DIGITAL vs. FILM (Round 2)

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

  1. In that case, am I right in saying that a file of say 60MB means 20MP,
    since there are 3 bytes for each pixel? 11MP (canon 1ds) would then
    produce a file of 33MB? still, about half of 4000dpi scanner at 8 bits?
    Why then when I scan at 8 bit I get a 68.1 MB file, but when I scan at
    14 bit, I get a 136MB file? Does it mean that the 14/16 bit scan
    produces more than 3 bytes for each pixel? Thanks in advance for
    comments/answers to these questions.

    nobody nowhere, Nov 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "Ray Murphy"
    You say that as if it is the unquestioned truth. Well many people will
    question it.
    I'll agree with that. In fact, many pros are now both capturing and printing
    digitally for that reason .... the digital workflow simply produces better
    images. Better than 35mm film, anyway.
    Annika1980, Nov 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    JPS Guest

    In message <bpvo6t$cti$>,
    The highestpixel CRT image I've seen is full resolution from my Sony
    F707 on a 2560*1920 video mode I made with Powerstrip, but even there,
    it was missing a lot of what the monitor can't deliver. It did look a
    little better than quick-n-dirty downsampling, though.
    JPS, Nov 26, 2003
  4. This was certainly true 20 years ago. I'm not sure it's true today --
    are your sources current?
    On the other hand, some high-end motion pictures are now being
    originally recorded on video, and transferred to film only for release
    in old-fashioned theaters.
    Yeah, sometimes the job requirements dictate the choice.

    Some of the earlier spy satellites actually had ways to drop film back
    to earth! That must have severely limited the usable life of the
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 26, 2003
  5. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "Justin F. Knotzke"
    I don't think comparing color DSLR's to B&W darkroom work is very fair.
    How many people are gonna get a DSLR to shoot B&W? Nada.

    What you should be comparing is the processing costs of film with the initial
    outlay of digital. I've had my Totally Digital D60 for 13 months now. I've
    taken over 23,000 pics with it so far.
    Now I wouldn't take anywhere near that many if I shot film due to cost
    considerations. Also, I wouldn't get near as many keepers as I do with
    Annika1980, Nov 26, 2003
  6. B&W is fun. 30 years ago, B&W cost a penny a frame for the film (bulk
    loaded) and almost nothing for the chemistry. More recently, I've had
    to tell people "shoot a lot, film used to be cheap". Now I tell them
    to shoot a lot because electrons are cheap.
    And I probably shouldn't even have pointed this out, since you made
    clear initially that "cheapest" was the only criteria you wanted to
    discuss to begin with.
    Not a P&S; a 2 megapixel camera with manual exposure control and a 3:1
    zoom lens. The Canon A-60 is $200 new.

    That's not as capable as a film SLR with all available accessories, of
    course. On the other hand, it's a lot *more* capable than a film SLR
    with one 50mm lens. It can do wider, longer, and closer than the SLR.

    It's not a stupid choice for learning photography on. The immediate
    feedback is *very* valuable.
    Well, it's certainly save me a small fortune.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 26, 2003
  7. That's your opinion. My calculations show differently.
    That's not a dSLR.
    Of course a SLR is capable of handling more then one type of lens including
    a zoom. The A60 cannot.

    I'll agree 100% with you that there are some cameras where the film option
    isn't as cheap as digital. That isn't the case with a dSLR.
    Agreed. It has its advantages. One could argue though that understanding
    the entire process is more important. There are some who also argue that a
    zoom lens is a bad way to learn about composition. That its better to force
    the student to move, walk, run over to take the better shot.
    That's because you and I aren't comparing the same things.

    Justin F. Knotzke, Nov 26, 2003
  8. Annika1980

    Ray Murphy Guest

    RM: We still don't have a consensus about what we are talking about
    here; but for those who are interested in "What looks superior" then
    it doesn't matter what photographic paper is used, as long as both
    images are of equal size and printed on paper that is approximately
    equal in appearance.

    Ray Murphy, Nov 26, 2003
  9. Annika1980

    Ray Murphy Guest

    You say that as if it is the unquestioned truth. Well many people will
    question it.[/QUOTE]

    RM: If digital cameras had surpassed the best conventional technology
    we would have heard about it by now.
    I'd say the easiest way to find out what's really happening is to go
    to a professional output bureau where printers and graphic artists get
    their printing plates and films made and look at the posters on the
    walls and ask how they were made.
    If they don't have any posters on display - just ask someone on the
    counter and you'll find out what the highest paid pro's in the graphic
    arts business are doing.

