"at least equal or better image quality than Canon EOS-1Ds"

"I've no doubt that a technically optimal Fuji Provia or Astia 100
frame from, say, the sub-$100 Olympus µ [ mju: ] II, if professionally
printed chemically or scanned on a drum scanner and properly
processed, can produce at least equal or better image quality than the
same frame shot with royalty like the Canon EOS-1Ds." (the Canon
EOS-1Ds is an 11mp $8000 dSLR)

http://tinyurl.com/268ul


What do you guys think of this?


(p.s. please read the article if you have intentions of forming
negative opinions of him; he prefers digital over film in practice.)

 

Perhaps to some extent it is a bit like the vinyl vs CD debate in the music
world. CD is technically better, but sometimes vinyl just sounds better,
because it isn't as good. I have a pretty good sound setup that is based on
early 80's technology, and i think it whips the pants off modern digital
hifi, even if technically it isn't as good. Anyway... back to the topic -
film.
For the price of the equipment, film still outperforms digital and by a long
way. (note, approximate prices are average street prices here in australia).
a $20 disposable camera will give a much better print than the basic $200
kodak CX6200 point and shoot digital. A $300 basic SLR will give a much
better print than a $300 digital (eg fuji S3000). A good film SLR of around
$1000 will give a much better photo than a $1000 digital (eg fuji S7000). It
really is only when you start getting into the $2000 and above (nikon d70,
canon eos300), that you even start to rival film quality. Of course however
the $200 kodak CX6200 can do something that even the most expensive film
camera can't, and that's instant preview of photo, and a print within a
couple of minutes of taking the photo.
What he says about the development process is true too - in a shopping
centre across the road from me, there are 2 mini-labs - one kodak and one
fuji. I always used the kodak lab and kodak film, simply because i figured
kodak had the best name. I had always thought 400 film was too grainy for
anything useful, even when printed at 6x4, so I only used 100 speed film.
Every time i used 400 speed film for the extra speed, the prints were so
grainy i regretted my decision to use it. I was then starting to think my
camera's focus alignment was up the creek because all the prints were out of
focus. Anyway, a friend started working at the fuji lab so i got a roll
done there and was blown away by the picture quality. A roll of 400 from the
same batch as one I'd previously had developed that was too grainy, came out
just as clear as 100. So I got them to do a reprint of one of my 400 negs
that kodak did, and it came out grainy, but in focus. Conclusion - the
local kodak minilab develops negs badly resulting in the extra grain, and
their enlarger is out of focus. I now use 400 speed almost exclusively, and
the results are excellent.
I posted in aus.photo about an experience I had yesterday comparing the fuji
s7000 and eos300d - the s7000 over-exposed the highlights and under-exposed
the shadows - basically it just wasn't capable of recording sufficient
contrast for the shot. plus it had horrible green halos everywhere there was
a change in contrast (Eg between the mag wheel and tyre on the car). The EOS
was much better, fairly close to film in ability to record the contrast. We
started playing with enlargements (cropping the picture and printing the
crop as a 8x6), and concluded the eos would enlarge to about a 24x18
reasonably ok - putting it about on par with 100 film. However when film is
over-enlarged it still tends to look ok because of the randomness of the
grain. Digital on the other hand forms horrible square pixelation which
looks disgusting.

 

Image quality encompasses many things. Resolution wise, yes, I can believe
it. My own tests show 15mp - 24mp is needed to match most films in 35mm. It
depends on many factors. Print film has the wide dynamic range advantage,
slide films have a narrow advantage.

Considering were only talking about the large sensors common in
interchangeable lens SLRs, digital has the advantage in producing virtually
noise free images. High res film scans will always reveal the grain
structure that makes up the image.

In the end, it is what you need from the medium. I'm happy with my 6mp SLR.
I rarely shoot film anymore. If I do, I shoot ISO 100 speed. ISO 400 and 800
speed grain shows on anything bigger than a 4x6 print while the digital
camera retains the smooth colors so I have no use for these speeds in film.
I will have no more use for film when a good 10mp+ SLR comes along at a
reasonable price.

