DIGITAL vs. FILM (Round 2)

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

  1. Annika1980

    gsum Guest

    No, I mean pixels per inch.
    dpi is a printer microdot measurement.

    Graham
     
    gsum, Dec 3, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wow! You're even more pessemistic than I. I give Provia credit for 2000 to
    Film holds up nicely at about 8x, but at over 10x is a mess. This was true
    in 1970, and remains true today.

    Digital can be enlarged as large as you like without grain, but I find the
    lack of detail disturbing, irritating, and ultimately unacceptable. But no
    I think you underestimating MF (and film in general). Scanned at 4000 dpi
    and downsampled to 2000 dpi, I find Provia looks very good, so that's 13MP
    for 645 and 26MP or so for 6x9. At their best (perfect exposure, tripod),
    the 100F films don't show objectionable grain at 4000 dpi, but they're
    unacceptable soft printed at 300 dpi.

    But I'm just quibbling over the details: whether film is good for 1600 or
    2400 dpi, an affordable 11MP full-frame dSLR would make 645 untennable. And
    6x9 really is pretty limited.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 3, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    zbzbzb Guest

    I concluded that the limit for Provia 100 is about
    I don't know but I see plenty of detail in my 4000 dpi scanner with films such
    as Reala and the discontinued Kodak Ektar/Royal 25. Downsampled 60% to 2400
    they both look nice and smooth.
     
    zbzbzb, Dec 3, 2003
  4. Annika1980

    zbzbzb Guest

    No, I mean pixels per inch.
    Still lost then. Are you saying you see detail differences by send the file to
    the printer at 1800ppi?
     
    zbzbzb, Dec 3, 2003
  5. Annika1980

    Paul H. Guest

    They peddle this rubbish because, to them, film is *not* simply an imaging
    technology, but is instead their religion which is currently misperceived as
    being under attack by Digital Unbelievers; such people are not film users as
    much as they are acolytes in the Temple of Film. When something threatens
    their Goddess, they stream forth into the street, flaming brands in hand,
    intent upon bringing the heretics to heel.

    Realistically, though, with five- and six-megapixel cameras currently on the
    market and with the Sony's eight-megapixal camera about to be released (and
    other companies set to follow, I'm sure) the film vs.digital resolution
    argument is starting to become a horse that's just to tired to ride. Not to
    mention the question about how much resolution is really needed in the vast
    majority of cases: Back when I shot only film, I don't ever remember
    cropping one-eighth of a 35mm frame and blowing it up to 11x14 inches, so
    why should I demand such a capability from my digital camera?

    There are some, though, who seem to think you "need" enough resolution in a
    portrait camera to resolve individual strands of DNA. And that's when
    you've obviously crossed that sad no-man's-land separating the photographer
    from the Gear-Freak Zealot.
     
    Paul H., Dec 3, 2003
  6. Annika1980

    Flycaster Guest

    That's not been my experience, shooting Velvia with a EOS1, and shooting RAW
    using a Canon D60, same glass. I've got about 50 high-end drum scans that
    prove otherwise, and conclusively so.

    My hunch is you're predicating that opinion upon the output of a consumer
    scanner, most of which will only optically perform up to @ 1800 SPI.
    Moreover, consumer scanners usually have software that absolutely *hammers*
    the image; frankly, even the output of an Imacon pales in comparison with a
    good oil-mounted drum scan.
     
    Flycaster, Dec 3, 2003
  7. Annika1980

    Lionello Guest

    My $.02
    I was in Amsterdam in October. There was an exhibition of photographs
    called, "The World from Above", an amazing piece of work. All sponsored by
    Canon. About 300 prints.
    The prints were 4x6 feet printed from Canon/Velvia slides on Fuji Crystal
    Archive paper.
    The quality of the prints was extremely good; exemplary.

    The exhibition was outdoors, and there was a temporary building associated
    with it, where they sold books, postcards, etc., of the exhibit. On the
    wall in this building, was a 4x6 foot print of mountains, and above it a
    blurb that said, "Can you believe this is digital?".

    I went up to it and examined it carefully. It was shot with the Canon full
    frame digital camera. The quality was better than the Velvia shots
    outside. Sharper, and with much less grain.
    I was stunned, even though I am now a converted digital user after using
    Velvia ever since it appeared.

    Now, I will never make prints that big, maybe never even a 16x20, but it
    sure settled my mind about digital photography.


    € € > As a user of both digital and film, I really can't
    € > understand why film advocates persist in pedalling
    € > this rubbish. 35mm Velvia/Provia 100 captures
    € > less information than my D100 - about 4 to 5 mpixels.

    € That's not been my experience, shooting Velvia with a EOS1, and shooting RAW
    € using a Canon D60, same glass. I've got about 50 high-end drum scans that
    € prove otherwise, and conclusively so.

    € My hunch is you're predicating that opinion upon the output of a consumer
    € scanner, most of which will only optically perform up to @ 1800 SPI.
    € Moreover, consumer scanners usually have software that absolutely *hammers*
    € the image; frankly, even the output of an Imacon pales in comparison with a
    € good oil-mounted drum scan.






     
    Lionello, Dec 4, 2003
  8. Annika1980

    zuuum Guest

    I guess.... "One picture is worth a thousand posts"

    ....but, I haven't seen that one myself LOL
     
    zuuum, Dec 4, 2003
  9. Annika1980

    zuuum Guest

    and... did they happen to say WHAT digital imaging system was used??? If it
    was a Canon sponsored event, it is very possible this was not produced with
    consumer-grade equipment. Did it specifically say?
     
    zuuum, Dec 4, 2003
  10. Annika1980

    balls Guest

    Hi,
    I haven't read ALL the posts but I want to add a link to the
    discussion.
    The following article at slashdot describes what appears to be the
    first GIGA pixel image with a large amount of detail.

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/02/2027207&mode=thread&tid=152&tid=185

    AND
    This is the actual homepage of the guy who did it.
    You will find many more resources here.

    http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm

    So, people aruing about resolution etc. can get some clarification
    here!

    From this, I feel digital is better (although I don't have much
    experience in either).

    Enjoy!
     
    balls, Dec 5, 2003
  11. Annika1980

    JoeT Guest

    It's just a shame that quality drum scans are for the rich ... I can get 5
    hours on a Imacon for $175 which is about 30-35 images and the results are
    quite nice.
     
    JoeT, Jan 1, 2004
  12. Annika1980

    Jim Davis Guest

    Add up $175 sessions and soon you have the price of a 10D. Add on cost
    of film, travel, etc and there's no comparison.
     
    Jim Davis, Jan 3, 2004
  13. Annika1980

    Rafe B. Guest


    Ten of those sessions will buy you an LS-8000
    at the closeout price. Or, like you say, a 10D with
    some change left over.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jan 3, 2004
  14. Annika1980

    Jim Davis Guest


    which for me would be a couple of weeks.
     
    Jim Davis, Jan 4, 2004
    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.