    Another way to quickly discover what's really happening out there is
    to take a transparency to a bureau which does *high-end* drum scanning
    and get them to supply a scan and see the incredible detail and
    compare it with a digital camera.
    RM: It's not hard to beat 35mm with digital :))
    I was referring to large format such as 4 x 5. That's where the real
    quality lies.

    Is there any chance we can collectively knock-up a comparison that we
    can agree to focus upon instead of talking about various things?

    Ray Murphy, Nov 26, 2003
  10. That is the way film is printed at both big labs and mini-labs.. The film is
    developed, the negatives are scanned, then prints are made from the scans.
    This is why it's so cheap to get a CD of your film, they've already done the
    scanning. It's all digital now. The only difference is that in the case of
    film the digitazation is done at the lab, while with digital it's done in
    the camera.

    You can still get conventional enlarging and printing, but you will pay a
    very high price per print for this service at a professional lab. Expect to
    pay about $8 per print. Of course home darkrooms are still "analog."
    Steven M. Scharf, Nov 26, 2003
  11. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "Ray Murphy"
    Well my Scan Elite 5400 scanner arrived today, so I'll be doing some (35mm)
    testing myself. So far, all I can say is that it sure does produce some big
    Whether these larger files translate to better output remains to be seen.

    Obviously, if you are printing posters then you'll need all the pixels you can
    get. At more useable sizes, 40 MegaPixels is overkill.
    Annika1980, Nov 26, 2003
  12. I've visited a couple of film/video labs in Vancouver BC within the
    last year. There are several dramatic TV series that are shot in and
    around the city, and most of them seem to shoot film. These days they
    may be transferring to HD rather than NTSC, or transferring at 16:9
    rather than 4:3. And they may be doing their editing electronically,
    rather than cutting physical negative. But there's an awful lot of
    original capture still done on film.
    Yeah, when the film's gone the satellite is dead.

    Dave Martindale, Nov 26, 2003
  13. Annika1980

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Ok, try that around the grand canyon, but remember it is a LONG way
    down. I use the zoom to compose a shot when I can't get into the
    position I would like, or the subject can't be moved. A kitten up a
    tree is a good example as I am too old and fat to climb.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 26, 2003
  14. Annika1980

    Xiaoding Guest

    How do you know? Do you have an actual, enlarger made print to compare it
    to? That is the only REAL test.
    Xiaoding, Nov 26, 2003
  15. Annika1980

    Xiaoding Guest

    The title of the thread is "Digital vs Film". Hence my on topic
    reply...your reply seems to have missed the point entirely. :)
    Xiaoding, Nov 26, 2003
  16. Annika1980

    zbzbzb Guest

    My 4000 dpi 35mm negative scans to traditional photo paper (Fuji Crystal
    Uh, yeah. When I said "straight from the negative" were you thinking only
    printing with your own enlarger will give the best detail? I have my own
    enlarger and prints made with my enlarger and my good lab prints are identical
    in sharpness. Cheap lab prints is another matter.

    So yes I have compared identical negative frames done on my enlarger with those
    lab printed from Canon FS4000 scans and there is no difference in detail but
    overall the scans are better because of the superior control I have over them.

    By the way I'm not plugging scanning since I really can't stand scanning. I do
    it only for the negatives I already have.
    zbzbzb, Nov 26, 2003
  17. Annika1980

    Nick C Guest

    How many have you printed.
    Not get as many keepers? Now, I can't believe you would have someone
    think you don't know what your doing. <g> I use both film and digital
    and haven't seen a difference in keepers.

    Nick C, Nov 26, 2003
  18. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: Nick C
    Well if you shoot 10 times more pics with digital then you'd obviously expect
    to have more keepers with digital.

    If I didn't, I WOULD be doing something terribly wrong.
    Annika1980, Nov 27, 2003
  19. Annika1980

    Charlie Self Guest

    Annika responds:
    Not necessarily. With no film and processing costs, I'm far more apt to
    experiment. Most experiments fail. The ones that succeed help me improve, so
    the extra shots are helpful, even if they're not keepers.

    Charlie Self

    "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
    promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
    Charlie Self, Nov 27, 2003
  20. Annika1980

    Phil Guest

    Charlie Self wrote:

    That is a huge difference between film and digital: High nonrecurring
    cost but almos zero recurring cost. We can play to our heart's content :)

    Phil, Nov 27, 2003
    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.