John

 

Digital only pixelates if you fail to up-res before printing. If you up-res
properly, there's no pixelation (and no grain either) -- it just looks soft
on close inspection.

Mark

 

Everything else he says in the article is spot on, but I think he's
underestimating the 1Ds. If he's talking about _percieved_ image quality,
the 1Ds gets close to 645 with ISO 100 film. IMHO, it's not quite as good as
645, but amazingly close. 35m is a _long_ way from 645. (As I understand it,
the 1Ds antialiasing filter is not as strong as it should be: if you don't
want to see aliasing, you'll need more like 15 or 16MP with the same filter
for that quality imaging.)

Film has a long "tail": it "resolves" extremely fine detail at extremely low
contrast. But this "resolution" isn't of much use for imaging, since it's
extremely high noise. People who claim 35mm is equal to 24 or 35MP are
talking about that tail. They're not wrong, it's just that it's academic. In
the real world, you need to capture with a minimum loss of contrast to
retain textures. The world isn't just signs and license plates. (There was a
3MP vs. consumer color negative film comparison here a couple of years ago.
The street signs in the film image were clearer, but the rest of the image
was a gross disgusting mess, while the rest of the image in the digital was
quite usable.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

This is the standard/common pro view. The Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14n
were the first digital SLR to approach 35mm color film's resolution,
but the dirty little secret is that this is only when using a B&W
target, since the monochrome Bayer sensor can return black values at
every photosite, even after the color mosiac is placed in front of it
to interpolated color. To put it simply, color interpolation is 100%
accurate when no color is involved. With color targets, both fall
short of 35mm by about a factor of 4.

Foveon is roughly a 56mm film equivalent in full color...
http://www.foveon.com/faq_technology.html#FAQ_tech_13

Though Discover Magazine rated Foveon much higher than that after
grueling real life scientific testing...

"Digital cameras have relied on image sensors that can't do what color
film does: record all three primary colors of light at each point in
the image. Instead, each light-sensitive point in the sensor measures
just one color—blue, green, or red—and complicated software in the
camera calculates the missing colors. Foveon's breakthrough X3 chip
solves the problem with a three-layer design that captures red, blue,
and green light at each point. To demonstrate quality differences, the
monarch butterfly on this page was photographed with three cameras: an
$1,800 Sigma SD9 with an X3 chip; a $300 Nikon Coolpix 2500; and a
$2,300 Nikon 35 mm F5 film camera. Insets show magnified detail from
each camera's image.

http://camera-care.com/ebayimages/digital_1.gif

This photograph, taken with the Sigma SD9 using a Foveon chip, attains
levels of sharpness and color accuracy usually seen only in
medium-format cameras that use 120 mm film, which has a resolution
about twice that of 35 mm film."

--Discover Magazine

 

The whole problem with all of this is that quality is whatever people agree
that it is. Quality cannot be quantified, of course, and so there is no
objective standard of reference. One can discuss pixels and grain, and
that sort of thing, but one is still using arbitrary quantities to describe
issues of quality; one defines the relationship however one wishes, and
there is no possibility of objectivity in this regard. In science, one
tries to limit one's metrics to those intrinsic in natural (as opposed to
artificial) phenomena, which is why science does not address issues of pure
quality. You simply cannot make one serve the other, in either direction!

For instance, when CDs came out, I can remember just how excited people were
about the clear clean crisp highs, and they tended to define quality by the
perceived presence of these. Nowadays. this same attribute is regarded as
artificial and unpleasant; hence the move to vinyl. It simply is a matter
of perception.

Now we have the argument about (for instance) pixels versus grain. Which
defines image quality? Who is doing the looking and criticizing? Some
people like one and some another, and the arguments are basically species
of techy entertainment, in the main. Or so it seems to me.

As I pointed out in a recent thread, albeit rather obliquely, some define
image quality according to the style of brush strokes used! They claim, in
effect, "a pox on both your houses!".

So please understand that, while these threads are entertaining, they have
little enduring merit. At the end of the day, we all have our own opinions
based on our own experiences, and I suspect most of us at some point find
ourselves thinking, "Who cares?!?!?"

