, 2005
    #3
  4. gnnyman

    Guest

    >I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    >sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and >compared with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com


    Interesting, but what film scanner and scan resolution? It would be
    interesting to see if the 'grain' is real, or aliased. Fuji 100, while
    a fairly 'typical' film, would not be my first choice to test the
    resolution of a camera..
    , Jul 5, 2005
    #4
  5. "Scott W" <> wrote:
    > gnnyman wrote:
    >> I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    >> sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
    >> with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com

    >
    > Neat comparison, I predict that you will get a bunch of people telling
    > you how you did it wrong.


    Yep! The softness of the 1D2 image is fodder for the Journal of
    Irreproducable results (and it's not just the (laudable) lack of sharpening:
    the detail seems really to not be there), and the sharpening halos in the
    20D and D70s images are obscene (they're due to oversharpening before
    upsampling, a mistake I've made in my own d vs. f comparisons).

    But other than that, it's about what's expected: 8MP clearly* edges out film
    but 6MP has a harder time of it. It's interesting that the 20D does a better
    job on the top surface of the left end wall of the building than the film
    does (i.e. the far edge vs. sky transition gets lost in the film shot),
    since film is advertised as doing better at holding highlights.

    *: A lot of people claim that the 8MP vs. 6MP difference is really small,
    but (a) it's the difference between 250 ppi and almost 300 ppi at 8x12, and
    (b) it's the difference between not edging out 35mm film and clearly edging
    out 35mm film, so, IMHO, going to 8MP really is the right idea for the APS-C
    dSLRs.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 5, 2005
    #5
  6. gnnyman

    frederick Guest

    Re: comparison photos - Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, Canon 1DMkII, NikonD2X with FILM

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Scott W" <> wrote:
    >
    >>gnnyman wrote:
    >>
    >>>I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    >>>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
    >>>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com

    >>
    >>Neat comparison, I predict that you will get a bunch of people telling
    >>you how you did it wrong.

    >
    >
    > Yep! The softness of the 1D2 image is fodder for the Journal of
    > Irreproducable results (and it's not just the (laudable) lack of sharpening:
    > the detail seems really to not be there), and the sharpening halos in the
    > 20D and D70s images are obscene (they're due to oversharpening before
    > upsampling, a mistake I've made in my own d vs. f comparisons).
    >
    > But other than that, it's about what's expected: 8MP clearly* edges out film
    > but 6MP has a harder time of it. It's interesting that the 20D does a better
    > job on the top surface of the left end wall of the building than the film
    > does (i.e. the far edge vs. sky transition gets lost in the film shot),
    > since film is advertised as doing better at holding highlights.
    >
    > *: A lot of people claim that the 8MP vs. 6MP difference is really small,
    > but (a) it's the difference between 250 ppi and almost 300 ppi at 8x12, and
    > (b) it's the difference between not edging out 35mm film and clearly edging
    > out 35mm film, so, IMHO, going to 8MP really is the right idea for the APS-C
    > dSLRs.
    >

    The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.
    If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
    top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
    "comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
    The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
    with bicubic interpolation in PS. Unless they were resampled at exactly
    the same ratio, then this test is only an example of how cubic
    interpolation works at different resampling rates.
    If the OP wants to display a comparison, then the only way he can do it
    is to either display the 1:1 pixels as they came out of the camera, or
    if he wants to show such a close up view, then the resampling MUST be at
    a integer multiple of the original and IMO with no interpolation.
    It is pointless. The best may be to leave the ratio at 1:1, and resample
    (downscale) the film scan to match the size of the various ex-camera
    crops.
    And if there actually is a difference between 6 and 8mp, then the OP has
    not shown it - he has shown something else entirely.
    frederick, Jul 5, 2005
    #6
  7. gnnyman

    Scott W Guest

    frederick wrote:
    > The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.
    > If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
    > top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
    > "comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
    > The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
    > with bicubic interpolation in PS. Unless they were resampled at exactly
    > the same ratio, then this test is only an example of how cubic
    > interpolation works at different resampling rates.
    > If the OP wants to display a comparison, then the only way he can do it
    > is to either display the 1:1 pixels as they came out of the camera, or
    > if he wants to show such a close up view, then the resampling MUST be at
    > a integer multiple of the original and IMO with no interpolation.
    > It is pointless. The best may be to leave the ratio at 1:1, and resample
    > (downscale) the film scan to match the size of the various ex-camera
    > crops.
    > And if there actually is a difference between 6 and 8mp, then the OP has
    > not shown it - he has shown something else entirely.


    I have never seen this effect from upsizing a photo. I did a quick test
    resizing to 191.23% just to be an odd amount, the image was soft but
    very clean with no haloes. Could you provide an immage and resize
    amount that would produce the halo you are talking about.

    In general I think up sampling to the highest res is the only way to
    compare, otherwise you risk lossing detail in the higher res images.

