DIGITAL vs. FILM (Round 2)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Nov 22, 2003.

  1. Annika1980

    andrew29 Guest

    Oh, it is. But how much of the additional microscope detail was in
    the original scene? AFAICS almost all of it is artefacts, not data.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Nov 24, 2003
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Tom J. Guest

    Sigh, film vs digital again. Look, this is really simple. Borrow a digital
    SLR and take some shots. Use a film SLR and take some shots. Print them to
    11x14 and choose the format that produced the photos you like best. Digital,
    film its a matter of personal preference.
     
    Tom J., Nov 24, 2003
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "Tom J."
    Then sell the film camera.
     
    Annika1980, Nov 24, 2003
    #43
  4. Alternative 1

    Alternative 2

    Then sell the digital camera, and use the money to cover part of the
    price of a very good scanner of the Nikon 8000, or Minolta something
    variety.

    At the end of the day, even 11MB (which, I understand, is the highest
    MB for a digital slr now) cannot compare with 50MB or more than 100MB
    (in 14/16 bit mode for the scanner), and this is an objective fact of
    life.

    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Nov 24, 2003
    #44
  5. Annika1980

    Don Coon Guest

    Yuk! Having gone that time-consuming route and dealt with the dust and dirt,
    I wouldn't wish it on anybody but my worst enemy. A 6MP canon may not beat
    high quality film, but it's so close that it isn't worth the hassle. BTW,
    IMHO : )
     
    Don Coon, Nov 24, 2003
    #45
  6. Annika1980

    Mark Johnson Guest

     
    Mark Johnson, Nov 24, 2003
    #46
  7. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: nobody nowhere
    You are confusing MB with MP.

    Neither more Megabytes nor more megapixels will guarantee a better picture.
    I can double the size of any photo and get a much bigger file size with many
    more megapixels, but I won't have any more real data than was in the original.

    Similarly, a higher-res scanner like the Minolta 5400 will give much bigger
    files than my digital cammy. The question is whether it is actually capturing
    that much more detail or whether the extra pixels are comprised mainly of
    artifacts.

    Stay tuned.

    -Annika ----> waitin on the UPS man
     
    Annika1980, Nov 24, 2003
    #47
  8. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    And WHERE is the law saying one much choose one or the other? Many
    professionals, and many amateurs happily use both, each for its best
    features, as needed. Film will be around for a long time to come. Some
    people still expose silver halide plates!
     
    Ron Hunter, Nov 24, 2003
    #48
  9. First off the whole idea of Film v Digital is a non sequitur. Film and
    Digital are different mediums. Its like comparing colour with B&W. Different
    look, different feel, different purpose.

    Its simply not worth comparing at all.

    In terms of costs, if you develop your own films the costs is very, very
    cheap. My calculations are around $4.00 a roll (USD) including the film. When
    you factor in the price of the CHEAPEST digital camera against a similiar film
    camera, you would have to shoot about 300 rolls of film before breaking even.

    But again, its really not worth comparing. They are different mediums and
    one shouldn't get wrapped up in the digital v film nonsense.

    J
     
    Justin F. Knotzke, Nov 24, 2003
    #49
  10. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I don't know about you, but one of the facts of MY life is that I don't
    want to spend sizeable parts of it waiting on a scan of a piece of film
    in order to produce an image I can't tell from the one out of the
    digital camera. In fact, I expect not 1 person in 100 could tell the
    difference between a scan of a 35 mm film and the same shot taken with a
    6 mp camera, assuming both had a good lens.
    It's rather like spending thousands on stereo equipment when you can't
    hear above 3500 hz, or below 200hz. Why spend money to entertain the
    dog. He probably doesn't like rap music anyway.
     
    Ron Hunter, Nov 24, 2003
    #50
  11. wrote in
    Well, I played around with upressing the scans. Upressing the image 200%
    does narrow the gap alot, but I still think there is more data captured by
    the film than by the 4000 spi scan. I do agree that the 4000 dpi scan
    captured >>almost<< all the information.

    The main point, though, was to see how the digital image compares to the
    film images.
     
    Tony Whitaker, Nov 25, 2003
    #51
  12. Maybe in your dream life, but in real world tests, no one has been able to
    get even close to the 1Ds with 4000 dpi scanned 35mm film. All the
    comparisons show 35mm being not even close. 35mm slightly edges out 6MP
    dSLRs. Slightly. If you work really hard at it.