Comments?

Bill Tallman

 

Kibo informs me that (George Preddy) stated
that:

...you're an obsessional, lying idiot who doesn't know what he's talking
about, & who just makes this shit up.

Where are the photos you claim to have sold, 'Preddy'?

 

I don't think many can afford a good drum scanner, nor do many want to
scan anymore. that's the beauty of a DSLR, convert the RAW file and
you're done. You just can't compare the colour from digital to film.

And the 'technically optimal' is only a wetdream of film purists. It
doesn't happen outside a lab.

Not to mention the many other advantages of a DSLR.

 

Not true. Film, when enlarged show ugly grain.

Digital upsizes very nicely in the printer driver.

I have a 10 by 15 Frontier print here from an image file that was 1000
pixels on the long side to prove it. It's completely free of any
pixelation or grain or noise. And from proper viewing distance looks
great. Hey it looks damned good up close too.

Maybe if you owned a drum scanner film would rock, but I don't even
have the space to put one, the cash to buy one, nor the inclination to
spend hours scanning.

10D rocks

 

No no, do not upres, let the printer driver do that for you. It does a
better job and upresing is not done twice.

 

Yes, as a 10d user who is very satisfied and will never shoot another
frame of film and has sold his film cameras - I think the proof is in
the using. Film users who have not really tried a camera such as the
10d can't really comment as to which is better. I know for me which is
better, and I don't give a hoot who wants to stick to film.

 

Pleez do not reply anymore to this idiot. Killfile him so I don't have
to read his second hand crap, nor comments like yours to him. Just
plonk him now.

 

But the thing is, how much did you pay for the 10D? For similar money you
could have had a medium format camera, which would blow away the 10D for
picture quality. I agree with you totally that (high-end) digital is now
very good, but it is still a damned sight more expensive for equipment than
film gear.
a $20(AUS) point and click film camera with 400iso film will blow away a
digital camera 10x it's price for picture quality. My $300 SLR loaded with a
reasonable consumer grade film will blow away practically any compact
camera - it's not until you get into the likes of the EOS300, D70, *istD etc
at 8x the price, that you get a camera that seriously compares for picture
quality - and then if I load B&W or a pro-grade film i'm back in front.
Currently digital really only holds one big advantage over film, and that is
in the ability for instant preview and fast print. If comparing on a $ for
$ basis, film still wins every time. This will be short-lived though. Only 5
years ago, a 1.3MP digital was considered high-end and state-of-the-art. I
am _very_ confident that given another 5 years of development, digital will
equal film on a $ for $ basis. ie, in 5 years a camera equivalent to the D70
or Eos300 will be available for about $300AUS. I think in 5 years time we
will see Digitals with true 35mm sensors, in the $1k-$3k price bracket. Once
you can get a DSLR for under $500aus, or a true 35mm for under $2Kaus, then
film will truly have had it's day. By then we will probably also see
digitals capable of recording 9 stops of contrast like a good b&w film does.
My opinion is that film still slightly holds the edge, but that won't be the
case for much longer.

 

I think it is good to know the limits of the technology you are using.
Of course, it doesn't mean that for every picture you have to be on the edge.

It used to be the case that you had to go to medium format or larger to
get something better than 35mm. But I like the 18x 'zoom' that I get from
the various lenses in my bag. I don't think that range is practical with
medium format.

Now that there is digital it is interesting to see how far you can take
digital, and how it compares to film. Is a 1Ds better than 35mm film in
every respect, or are there areas where film is better?

Of course, shooting style makes a difference too. Because digital is new,
'we' want very sharp, grain/noise free images. It is possible that soon,
we want relatively soft images, maybe with some grain added to provide the
fog with some texture.

Of course, some people will try to take advantage of film. For example
by taking pictures from high contrast scenes. Or by exploiting the
much better anti-alias filters in film.

In the end, you have to know your tools to make creative use of them.

 

In message <>,

And if you do up-res, you enter into the land of egg-carton artifacts.
--