    The haloes look to too much USM and with too large a radius to me.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jul 5, 2005
    #7
  8. gnnyman

    frederick Guest

    Re: comparison photos - Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, Canon 1DMkII, NikonD2X with FILM

    Scott W wrote:
    > frederick wrote:
    > > The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.

    >
    >>If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
    >>top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
    >>"comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
    >>The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
    >>with bicubic interpolation in PS. Unless they were resampled at exactly
    >>the same ratio, then this test is only an example of how cubic
    >>interpolation works at different resampling rates.
    >>If the OP wants to display a comparison, then the only way he can do it
    >>is to either display the 1:1 pixels as they came out of the camera, or
    >>if he wants to show such a close up view, then the resampling MUST be at
    >>a integer multiple of the original and IMO with no interpolation.
    >>It is pointless. The best may be to leave the ratio at 1:1, and resample
    >>(downscale) the film scan to match the size of the various ex-camera
    >>crops.
    >>And if there actually is a difference between 6 and 8mp, then the OP has
    >>not shown it - he has shown something else entirely.

    >
    >
    > I have never seen this effect from upsizing a photo. I did a quick test
    > resizing to 191.23% just to be an odd amount, the image was soft but
    > very clean with no haloes. Could you provide an immage and resize
    > amount that would produce the halo you are talking about.
    >
    > In general I think up sampling to the highest res is the only way to
    > compare, otherwise you risk lossing detail in the higher res images.
    >
    > The haloes look to too much USM and with too large a radius to me.
    >
    > Scott
    >

    You are right - my mistake. The haloes are probably from sharpening
    before resampling - just made much larger and more evident than when
    viewed at 100%. Dumb idea to either do this, or use any in-camera
    processing when making comparisons.
    I'm glad you noticed the softening when resampling at an amount not an
    integer multiple of the original.
    The test is meaningless. The OP should have realised this when the 1D
    Mk II image looked closest to the 4mp Kodak P&S camera result.
    For the comparison, whether the film scan is downsampled to match the
    size, or the digital camera sample is upsampled to match the film scan
    doesn't really matter, as the methodology is seriously flawed.

    Pixel peeping is daft. If the OP wants to compare the cameras, then the
    best and only way in my opinion is to print the images at a given size
    and compare those. When you do this, then about 50% of the criticisms
    of cameras in this forum become meaningless - as they are based on pixel
    peeping daftness. I have no interest in 4000x3000 jpgs to view on a
    computer. For every use apart from to print, an image of 1024x768 is
    plenty for me for quite a few years to come - until a monitor that is
    affordable and at least 3 times (linear) or 10 times (pixel count) is
    available.
    frederick, Jul 5, 2005
    #8
  9. gnnyman

    Mark² Guest

    "frederick" <> wrote in message
    news:1120531967.479736@ftpsrv1...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Scott W" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>gnnyman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    >>>>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
    >>>>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
    >>>
    >>>Neat comparison, I predict that you will get a bunch of people telling
    >>>you how you did it wrong.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yep! The softness of the 1D2 image is fodder for the Journal of
    >> Irreproducable results (and it's not just the (laudable) lack of
    >> sharpening: the detail seems really to not be there), and the sharpening
    >> halos in the 20D and D70s images are obscene (they're due to
    >> oversharpening before upsampling, a mistake I've made in my own d vs. f
    >> comparisons).
    >>
    >> But other than that, it's about what's expected: 8MP clearly* edges out
    >> film but 6MP has a harder time of it. It's interesting that the 20D does
    >> a better job on the top surface of the left end wall of the building than
    >> the film does (i.e. the far edge vs. sky transition gets lost in the film
    >> shot), since film is advertised as doing better at holding highlights.
    >>
    >> *: A lot of people claim that the 8MP vs. 6MP difference is really small,
    >> but (a) it's the difference between 250 ppi and almost 300 ppi at 8x12,
    >> and (b) it's the difference between not edging out 35mm film and clearly
    >> edging out 35mm film, so, IMHO, going to 8MP really is the right idea for
    >> the APS-C dSLRs.
    >>

    > The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.
    > If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
    > top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
    > "comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
    > The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
    > with bicubic interpolation in PS.


    The only time I've seen that effect is when up-sizing images that have
    previously been sharpened.
    Mark², Jul 5, 2005
    #9
  10. gnnyman

    Mark² Guest

    "frederick" <> wrote in message
    news:1120545246.401995@ftpsrv1...
    > Scott W wrote:
    >> frederick wrote:
    >> > The sharpening haloes are probably not sharpening haloes at all.

    >>
    >>>If the original images were framed the same size as the D2x shot at the
    >>>top, then it is not possible that crops of the size displayed in the
    >>>"comparison" frames was not upscaled by around *but not exactly* 1:2.
    >>>The effect is similar (in fact it looks exactly the same) to what I see
    >>>with bicubic interpolation in PS. Unless they were resampled at exactly
    >>>the same ratio, then this test is only an example of how cubic
    >>>interpolation works at different resampling rates.
    >>>If the OP wants to display a comparison, then the only way he can do it
    >>>is to either display the 1:1 pixels as they came out of the camera, or
    >>>if he wants to show such a close up view, then the resampling MUST be at
    >>>a integer multiple of the original and IMO with no interpolation.
    >>>It is pointless. The best may be to leave the ratio at 1:1, and resample
    >>>(downscale) the film scan to match the size of the various ex-camera
    >>>crops.
    >>>And if there actually is a difference between 6 and 8mp, then the OP has
    >>>not shown it - he has shown something else entirely.

