Format resolution comparison.

[Nikon 2]

Left photo is not zoomed.
Right photo is zoomed full…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Indeed. That's one reason why I believe it's more likely it's a case of user error.



Yes, I know. That's because (1) at least one of the photos you're trying to evaluate is poorly focused and (2) as I said earlier, scans always look a little mushy unless you apply digital sharpening. And even then, they don't look quite as clean and clinical as a native digital capture if you're pixel peeping.

Sooner or later we all have to face these issues, most notably:
* Pixel peeping presses your face against failures all across the imaging chain, more often than not caused by one's own failure.
* It doesn't bring much happiness.
* Digital photography can be pretty neat.

If you prefer the look of your digital files, I'd suggest to stick with the digital camera.

The film scans look fine without zooming.
You simply don’t understand the post…!

 

[koraks]

Once again, you’re commenting on a highly zoomed image that can be misleading you to think of camera shake…!

I did not mention camera shake. I mentioned misfocus. I already explained why I think that's the case and so far I see nothing that suggests otherwise. In the first film-scan image you posted, the monitor shot, compare the lower left corner:

(this is reasonably in focus and fairly sharp for a film scan)

with the horizon:

(this is fuzzy because it's out of focus)

What about this one…?

You have several things going on there. Firstly, you've got optics that are in bad shape or just poor design; see the top left corner for instance:

Secondly, there's a lot of posterization going on due to low bit depth of the image; this makes everything look 'pasty' and unsharp, although it's not a sharpness/resolution issue per se. See e.g. here; the shadows in the trees are particularly affected:

In your zoomed-in image it's very clear as well, although things are exacerbated here by the pixel pattern of the digital photograph of an image on a monitor...

Part of the fuzziness in this image does in fact seem due to minor camera shake, which is evident in this bit here:

(having run into camera shake/motion blur countless times myself, I know what it looks like, so I know what to look for).

Then, there's the issue of grain emphasis, which is an interaction between the grain of the film and the scanner resolution, which makes the grain come out a little more 'chunky' than it might do in an optical enlargement.

Lest I forget, medium plays a role, too - try shooting this on something like HP5+ and everything will look a lot sharper (even though the resolution isn't necessarily higher). B&W has the edge, here, in general.

Finally, there's the issue which I've mentioned twice now, which is that scans always look a little fuzzy unless sharpened, as opposed to the tidiness of digital images.

You simply don’t understand the post…!

I see. Well, I hope that the concrete examples and explanations given above help you to spot where I "don't understand" it.

Left photo is not zoomed.
Right photo is zoomed full…!

Yes, I know what I'm looking at. Even in the instances where you didn't specify or your explanation was fuzzy, I could tell from the image. I've spent a lot of time looking at scans, digital photos and computer monitors, quite often in combination.

Again, like hordes of people, I've spent (too) much time pixel-peeping scans, both my own (thousands upon thousands of images, without exaggerating) as well as other people's, with all manner of defects and issues, photographed on a variety of media and with a variety of equipment under a variety of conditions. And, as said, the first thing I noticed when I stepped into digital 'for real' was how clean the files were straight out of the camera. If you want that kind of crispness, then shoot digital. There's nothing wrong with it.

If you want your 35mm scans to look as clean and crisp as digital, downsample them from 24mpix to about 6mpix and judiciously apply unsharp mask. This will work quite well especially on B&W film, but color as well. If you want your 24 mpix 35mm scans to look as crisp as digital when viewed all the way zoomed in, then you're in for a massive disappointment, because it's just not going to happen. Ever. That's the long and the short of it.

Now go and enjoy photography!

 

[Nikon 2]

Think I could have answered my own question.

The flash drive from Blue Moon indicates 6774 x 4492 JPEG.
SD card shows 5976 x 3992 RAW…!

 

[koraks]

This explains the posterization bit, but not the fuzziness due to other reasons. See post #28 for a list. If you were to get your scans in e.g. 16 bit TIFF, they'd still look virtually the same.

 

[Nikon 2]

I did not mention camera shake. I mentioned misfocus. I already explained why I think that's the case and so far I see nothing that suggests otherwise. In the first film-scan image you posted, the monitor shot, compare the lower left corner:
View attachment 364991
(this is reasonably in focus and fairly sharp for a film scan)

with the horizon:
View attachment 364992
(this is fuzzy because it's out of focus)




You have several things going on there. Firstly, you've got optics that are in bad shape or just poor design; see the top left corner for instance:
View attachment 364988

Secondly, there's a lot of posterization going on due to low bit depth of the image; this makes everything look 'pasty' and unsharp, although it's not a sharpness/resolution issue per se. See e.g. here; the shadows in the trees are particularly affected:
View attachment 364989
In your zoomed-in image it's very clear as well, although things are exacerbated here by the pixel pattern of the digital photograph of an image on a monitor...
View attachment 364990

Part of the fuzziness in this image does in fact seem due to minor camera shake, which is evident in this bit here:
View attachment 364993
(having run into camera shake/motion blur countless times myself, I know what it looks like, so I know what to look for).

