Film vs. Digital: New Tests !!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Dec 19, 2003.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Ok gearheads, I've done a few more tests between the Totally Digital D60 and
    the Fabulous EOS-1V, this time loaded up with Fuji Astia.

    My first comparisons weren't very well done so just forget them.
    (You already did, didn't you?)

    The new comparisons can be found here:
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/testing

    In doing these tests, I tried my best to equalize the Field of View for both
    formats.
    This meant shooting the Digital at about 100mm while I zoomed the Super 70-200
    f/2.8L to about 160mm for the film shot.

    I have taken my friend, Rafe's advice and have included crops from both formats
    which cover 0.25" of the 35mm frame. This results in the film sample being
    about twice the size of the digital sample in my tests.

    You may reach your own conclusions about the results of the tests or how the
    tests were conducted (still poorly, I admit).
    However, it is apparent to me that the film images don't capture any
    significant amount of detail more than the digital images do. They simply
    produce larger files when scanned at this resolution.

    The film zealots who claim that large prints cannot be made from 6MP digital
    images have probably never made any large prints from 6MP digital images.
    I often wonder why someone would shoot 35mm film in the first place if the goal
    was to produce 30"x45" prints.

    I'll try to add a few more samples to my test as I get them scanned in.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Howdy Annika

    Thanks for doing this excellent work.

    Quite interesting how well digital does.

    I'd love a comparison that's a picture of
    a group of 5 to 10 people.

    Homage,

    Stan
     
    Stanley Krute, Dec 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Sam Smith Guest

    where??????????????????????



    "Stanley Krute" <> wrote in message
    news:qTuEb.2512$...
    > Howdy Annika
    >
    > Thanks for doing this excellent work.
    >
    > Quite interesting how well digital does.
    >
    > I'd love a comparison that's a picture of
    > a group of 5 to 10 people.
    >
    > Homage,
    >
    > Stan
    >
    >
    >
     
    Sam Smith, Dec 19, 2003
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Guest

    Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > Ok gearheads, I've done a few more tests between the Totally Digital D60 and
    > the Fabulous EOS-1V, this time loaded up with Fuji Astia.


    A braver man than myself if you'll take this on.

    There was an interesting post shortly following this one regarding
    the 1.6 factor when comparing lens focal lengths between 35mm film
    and DSLRs. The poster pointed out that the real difference is that
    the sensor effectively crops the 35mm frame and e.g. a 100 mm lens
    is still a 100 mm lens. Effectively, the image is blown up by the
    1.6 factor if you see what I mean.

    Perhaps a better basis for making a comparison would be to compare
    equal areas at the film plane. This would probably tend to make the
    DSLR look better yet, but at least the comparison would be using
    identical glass and I think that's important in any sort of camera.

    The other question I have is regarding the scan of the negative. What
    steps have you taken to make sure that the scanned film captures all
    of the information available on the film? It seems quite possible
    that the film may contain more information than the scan that you
    are comparing to the digital picture. In fact, I think it would be
    quite difficult to make a scan that includes all of the detail in
    the negative. In other words, if you want to compare a digital image
    to a negative, what good is it to digitize the negative and compare
    that? (Of course, it is quite difficult to display a non-digitized
    image on the Internet. ;)

    > In doing these tests, I tried my best to equalize the Field of View for both
    > formats.
    > This meant shooting the Digital at about 100mm while I zoomed the Super 70-200
    > f/2.8L to about 160mm for the film shot.


    I guess if you wish to compare what you get in an 8x10 picture, then
    you need to 'equalize,' but that introduces additional variables
    which make this a less direct comparison.

    > I have taken my friend, Rafe's advice and have included crops from both formats
    > which cover 0.25" of the 35mm frame. This results in the film sample being
    > about twice the size of the digital sample in my tests.


    This makes it harder to compare the images. Can the image from the
    digital camera be expanded to match the scan from the picture? Would
    that make sense?
     
    , Dec 19, 2003
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:49:10 GMT, wrote:

    >Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >> Ok gearheads, I've done a few more tests between the Totally Digital D60 and
    >> the Fabulous EOS-1V, this time loaded up with Fuji Astia.

    >
    > A braver man than myself if you'll take this on.
    >
    > There was an interesting post shortly following this one regarding
    > the 1.6 factor when comparing lens focal lengths between 35mm film
    > and DSLRs. The poster pointed out that the real difference is that
    > the sensor effectively crops the 35mm frame and e.g. a 100 mm lens
    > is still a 100 mm lens. Effectively, the image is blown up by the
    > 1.6 factor if you see what I mean.
    >
    > Perhaps a better basis for making a comparison would be to compare
    > equal areas at the film plane.




    Bingo. Great minds think alike.

    <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis>


    BTW, my next step is going to be to compare
    scans of prints to scans of film. Stay tuned.

    I no longer have my wet darkroom, but I do have
    a lot of the prints and the slides/negatives that
    they were made from.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    scan comparisons
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
     
    Rafe B., Dec 19, 2003
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    gsum Guest

    Annika,

    I did a comparison between the D100 and
    Olympus 35 mm gear recently with similar results.
    It caused me to swap the 35 mm for MF and I
    now have the best of both worlds.

    Thanks for the tips, entertainment etc. through
    the year. Have a good Christmas.

