Re: 35mm film VS digital

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by danny, Aug 28, 2008.

  1. danny

    danny Guest

    "Bob Donahue" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
    > crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
    > (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
    > film.)


    Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
    Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

    I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
    is pretty obvious.
     
    danny, Aug 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. danny wrote:
    > "Bob Donahue" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the
    >> current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color
    >> print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown
    >> up from 35mm film.)

    >
    > Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
    > 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
    >
    > I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The
    > answer is pretty obvious.


    You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG file by
    some software with the actual resolution of the cameras. The Nikon D3,
    for example, has a pixel pitch of 4256 / 36 pixels per mm, i.e. 118
    pixels/mm, or 3003 pixels per inch.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. danny

    nospam Guest

    In article <sJytk.12682$>, danny
    <> wrote:

    > Film is still better than digital.


    only with specialized film in specific situations. otherwise, digital
    is *much* better than film.

    > You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.


    if there's no detail in the film, it doesn't matter how high you scan.

    > Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.


    no, most digital cameras just write a number (usually 72, sometimes
    300). it's meaningless. dpi doesn't matter until you print, at which
    point it can be calculated.

    > I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
    > is pretty obvious.


    what's obvious is that you don't understand what you're looking at.
     
    nospam, Aug 28, 2008
    #3
  4. "danny" <> wrote:
    >
    >"Bob Donahue" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
    >> crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
    >> (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
    >> film.)

    >
    >Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.


    Actually that's SPI (Samples Per Inch), something _very_ different from
    DPI.

    DPI is a property of an _OUTPUT_ device, e.g. a printer or a monitor.
    It is also (incorrectly?) used to indirectly indicate the size of an
    original document when scanned (300DPI, 3000x2000 pixel ==> the original
    document was 10x6 inches).

    >Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.


    Which of course is totally meaningless and only a placeholder, because
    traditionally some value had to be put in that field for the benefit of
    some programs that otherwise will crash.
    It is totally up to you if you display that digital photo on a mega-TV
    with 20DPI, an electronic billboard with 0.1DPI or a miniature display
    with 600DPI.

    >I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
    >is pretty obvious.


    Apples and cars (no, not even oranges). Those two numbers have nothing
    to do with each other.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Aug 28, 2008
    #4
  5. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk> wrote:
    >> danny wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
    >>> 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
    >>>
    >>> I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The
    >>> answer is pretty obvious.

    >>
    >> You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG
    >> file by

    >
    > David, please. Take a deep breath, calm down, and go get your sense
    > of humor back from the dog, who seems to have run off with it.


    .... and there was I thinking that the OP might actually not have
    understood!

    Dang!

    No dogs here, BTW. Nor humour in the OPs post.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 28, 2008
    #5
  6. danny

    measekite Guest

    danny wrote:
    > "Bob Donahue" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
    >> crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
    >> (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
    >> film.)
    >>

    >
    > Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
    > Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
    >


    The image is converted to 72dpi by the editor by increasing the length x
    width.
    > I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
    > is pretty obvious.
    >
    >
    >
     
    measekite, Aug 28, 2008
    #6
  7. danny

    Scott W Guest

    On Aug 28, 12:42 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > My take is that Danny is joking.

    We can only hope.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 29, 2008
    #7
  8. danny

    Scott W Guest

    On Aug 28, 11:55 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > >> "danny" <> wrote:
    > >>> Film is still better than digital.  You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
    > >>> Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

    >
    > >>> I ask you... Which would you rather have...  9600 DPI or 72 DPI?  The answer
    > >>> is pretty obvious.
    > >> The scanned 9600 DPI image will not have better
    > >> resolution than
    > >> the negative, and the 35mm negative doesn't have as much
    > >> resolution as a modern 35mm sized electronic sensor.
    > >> Further, the DPI resolution listed in the Exif data on
    > >> digital
    > >> cameras has no relationship to image resolution.  It only a way
    > >> to automatically determine a size for printing (by dividing the
    > >> pixel dimensions by the DPI value), but it is usually ignored.
    > >> If you would like I can produce an image from a Nikon
    > >> D3 (which
    > >> natively puts "300" in the Exif data for X and Y resolution)
    > >> that has been changed to 100,000 DPI.  It will still be exactly
    > >> the same image though...  and technically (with 4288 pixels
    > >> across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course
    > >> just as the film negative does not have that much resolution,
    > >> neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor.

    >
    > >You'd have sounded a bit more authoritative if you'd have used the
    > >correct term in the last paragraph, "PPI".

    >
    > Who cares?  (Incidentally, PPI is not correct for the sensor either!)