Then, there's the issue of grain emphasis, which is an interaction between the grain of the film and the scanner resolution, which makes the grain come out a little more 'chunky' than it might do in an optical enlargement.

Lest I forget, medium plays a role, too - try shooting this on something like HP5+ and everything will look a lot sharper (even though the resolution isn't necessarily higher). B&W has the edge, here, in general.

Finally, there's the issue which I've mentioned twice now, which is that scans always look a little fuzzy unless sharpened, as opposed to the tidiness of digital images.


I see. Well, I hope that the concrete examples and explanations given above help you to spot where I "don't understand" it.



Yes, I know what I'm looking at. Even in the instances where you didn't specify or your explanation was fuzzy, I could tell from the image. I've spent a lot of time looking at scans, digital photos and computer monitors, quite often in combination.

Again, like hordes of people, I've spent (too) much time pixel-peeping scans, both my own (thousands upon thousands of images, without exaggerating) as well as other people's, with all manner of defects and issues, photographed on a variety of media and with a variety of equipment under a variety of conditions. And, as said, the first thing I noticed when I stepped into digital 'for real' was how clean the files were straight out of the camera. If you want that kind of crispness, then shoot digital. There's nothing wrong with it.

If you want your 35mm scans to look as clean and crisp as digital, downsample them from 24mpix to about 6mpix and judiciously apply unsharp mask. This will work quite well especially on B&W film, but color as well. If you want your 24 mpix 35mm scans to look as crisp as digital when viewed all the way zoomed in, then you're in for a massive disappointment, because it's just not going to happen. Ever. That's the long and the short of it.

Now go and enjoy photography!

Why does the film image look focused without being zoomed?
Those are the highly zoomed images you’re comparing to…!

 

[Light Capture]

The results look exactly as I would expect them to look.
There are a few of apples to oranges comparisons.
Looks the same as my comparisons of similar gear. I did more comparisons with film Nikon vs. film Leica than digital. Digital is quite a bit of equalizer between the two even though Leica looks better in several parameters on digital. Mostly due to lenses and specific color output.

First is handheld use and F2 has a mirror slap while 262 doesn't.

Second is that 30 megapixel won't beat the 262 as the megapixels coming from film scan aren't as "efficient" as the megapixels from the digital camera.

Zeiss lens you have for Leica beats any of mentioned Nikons handily.
Old Rigid Summicron will render branches and leaves sharply all the way to the far corners. Late Summicrons are even better and produce more contrast and Zeiss is right up there.

Jpeg scan won't give you the full information.

Than there's an issue of scanning and how much information the specific method really pulls out from the film. There's a lens, sensor, scanning device or camera and some amount of vibration at high magnifications.

 

[Nikon 2]

This explains the posterization bit, but not the fuzziness due to other reasons. See post #28 for a list. If you were to get your scans in e.g. 16 bit TIFF, they'd still look virtually the same.

Oh, Blue Moon told me there would be no difference between 16bit TIFF than the premium scans. But I’ll ask them again to be sure…!

 

[koraks]

Oh, Blue Moon told me there would be no difference between 16bit TIFF than the premium scans.

It'll make a difference if you're going to make big adjustments to color or contrast. If you keep the images more or less as they are, there won't be much of a difference other than file size.

 

[Nikon 2]

I think I’m missing the part that the Nikon F2 is a SLR that can cause image shake whilst the Leica MD doesn’t…!

 

[koraks]

Mirror shake is the least of your worries.

 

[Nikon 2]

It'll make a difference if you're going to make big adjustments to color or contrast. If you keep the images more or less as they are, there won't be much of a difference other than file size.

Is a drum scan the same as

The results look exactly as I would expect them to look.
There are a few of apples to oranges comparisons.
Looks the same as my comparisons of similar gear. I did more comparisons with film Nikon vs. film Leica than digital. Digital is quite a bit of equalizer between the two even though Leica looks better in several parameters on digital. Mostly due to lenses and specific color output.

First is handheld use and F2 has a mirror slap while 262 doesn't.

Second is that 30 megapixel won't beat the 262 as the megapixels coming from film scan aren't as "efficient" as the megapixels from the digital camera.

Zeiss lens you have for Leica beats any of mentioned Nikons handily.
Old Rigid Summicron will render branches and leaves sharply all the way to the far corners. Late Summicrons are even better and produce more contrast and Zeiss is right up there.

Jpeg scan won't give you the full information.

Than there's an issue of scanning and how much information the specific method really pulls out from the film. There's a lens, sensor, scanning device or camera and some amount of vibration at high magnifications.