    >>
    >>
    >> I have never seen this effect from upsizing a photo. I did a quick test
    >> resizing to 191.23% just to be an odd amount, the image was soft but
    >> very clean with no haloes. Could you provide an immage and resize
    >> amount that would produce the halo you are talking about.
    >>
    >> In general I think up sampling to the highest res is the only way to
    >> compare, otherwise you risk lossing detail in the higher res images.
    >>
    >> The haloes look to too much USM and with too large a radius to me.
    >>
    >> Scott
    >>

    > You are right - my mistake. The haloes are probably from sharpening
    > before resampling - just made much larger and more evident than when
    > viewed at 100%.


    OK! I just posted this very thing in response to your first message...and
    then read this one from you.
    I made the comment that I've only seen that when up-sizing an image that was
    previously sharpened.
    Naturally, that would exaggerate the halo effect that might otherwise go
    unnoticed.
    Mark², Jul 5, 2005
    #10
  11. gnnyman

    Mark² Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    >>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and >compared
    >>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com

    >
    > Interesting, but what film scanner and scan resolution? It would be
    > interesting to see if the 'grain' is real, or aliased. Fuji 100, while
    > a fairly 'typical' film, would not be my first choice to test the
    > resolution of a camera..


    Most people don't shoot film slow than 100, so this may be a pretty fair
    choice.

    Yes...I loved to shoot Velvia and some older 25 film that no longer
    available, but most film shooter aren't using the really slow, less grainy
    stuff.
    Mark², Jul 5, 2005
    #11
  12. gnnyman

    Rob Guest

    On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:10:57 -0400, "gnnyman" <>
    wrote:

    >I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    >sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
    >with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
    >



    I thought that one couldn't really see differences viewing the pics on
    a web site due to limitations of our monitors and perhaps the web site
    itself? I suppose if the differences are huge maybe one could see it
    but I'm not 100% sure of that either.

    Comments?
    Rob, Jul 5, 2005
    #12
  13. gnnyman

    Mark² Guest

    <Rob> wrote in message news:...
    > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:10:57 -0400, "gnnyman" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    >>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and compared
    >>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com
    >>

    >
    >
    > I thought that one couldn't really see differences viewing the pics on
    > a web site due to limitations of our monitors and perhaps the web site
    > itself? I suppose if the differences are huge maybe one could see it
    > but I'm not 100% sure of that either.
    >
    > Comments?


    That's only true when people post down-sampled images, as are typically
    posted on photo-sharing sites.
    When 100% crops, or identically sized enlargements are posted (such as
    these), it can be quite revealing--especially when the scanner used is top
    notch, and able to capture individual grains in film images.

    This comparison certainly has it's imperfections, but you can certainly make
    some determinations about specific films used, etc.
    Mark², Jul 5, 2005
    #13
  14. gnnyman

    Scott W Guest

    Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > >I could not resist to do it as well - on my website, you can see several
    > >>sets of photographs taken with the above mentioned cameras and >compared
    > >>with film....here is the link: http://www.gnyman.com

    > >
    > > Interesting, but what film scanner and scan resolution? It would be
    > > interesting to see if the 'grain' is real, or aliased. Fuji 100, while
    > > a fairly 'typical' film, would not be my first choice to test the
    > > resolution of a camera..

    >
    > Most people don't shoot film slow than 100, so this may be a pretty fair
    > choice.
    >
    > Yes...I loved to shoot Velvia and some older 25 film that no longer
    > available, but most film shooter aren't using the really slow, less grainy
    > stuff.


    I would love to see the statistics on film use, when I was shooting
    film I was finding it harder and harder to find even 100 ISO film, most
    off what was on the shelves was ISO 400 and higher.

    The tests in many ways is very valid, it shows what one person gets
    when shooting film compared to digital, and it pretty much matches what
    I see when I shoot film.

    There are a number of people who have stated that people are giving up
    quality for convenience when they switch from film to digital, this is
    clearly not the case.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jul 5, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. deryck  lant

    Shoot-out between Nikon D2X and Canon 1DsMK2

    deryck lant, Feb 24, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    951
    Brian C. Baird
    Feb 25, 2005
  2. John
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    690
    Isaiah Beard
    Jul 30, 2005
  3. Ken M

    Nikon D70s & Nikon AF-D lenses - Compatible?

    Ken M, Jan 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,485
  4. =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=

    Used 20D vs D70s

    =?iso-8859-1?q?Martin_S=F8rensen?=, Oct 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    716
    Paul Rubin
    Nov 7, 2006
  5. rapee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    717
    rapee
    Mar 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page