digital vs. film test on TV

[SilverGlow]

Life is for the living.

TV & Video games are for the dead.

***************************

Those that do, will do.

Those that don't, watch TV.

 

[Excalibur2]

I'd like to see digital compete with this camera:-

http://www.fotoart.gr/photography/history/historyphotos/onephotoonestory/thelargestcamera.htm

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Silver Glow;

What is the difference between "Bread and Circuses" and "Food Stamps and Television?"

Perhaps you can understand my concern for the future of this country.

 

[michaelbsc]

What is the difference between "Bread and Circuses" and "Food Stamps and Television?"

None. That's why I threw my TV out years ago. I do not deny that some programs are truly informative, educational, and well done. I also do no deny that morphine has legitimate uses. Unchecked both will rot your mind.

The biggest problem is that TV can be usurped to indoctrinate. Or maybe I should say "has been" instead of "can be" in this case.

MB

 

[djacobox372]

Hmmmm... why would they shoot at 400iso in a studio? the only reason I can think of is to give digital the edge.

 

[djacobox372]

None. That's why I threw my TV out years ago. I do not deny that some programs are truly informative, educational, and well done. I also do no deny that morphine has legitimate uses. Unchecked both will rot your mind.

The biggest problem is that TV can be usurped to indoctrinate. Or maybe I should say "has been" instead of "can be" in this case.

MB

Books and music are also dangerous.

 

[Steve Smith]

Books and music are also dangerous.

Especially that rock and/or roll music the devil plays on guitars like the one on the left!


Steve.

 

[Andy K]

Especially that rock and/or roll music the devil plays on guitars like the one on the left!


Steve.

Nothin' like duellin' with the devil, lol!

[YOUTUBE]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=D0QKbnCDW94[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, I reviewed this thread and also a post by Art. Basically, the contention is that the TV review is flawed and I do agree, but I have yet to see anyone post their reasoning behind the argument that it is flawed. I agree that it is flawed, don't get me wrong, but I cannot see, under these conditions, how the digital can look so good. The film is very good. Grain free (for that size) and sharp (for that size), but the digital is way too good IMHO.

So, what is the flaw?

PE

 

[sanking]

BTW, I just posted on the hybrid forum the results from a rather limited comparison I made of a Canon 5d, which is a 12.8 mp full sensor DSLR, and a Fuji GS645Zi, a MF film camera. I used ASA of 100 in the Canon 5d, and used Portra 160 VC rated at EI of 100 in the film camera.

I have an old, but very high end scanner that is better than many drum scanner, so my scan of the MF film, which was done fluid mounted, is about as good as it gets. I was honestly surprised by the high quality of the digital file. My basic conclusion is that the 5d definitely beats the MF 645 unless you are able to get a high end scan, say with a dedicated film scanner or with a drum.

If interested you can read about this comparison at http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8677#post8677

Sandy King

Well, I reviewed this thread and also a post by Art. Basically, the contention is that the TV review is flawed and I do agree, but I have yet to see anyone post their reasoning behind the argument that it is flawed. I agree that it is flawed, don't get me wrong, but I cannot see, under these conditions, how the digital can look so good. The film is very good. Grain free (for that size) and sharp (for that size), but the digital is way too good IMHO.

So, what is the flaw?

PE

 

[Excalibur2]

Well my view on the film/digital debate is:- we all know digital is more convenient and in low light with IS saves using a tripod etc etc etc......but any rich fool can spend £5,000 on a digital camera and lenses, but the clever guys with equipment from £2-£100 can get near or equal the results.................... using film.
Personally I like the challenge even using a £5 Konica C35.

 

[Ken N]

I'm just impressed with how well 35mm ISO 400 film with no post-processing held up to the digital camera shot. If you apply the same processing to the film shot which the D700 is IN-CAMERA to the image file, it is amazing how much closer this comparison is. I always have to do a bit of post-processing to get my images where I want them to be. Did that in the olden days prior to digital-cameras and still doing it today.

Honestly, when is "great" good enough? I have no issues with the ISO 160 pro films and with a touch of post-production, my scanned files are as usable as anything coming from the latest-greatest wonderbrick.

And best of all, I actually have viewfinders I can see and focus with!

 

[JMC1969]

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

It's not that amazing, because something tells me the show didn't pay for it. I would be interested to know what commercials were run before, after, and in the breaks of this show. Digital based maybe? I don't know how big of a show this is over there, but I can tell you a couple of things.

The material to print on, the ink to print with, 2 days of a dedication of a printer, A crew and equipment rentals for a 7 hour day to hang, is Multi-Thousands of dollars. As they stated within the first 30 seconds, they already did this test and found film to be better. Somebody didn't like that outcome and paid for a rebuttal.

