digital vs. film test on TV

[ted_smith]

Is this video really accurate and fair?

Its an extreme example, but here is a clip to another "Which is better - Film or Digital" that I watched.

They compare a Nikon F5 to a Nikon D300 both at ISO400.

Their verdict, rather predictably, is that the digital was better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there like a thousand factors that could influence this? The scanning equipment, firslty, the film used (they don't state what film it was - a pro film like Kodak Portra 160NC or some high street rubbish?) etc etc

The video is here :
http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

I admit my only comparisons are between film shot on my F80 and my D70s and film always wins for me. I have just bought an F5 and yet to see the results from that but I expect they will be better still than the F80.

Ted

 

[Ian Grant]

This is the 19th post about the Video !!!! You should read the site more Ted

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

And another thread merged.

 

[ted_smith]

Yes - my apologies. I was to eager to post it having being amused by it's bias. Sorry, David, for taking up your time moving it. You could have just deleted it - I'd not have taken offence

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is a rather longish thread on PN about the comparison of Digital to Film with their asessment that Digital is far superior and film is really digital itself. I gave up on them. You cannot reason with any of the digital people.

PE

 

[2F/2F]

Oh, please. That show was absolutely ridiculous within two seconds, and I mean that quite literally. I was going, "Oh, jeez..." before the hosts even appeared on the screen. Who watches this shit?

Besides, we already know that a Nikon D700 will make "better" building-sized prints than a 35mm 400 film. I don't think anyone debating using small format film over a D700 in the first place is doing it for reasons of "quality".

I am so sick of people arguing the technical minutiae in regards to buying shit. Turn off your damned TV (or get rid of it, like I did many years ago - in fact, I have never once owned my own TV), and go make some pictures with anything that works. Why is it that there must always be some technical justification for our zombie-like consumerism shoved in our faces? I love cameras, period, new and old, because of what they let me do. I am tired of being told what to buy, and what I should not use. I can figure it out for myself by weighing and balancing a variety of factors, thanks very much.

In my personal experience, not once has a digital evangelist or a film evangelist ever discussed their relative abilities as makers of images. Everyone I have met who gets into these arguments, on either side, has shitty photographs, IF you ever even see their photographs, and they are conceptually vapid individuals in life and in art.

So there.

 

[Allan Swindles]

I feel that the argument is irrelevant as the cost of enough of those pixi thingies to get anywhere near Velvia or Provia is in itself prohibitive.

 

[nickandre]

This is interesting. They never mentioned the word 35mm or that they were probably using expired 400 speed film which was scanned horrifically poorly. The never mentioned the word scan. It was just "printed" with a large inkjet printer.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning;

What a delightful discussion. Until you people brought up this subject, I had no idea what I was missing! Under the general heading of; "If you don't have one, you will never know what you are missing." I offer the following:

2F/2F and I have another point in common; both of us do not have a television. Thanks to the information that all of you have provided, I have had reconfirmed what a delight it is to not have one of the "square eyes" in my house. Or, is it one of the new "rectangular eyes" that they seem to be migrating toward?

 

[JBrunner]

Good morning;

What a delightful discussion. Until you people brought up this subject, I had no idea what I was missing! Under the general heading of; "If you don't have one, you will never know what you are missing." I offer the following:

2F/2F and I have another point in common; both of us do not have a television. Thanks to the information that all of you have provided, I have had reconfirmed what a delight it is to not have one of the "square eyes" in my house. Or, is it one of the new "rectangular eyes" that they seem to be migrating toward?

In 2002 I took my TV out in the back and shot it. About six months ago, I got a new little TV, and hooked it to a DVD player so I can watch a DVD every so often. I always remind the new one what happened to the other one.

 

[Lee L]

I heard about this new HD-TV thing and thought, "that's amazing", so I checked it out. Turns out it's not Hurter and Driffield TV at all, so don't waste your time.

Lee

 

[Chris Nielsen]

I can't believe that people are still doing the film vs digital thing!! Makes my head hurt when I read one of those threads..

Why can't we accept digital and film are good in different ways and leave it at that??

 

[nickandre]

I'm more concerned with the injust treatment of that poor F5, being forced to use crappy 400 speed film on a TV show for squares.

 

[Poohblah]

I can't believe that people are still doing the film vs digital thing!! Makes my head hurt when I read one of those threads..

Why can't we accept digital and film are good in different ways and leave it at that??

Because yuppies need justification for blowing $5000 on the latest DSLR rig even though they don't know what an aperture is.

 

[aparat]

It's amazing to me that they used such a huge budget to address such a meaningless question.

 

[Chris Nielsen]

Because yuppies need justification for blowing $5000 on the latest DSLR rig even though they don't know what an aperture is.

I suspect you're right, sadly...

 

[pedrosolorzano]

They used a 400 iso film...... for a big print like that it would be interesting to use the new Ektar 100. but, which scanner was used?? a flatbed, coolscan 5000 or a Tango (drum scanner).....

I think rockwell has a betther 35mm digital vs. analog test:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

 

[railwayman3]

Like most TV, just time-wasting entertainment rubbish. (Thanks to the OP for the link, though ).
How many people want to make house-sized enlargements....and those that do would surely have the knowledge to use a large format, slow film, system, not 35mm 400ASA consumer film.
A fairer test would consider the requirements of a typical user, taking into their needs (quick. small and cheap photos?), ease-of-use and maybe the occasional A4 print for the side-board.
Digital and analogue both have their place....I use a pocket digital for the quick family snaps, and as a "note-book" for any record shots which I dont need to keep permanently, while the Pentax kit is used for my hobby work, when I can get the enjoyment of taking the time and effort to produce something which hopefully pleases and satisfies me.

 

[Steve Smith]

The only fair test for the question 'which is better film or digital?' is to use the absolute best of both mediums.
That would mean a digital back on a view camera and a ULF (20" x 24") film camera.

Not very practical and of no interest to the average viewer.



Steve.

 

[Marc Leest]

Bwah. Even if digital is better, digital is just no fun.

-M-

 

[JBrunner]

What the heck is this "better" thing and what does an 90 foot poster have to do with anything. Better. Better get a bucket.

 

[Steve Smith]

As I said before, the scale of the output exceeded the capabilities of both capture mediums chosen.


Steve.

 

[Ian Grant]

Yawn . . . .

 

[michaelbsc]

In 2002 I took my TV out in the back and shot it.

OK, I'm going for the record here. I haven't had a TV since 1974. Who can top that?

("Cheers" came on the air, rose to the top of the charts for a decade, and went off the air, but I have never seen a single episode.)

Good grief, what an odd lot we must be.

MB

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Although I like watching the Gadget Show to see what electronically-powered gizmos have been invented to do the job of a perfectly adequate analogue version, the test leaves so much of the process undivulged as to be rendered useless.

This sort of programme is for what I call "Wii-tards".