    Film/scanner fans who think their 100MB files are worth 9 times the 11MP
    files from the 1Ds have their heads up a warm dark place. I've never seen a
    raw high-res scan that's anywhere near DSLR quality _on a pixel-for-pixel
    basis_. Crop 2000x3000 pixels from a 4000 dpi scan and print it at 8x12, and
    it looks like garbage; nowhere near as good as a 10D image printed at 8x12.
    For starters, the grain noise from ISO 100 slide films is about the same as
    the dSLRs at ISO 800.
    The thing about scanning is that a 4000 dpi scan (at actual pixels on the
    screen) is over a 40x enlargement. What that means is that you just don't
    know which frames are good enough until you actually scan them and look at
    them carefully. So you have to scan every frame you take. That gets
    seriously painful of time and disk space really quickly.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 25, 2003
    #52
  13. Annika1980

    Mark Johnson Guest

    If you get 24/roll, just say, then that's what - .16 cents. So if you
    shoot 1000 shots, it costs nothing with digital, but $160 with film.
    And most people wouldn't be expected to have a darkroom. So they have
    to buy the film, and have it processed. So - $400 conservatively? And
    it can start to add up.

    I just mentioned that if someone is willing to pay $5-10K for a 1DS
    dSLR kit, then it's not that a good SLR would be at a disadvantage.
    You'd probably be better off, unless you think the Canon gadgetry and
    firmware can just flat out produce better exposures and balance, and
    such, to stay with the SLR, and even send the slides out to be
    developed. It would take a while to get up to $5-10K dollars, that
    way. I wasn't suggesting any more or less than that, and just that.

    It's not the resolution, or the CCD, here. It's just the cost of early
    production units. 1MP CCDs didn't start out cheap, either.
     
    Mark Johnson, Nov 25, 2003
    #53
  14. I dream about other things, not cameras, however, I have to let you win
    this one, because I have no idea what an 1ds does or can do. I have
    used a 6mp camera, and cannot agree with you that the results are
    nearly as good as a 35mm scanned with a Nikon 8000. However, that was
    not a dlsr, and perhaps the better optics etc. of a dlsr might make a
    major difference, but again, I don't know, since I have not tried. There
    remains the point about those in this NG who are old enough to have a
    large amount of slides/negatives in various boxes in their attics, which
    due to the modern scanner/printer combination, would come to life, like
    Lazarus, after 4 days (although it is more like 4 decades in this
    case). In addition, although I am now departing from the OP, there is
    the point about medium format film, which surely would yield better
    results than the 35mm 1ds, although I heard rumours that this might be
    not the case either.
    The question here is if you take the same picture of the slope with a
    film camera, and a dslr, which one would give a better result when you
    crop to get only the small lodge. You argue that it will be the dslr,
    rather than the 4000ppi scanned image. There is also a strong
    implication in your post that the extra resolution of the film does not
    matter any more at 6mp level and above. May be we could have a
    democratic vote on these two points?


    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Nov 25, 2003
    #54
  15. Before I start, the goal here is to find what is the cheapeat possible
    setup, regardless of work involved.

    I get 36 a roll. A roll costs me $5.00 tax included in Canadian funds. The
    darkroom stuff was dirt cheap since you can't spin a canoe without finding
    someone with trays, tanks etc in their basement. So figure $50 for all the
    equipment (no enlarger). If you develop two rolls at a time and create a
    contact sheet per roll, the costs are about $.80CDN per roll. That's about $.2
    per shot. Now we don't have any prints, but we don't have any prints with the
    digital either. So I figure this is about a fair trade. If one wants to get
    into prints, just add an enlarger. I got one for nothing from a friend.
    You can find them all over used for a little more then that.

    The point being that there is next to no used digital stuff. There is TONS
    of used analog stuff.

    But again, they are different mediums and each has their drawbacks. Some
    wouldn't want to spend all that time developing. Some like digital more then
    print, etc, etc. But when the only factor is price, film is still much cheaper
    then digital.
    I figure that in a few years when the dSLR's drop to $500 or so, the tide
    will turn for film in terms of costs. But right now, film is cheaper if you
    are willing to do the work. I could hack out the numbers if you don't do the
    work. When I did add it up, it worked out to about 130 rolls before the break
    even point. I'd have to do that math again.

    I do it all Old School and only recently too. I had been shooting film for
    about 15 years, got the camera stolen in university, took the cash instead of
    the camera and stopped shooting. About 5 years ago, I bought a CoolPix. Liked
    it, had fun with it, but more and more I realized its limitations and wanted a
    SLR. When I realized that the CHEAPEST dSLR was $1600 I took another look at
    film. I shoot B&W, develop my own and print my own. I do about 2 rolls a week.
    When you develop your own you don't care so much about costs and shoot
    everything. Plus I find the whole developing process to be half the fun. Hang
    out for a bit at rec.photo.darkroom, very nice people, very helpful.