Example 1- Close up push onto the digital camera in HIS hand and the wide shot of the soft touch on the bottom of the film camera in HER hand.
Example 2- 18 (approx) shots of photographer w/ D700 vs. 3 shots of photographer holding the F5. 3 full pan moves of the D700 labeling to the Nikon labeling.
Example 3- Why shoot ISO 400 under controlled lighting in studio?
Example 4- Is an 85mm lens the same focal length on the film camera as it is the digital camera? I thought there was a difference. Maybe not with the D700, I'm not that familiar.
Example 4b- Her mention of skin tones being better with digital. That in itself has been in high debate in recent months. As in digital is not quite up to par yet.
Example 5-

F5 with no lens and film in canisters pushed to the side of the desk and out of depth of field (blur) as they are relics, while they work on the new High Tech Aluminum MacBook.

Example 6- Everything that has been brought up here already, lack of real info. Camera profiles, scanner profiles, printer profiles, rip software, resolution film was scanned at, which film? print or chrome? and so on.

 

[Andy K]

I don't know how big of a show this is over there...

The show airs on Channel 5, a commercial station. To give you an idea, Channel 5 is the station people watch if there is absolutely nothing else worth watching on any other station, and if they are in a iron lung and the nurse has left the remote out of reach.

 

[Steve Smith]

.....and all of the buttons on the remote have fallen off except No. 5 and the TV power switch is super glued to the on position.



Steve.

 

[bob100684]

To compare an iso400 consumer print film is unfair to film in general. I'm not saying digital is always better, but of course when enlarged that much a D700 image will beat out kodak crapmax400 or the fuji equivalent.

 

[Steve Smith]

Blown up to that size, they should both have been terrible. They were actually quite good.

Notice what the decider was. Jon Bentley (the one who my kids think is a robot) repeatedly talks about the shadow detail. We know that digital has trouble with highlights but it can handle shadows quite well.

I think he was either told outright what to say or, at least, prompted in that direction.


Steve.

 

[dsullivan]

It's not that amazing, because something tells me the show didn't pay for it. I would be interested to know what commercials were run before, after, and in the breaks of this show.

They'd be interesting only as canny booking of advertising slots, from the ASA's TV Advertising Standards Code: "Broadcasters must retain editorial independence and responsibility for the content and scheduling of programmes"

David.

 

[JMC1969]

The show airs on Channel 5, a commercial station. To give you an idea, Channel 5 is the station people watch if there is absolutely nothing else worth watching on any other station, and if they are in a iron lung and the nurse has left the remote out of reach.

Ah, Thank you, so I feel even stronger of my point. Low budget shows don't even want to pay the crew there full day rates, they certainly aren't going to chuck that kind of dough don't for the prints all by themselves. Someone bought that episode.

 

[2F/2F]

This comparison is like comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges under a microscope.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

I'd also someday like to see one of these 'shoot-outs' compare camera weight and bulk, total cost of each setup, and any of the other factors that *should* contribute to a format decision. (In this case, the F5 is a clunker, but you'd get the same results with a body 1/3 of the weight.) Most (all?) of the FF digitals are relative monsters, and saying their quality beats 35mm means no more to me personally than saying the same thing about medium or large format in the old days of ten years ago. I'm not going to go trail running or backpacking with a $3000, 2+ pound D700 when I can get all the quality I need with a $160 14 oz FM10 loaded with Velvia 50.

 

[JMC1969]

In 35mm I'm using a Canon F1 that I bought used 10 years ago, It's now 38 years old and I have absolutely no reason to trade it in for anything else. It works perfectly so all my "Digital camera" money goes to film purchase and processing. That is of course except for the 4- $300 a pop P&S digi's I've purchased for my wife over the last 4 years. Translate that to pro models and I will just keep shooting my F1.

 

[elekm]

It's not always about pixels and the gear. Well, it is about the gear.

Personally, I find having to constantly push various buttons to be tedious and takes away from the experience of actually taking a photo. And that's just to take the photo. Then there's what happens after you take the photo.

Film has its own drawbacks for sure, and as always the film vs. digital debate has plenty of life in it.

I find that limits are a good thing. Just one ISO at a time. Just one focal length unless I change lenses. If I can change lenses. Limits aren't a bad thing. They push you to work hard(er), think differently and be innovative when it's needed.

 

[michaelbsc]

This comparison is like comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges under a microscope.

This is the most accurate description I've heard about it yet!

 

[jolefler]

Mind you, I'm a film guy only, but...

I've listened to this D vs. F thing since it's inception. What I find amusing is the film argument USED to be about quality; now it's about F comparing favorably against D when considering gear cost, weight, etc. It really wasn't more than a year or two ago I kept hearing digital will NEVER catch up to the quality of film.

I'm glad medical advancements aren't scowled at to the extent of imaging advancements (maybe they are in witch doctor circles).

With good composition, focus and exposure practices (read: basic photographic knowlege) my aged 2mp digi does as well on an 8X10 as my Leica II with cheap 400 stuff. To each person, their own preferences.

Sitting here on the computer is giving me a headache....going back to the darkroom (& glad it's not Lightroom).

Jo