    Graham


    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ok gearheads, I've done a few more tests between the Totally Digital D60

    and
    > the Fabulous EOS-1V, this time loaded up with Fuji Astia.
    >
    > My first comparisons weren't very well done so just forget them.
    > (You already did, didn't you?)
    >
    > The new comparisons can be found here:
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/testing
    >
    > In doing these tests, I tried my best to equalize the Field of View for

    both
    > formats.
    > This meant shooting the Digital at about 100mm while I zoomed the Super

    70-200
    > f/2.8L to about 160mm for the film shot.
    >
    > I have taken my friend, Rafe's advice and have included crops from both

    formats
    > which cover 0.25" of the 35mm frame. This results in the film sample being
    > about twice the size of the digital sample in my tests.
    >
    > You may reach your own conclusions about the results of the tests or how

    the
    > tests were conducted (still poorly, I admit).
    > However, it is apparent to me that the film images don't capture any
    > significant amount of detail more than the digital images do. They simply
    > produce larger files when scanned at this resolution.
    >
    > The film zealots who claim that large prints cannot be made from 6MP

    digital
    > images have probably never made any large prints from 6MP digital images.
    > I often wonder why someone would shoot 35mm film in the first place if the

    goal
    > was to produce 30"x45" prints.
    >
    > I'll try to add a few more samples to my test as I get them scanned in.
    >
    >
    >
     
    gsum, Dec 19, 2003
    #6
  7. wrote in news:qjwEb.588740$HS4.4347511@attbi_s01:

    > In other words, if you want to compare a digital image
    > to a negative, what good is it to digitize the negative and compare
    > that? (Of course, it is quite difficult to display a non-digitized
    > image on the Internet. ;)
    >


    You could take a digital photo of the film through a microscope:

    http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Upressing.html

    --
    To email me, type my 1st name before my last.
     
    Tony Whitaker, Dec 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >From: Tony Whitaker

    >You could take a digital photo of the film through a microscope:


    Yes, that would certainly tell you which pic looks best under a microscope.
    Sadly, not too many people view pics that way.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 20, 2003
    #8
  9. (Annika1980) wrote in
    news::

    > Yes, that would certainly tell you which pic looks best under a
    > microscope.


    If you can see it on a monitor, you could see it on a print.

    --
    To email me, type my 1st name before my last.
     
    Tony Whitaker, Dec 21, 2003
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >From: Tony Whitaker

    >> Yes, that would certainly tell you which pic looks best under a
    >> microscope.

    >
    >If you can see it on a monitor, you could see it on a print.


    Tell that to these guys who claim that you have to print everything out to
    properly compare formats.
    I say, "If it looks better on screen, it'll probably look better printed out."
     
    Annika1980, Dec 21, 2003
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (Annika1980) wrote:

    >>From: Tony Whitaker


    >>> Yes, that would certainly tell you which pic looks best under a
    >>> microscope.


    >>If you can see it on a monitor, you could see it on a print.


    >Tell that to these guys who claim that you have to print everything out to
    >properly compare formats.


    You have to upsize everything to the same absolute size for fair
    comparisons. You can not see the entire image on monitor, in all of its
    glory. Full-screen viewing requires interpolation, which softens the
    image. You either have to print the entire images (so that the highest
    PPI is about 250-300) or sections of them to compare total images. Or,
    you could upsize crops to fill the same area on the screen, which are
    the same percentage of the original images, and view from a distance to
    eliminate the monitor's resolution as a factor.

    >I say, "If it looks better on screen, it'll probably look better printed out."


    How do you view them on screen?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 21, 2003
    #11
  12. (Annika1980) wrote in
    news::

    > I say, "If it looks better on screen, it'll probably look better
    > printed out."


    I agree with that statement. I wasn't really talking about print quality.
    What I meant was that if you make a big enough print, you will see the
    microscopic detail on it. It's really there. It really could be printed,
    although doing so would probably be difficult.




    --
    To email me, type my 1st name before my last.
     
    Tony Whitaker, Dec 21, 2003
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >From: Tony Whitaker

    >> I say, "If it looks better on screen, it'll probably look better
    >> printed out."

    >
    >I agree with that statement.


    Upon further reflection, I might not, even though I was the one who said it!

    The reason is that digital images can and should be optimized before printing.

    Here's an interesting article on Sharpening, written by digital guru, Bruce
    Fraser:
    http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357-1.html

    In it, he discusses how you should sharpen the image differently depending on
    the output (type of printer).
    He notes, "The output process introduces sharpness." So an image that is
    optimized for printing may look over-sharpened on screen.

    In any event, it is unlikely that printing an image will show any more detail
    than what you can see on screen. So comparisons of digital images on screen
    has merit.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 22, 2003
    #13
    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. =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXNS?=

    Tests without study guides or practice tests?

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXNS?=, Dec 13, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    818
    =?Utf-8?B?TW9udHJlYWwgTUNTQQ==?=
    Dec 20, 2005
  2. gene ohara

    New Digital Camera Tests

    gene ohara, Mar 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    385
    Andy Blanchard
    Mar 3, 2004
  3. Phil Edry
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,256
    Derek Gee
    Oct 11, 2004
  4. Sharp Shooter

    DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o)

    Sharp Shooter, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,144
  5. wayne
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    333
    wayne
    Dec 12, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page