    The other thing I have noticed about this group is that everyone seems to
    spend so much time arguing about their cameras and not talking about taking
    great photos. Is the goal behind digital to own the best camera or to take
    great photos?

    J.
     
    Justin F. Knotzke, Nov 25, 2003
    #55
  16. There is one site that claims the 1Ds is "better than 6x7". He's clearly
    quite wrong (what he really means is "my 1Ds prints look better than my 6x7
    prints", which is something altogether different<g>). My experience with
    645, is that even with handheld shooting, 645 is worth about 13MP, and with
    careful work 18MP. (These numbers arrived at by determining how much
    downsampling is required to get images that appear similar to dSLR images
    when both are displayed at 100% pixels on the screen. This is equivalent to
    printing a crop of a 4000 dpi scan at 300 dpi, and then upsampling a dSLR
    image until it was equally soft.)

    It's pretty clear to me that 645 renders slightly more detail than the 1Ds.
    I think the difference between the 1Ds and 645 is larger than the difference
    between 6MP dSLRs and 35mm.

    That's not my point at all.

    I was responding to your claim that:

    (Aside: You're math's problematical: the 1Ds is 11MP, and produces a 22MB
    RAW file, or 66MB (demosaiced) 16-bit tiffs. 35mm at 4000 dpi is 3730 x 5600
    or so, 21MP and 63 or 126MB. Note that the Kodak 14n ups the ante to 13MP,
    but it only works (well) at ISO 80.)

    But that claim appears to be problematical. It's empirically wrong. Compare
    1Ds to the Provia scan.

    http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor.htm

    Second, the idea that the size of the grossly soft noisy mess that comes out
    of 4000 dpi scanners can be meaningfully compared to dSLR images is, well,
    seriously problematic. (And yes, I own one of those soft noisy mess
    producing 4000 dpi scanners, so I do know what I'm talking about.)

    I was responding with a thought experiment to show how unreasonable that
    direct (and implicitly pixel-for-pixel) comparison is.

    My point was a though experiment comparing 6MP of 4000dpi scanned pixels
    with 6MP of dSLR pixels, a comparison that's grossly unfair to film, since
    it implies comparing a .5" x .75" area of film to the full sensor in a 6MP
    dSLR. 6MP dSLR images look quite nice at 8x12, but 16x enlargements from
    such a tiny area of film won't look anywhere near as good.

    I don't argue that 6MP is better than 35mm film, because it looks to me that
    4000 dpi 35mm should slightly edge out 6MP dSLRs.

    I do argue that "scanner macho", talking about the size of the enourmous
    16-bit scanned files as though those humongous sizes meant something, is
    misdirected, ill conceived, not well thought through.
    I'm not sure what this means in light of the above misunderstanding...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 25, 2003
    #56
  17. Annika1980

    Chris Brown Guest

    Although the nature of the two media, and the ways in which they degrade as
    one elnarges their ouput, means that there really isn't any direct
    equivalence, those numbers sound about right for a rule of thumb - 6
    megapixel DSLR images will look "about the same" as decent 35mm prints (at
    100 ISO anyway, up the ISO and the DSLRs rapidly show the advantage, IME).
    However, projected 35mm slides still look really, really good compared to
    6 megapixel DSLR output.
    Interesting site.
    Indeed. Arguments based on simply counting pixels in different
    representations are not useful.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 25, 2003
    #57
  18. Annika1980

    Xiaoding Guest

    If what your goint to do is shoot film and scan it, and "compare" that
    to digital, don't waste your time. That is not a valid comparison.
    There is more to a photgraph than "resoloution", a fact that many will
    deny to their dying day, it seems. What about the color space? What
    about gradations? The instant you scan film, you invalidate the
    comparison! YOU NEED A DARKROOM, WITH AN ENLARGER. That is the only
    comparison that is valid.
     
    Xiaoding, Nov 25, 2003
    #58
  19. Annika1980

    ArtKramr Guest

    Subject: Re: DIGITAL vs. FILM (Round 2)

    It is a totally valid comparison if what you intend to do is work with scanned
    film. If that is what you intend to do an enlarged silver image is invalid.

    Regards,


    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Nov 25, 2003
    #59
  20. But we've never seen projected 6MP dSLR output: there's no such thing as a
    6MP projector.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 25, 2003
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.