    Ok, I will bite, why not? It seems to me the sensor is sampling
    pixels, so
    why would it not be in PPI.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 29, 2008
    #8
  9. danny

    Scott W Guest

    On Aug 28, 3:12 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > Scott W <> wrote:
    > >On Aug 28, 11:55 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > >> >> that has been changed to 100,000 DPI.  It will still be exactly
    > >> >> the same image though...  and technically (with 4288 pixels
    > >> >> across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course
    > >> >> just as the film negative does not have that much resolution,
    > >> >> neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor.

    >
    > >> >You'd have sounded a bit more authoritative if you'd have used the
    > >> >correct term in the last paragraph, "PPI".

    >
    > >> Who cares?  (Incidentally, PPI is not correct for the sensor either!)

    >
    > >Ok, I will bite, why not?  It seems to me the sensor is sampling
    > >pixels, so
    > >why would it not be in PPI.

    >
    > The data from each sensor site does not uniquely determine a
    > "pixel" value, and more than it is what determines a "dot".
    > Each image pixel is made up from the combination of at least 9
    > sensors.

    The way I look at it is there are sensor pixels and, color filter on
    top of the sensor pixels and then output pixels. The point is the
    camera does have pixels, even if you don't tend to view them directly.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 29, 2008
    #9
  10. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>> danny wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
    >>>>> 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI?
    >>>>> The answer is pretty obvious.

    >>
    >> No dogs here, BTW. Nor humour in the OPs post.

    >
    > My take is that Danny is joking. It most certainly would be a joke if
    > I said it. And given the number of people who bit, a superbly
    > effective joke to boot.


    Perhaps a joke, but I'm sure we've all had to field similar questions from
    novices and the ill-informed. Even the well-informed are not agreed on
    "sensor-crop" or "multiplication factor" applied to smaller-sensor "35mm"
    cameras!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 29, 2008
    #10
  11. danny

    measekite Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >> "danny" <> wrote:
    >>> Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
    >>> 9600 DPI.
    >>> Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
    >>>
    >>> I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI?
    >>> The answer
    >>> is pretty obvious.

    >>
    >> The scanned 9600 DPI image will not have better resolution than
    >> the negative, and the 35mm negative doesn't have as much
    >> resolution as a modern 35mm sized electronic sensor.
    >>
    >> Further, the DPI resolution listed in the Exif data on digital
    >> cameras has no relationship to image resolution. It only a way
    >> to automatically determine a size for printing (by dividing the
    >> pixel dimensions by the DPI value), but it is usually ignored.
    >>
    >> If you would like I can produce an image from a Nikon D3 (which
    >> natively puts "300" in the Exif data for X and Y resolution)
    >> that has been changed to 100,000 DPI. It will still be exactly
    >> the same image though... and technically (with 4288 pixels
    >> across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course
    >> just as the film negative does not have that much resolution,
    >> neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor.

    >
    > You'd have sounded a bit more authoritative if you'd have used the
    > correct term in the last paragraph, "PPI".


    There is the critic with a wasted post.
     
    measekite, Aug 29, 2008
    #11
  12. danny

    measekite Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > John McWilliams <> wrote:
    >
    >> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>
    >>> "danny" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
    >>>> Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
    >>>>
    >>>> I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
    >>>> is pretty obvious.
    >>>>
    >>> The scanned 9600 DPI image will not have better
    >>> resolution than
    >>> the negative, and the 35mm negative doesn't have as much
    >>> resolution as a modern 35mm sized electronic sensor.
    >>> Further, the DPI resolution listed in the Exif data on
    >>> digital
    >>> cameras has no relationship to image resolution. It only a way
    >>> to automatically determine a size for printing (by dividing the
    >>> pixel dimensions by the DPI value), but it is usually ignored.
    >>> If you would like I can produce an image from a Nikon
    >>> D3 (which
    >>> natively puts "300" in the Exif data for X and Y resolution)
    >>> that has been changed to 100,000 DPI. It will still be exactly
    >>> the same image though... and technically (with 4288 pixels
    >>> across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course
    >>> just as the film negative does not have that much resolution,
    >>> neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor.
    >>>

    >> You'd have sounded a bit more authoritative if you'd have used the
    >> correct term in the last paragraph, "PPI".
    >>

    >
    > Who cares? (Incidentally, PPI is not correct for the sensor either!)
    >


    You tell him. Nobody cares.
     
    measekite, Aug 29, 2008
    #12
    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. Martin Riddle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    95
    Martin Riddle
    Apr 23, 2014
  2. Paul Ciszek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    101
    J. Clarke
    Apr 26, 2014
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    121
    Whisky-dave
    Apr 29, 2014
  4. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    94
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
  5. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    99
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page