Thank you.
Finally someone who knows…!

 

[Light Capture]

Mirror shake is the least of your worries.

Agreed. It's there but it's only one of the factors. Probably not a significant factor for daylight images that were shown.
I might have missed it but didn't see what film was this? It could be low resolution film as an additional factor.

 

[koraks]

Finally someone who knows…!

The irony.

 

[Nikon 2]

So a

Agreed. It's there but it's only one of the factors. Probably not a significant factor for daylight images that were shown.
I might have missed it but didn't see what film was this? It could be low resolution film as an additional factor.

Ektar 100…!

 

[Light Capture]

So a


Ektar 100…!

While I think it should look bit better, it's likely limited with optics, scanning and some other things as @koraks said in previous post with all of the findings from the images itself.
What's mentioned in that post plus my general remarks from using the same equipment should isolate the cause. With good scans you should be able to see the same difference if you used your Zeiss lens on the film Leica.

Beside all of this digital images will look cleaner than film scans in almost any case.

 

[Nikon 2]

While I think it should look bit better, it's likely limited with optics, scanning and some other things as @koraks said in previous post with all of the findings from the images itself.
What's mentioned in that post plus my general remarks from using the same equipment should isolate the cause. With good scans you should be able to see the same difference if you used your Zeiss lens on the film Leica.

Beside all of this digital images will look cleaner than film scans in almost any case.

One thing we all forgot to mention.

The cost of one roll of film developed optically, premium scans, One roll of Ektar 100, flash drive and shipping is over $100!
Not mentioning a three week wait…!

 

[koraks]

developed optically

That's an odd word group.

If the cost and lead time bother you, you could (1) look for a lab that's a little quicker in returning your processed film and (2) do the scanning yourself. You could make a rig with your digital camera and a suitable light box to photograph your negatives, then invert and color balance them in a photo editing app of your choice. And (3) of course you could also process your own film if you don't mind the (limited) time and effort it takes.

There will be a learning curve, of course. This will be challenging.

Good color film remains sort of expensive; there are few shortcuts there. But it's less than 20% of the total cost you mention.

 

[Nikon 2]

That's an odd word group.

If the cost and lead time bother you, you could (1) look for a lab that's a little quicker in returning your processed film and (2) do the scanning yourself. You could make a rig with your digital camera and a suitable light box to photograph your negatives, then invert and color balance them in a photo editing app of your choice. And (3) of course you could also process your own film if you don't mind the (limited) time and effort it takes.

There will be a learning curve, of course. This will be challenging.

Good color film remains sort of expensive; there are few shortcuts there. But it's less than 20% of the total cost you mention.

My film camera is a Nikon F2 with era vintage lenses.
I find it a lot easier and cheaper to shoot with the MD262…!

 

[koraks]

My film camera is a Nikon F2 with era vintage lenses.
I find it a lot easier and cheaper to shoot with the MD262…!

Yes, I can imagine, and there's nothing wrong with that!

 

[wiltw]

It used to be that very fine grain film (Panatomic-X) had to be used for lens testing, and a moderate qualtiy lens might only achieve delivered resolution of about 64 lne-pairs per millimeter of film.
64 line-pairs needs twice as many pixels to resolve as a minimum...so over 24mm short dimension it would be equaled by under 3100 pixels, or a total pixel count of a mere 14.2MegaPixel sensor!
Computer designs now give us better performing lenses than in the days of film, so it is no surprise that a digital image seems sharper than a film image scanned by a film scanner.

 

[Nikon 2]

Yes, I can imagine, and there's nothing wrong with that!

I’m thinking about starting a Go Fund Me forum so I can shoot film regularly…!

 

[koraks]

You wouldn't be the first, or so I imagine!

As said, there are ways to reduce costs, especially if you are willing to do some of the legwork yourself.

 

[Nikon 2]

It used to be that very fine grain film (Panatomic-X) had to be used for lens testing, and a moderate qualtiy lens might only achieve delivered resolution of about 64 lne-pairs per millimeter of film.
64 line-pairs needs twice as many pixels to resolve as a minimum...so over 24mm short dimension it would be equaled by under 3100 pixels, or a total pixel count of a mere 14.2MegaPixel sensor!
Computer designs now give us better performing lenses than in the days of film, so it is no surprise that a digital image seems sharper than a film image scanned by a film scanner.

Yes, I’m realizing those vintage lenses and shake from the SLR design can hurt the image quite noticeably when zoomed.
Not to mention the high cost of film development compared to “all you can take” for free digitally…!

 

[Nikon 2]

You wouldn't be the first, or so I imagine!

As said, there are ways to reduce costs, especially if you are willing to do some of the legwork yourself.

At my age, my legs don’t work that well…!