Scanning Film vs. Digital Capture - A practical Comparison

Daniel Balfour · Jan 20, 2008

Enough has been said on the topic in my other thread titled "Is my Bronica SQ-A an 81mp camera?" that I thought it warranted its own thread.

So just to recap what's been already stated there (see previous thread):

- A dedicated film scanner such as the Nikon LS-9000 ED has a stated optical resolution of 4000 ppi, but an "effective" resolution (or "MMP" - meaningful megapixels) of only 3000 ppi.

- A Canon 5D has a 13.8 mp sensor, but an "actual resolution" of only 12.8 mp.

Effectively it would seem that a scan from a 35mm done on a Nikon LS-9000 becomes equivalent in image resolution to an image captured on the Canon 5D (considering comparable lenses). If this is true, it follows that whatever output (size/tone/sharpness) is possible from one is also possible from the other.

Does this statement hold true?

sanking · Jan 20, 2008

iserious said:
Enough has been said on the topic in my other thread titled "Is my Bronica SQ-A an 81mp camera?" that I thought it warranted its own thread.

So just to recap what's been already stated there (see previous thread):

- A dedicated film scanner such as the Nikon LS-9000 ED has a stated optical resolution of 4000 ppi, but an "effective" resolution (or "MMP" - meaningful megapixels) of only 3000 ppi.

- A Canon 5D has a 13.8 mp sensor, but an "actual resolution" of only 12.8 mp.

Effectively it would seem that a scan from a 35mm done on a Nikon LS-9000 becomes equivalent in image resolution to an image captured on the Canon 5D (considering comparable lenses). If this is true, it follows that whatever output (size/tone/sharpness) is possible from one is also possible from the other.

Does this statement hold true?

In terms of file size a scan of a 35mm made with the LS-9000 would give you a 22mp file, even though the useful information is only about 12 mp. That would pretty well match a file from a 12.8 mp DSLR in terms of detail or resolution.

However, the DSLR file has an advantage in that it has no grain, and if used at a low ASA, very little noise. Film grain will limit the useful enlargement of the 35mm scan.

Sandy King

keithwms · Jan 20, 2008

I agree with Sandy. The thing to bear in mind is that there is signal and there is noise. Once you get into higher ISOs, the grain of colour film becomes a major detail and tonality killer. The newest DSLRs (including the 5D) do spectacularly well at high ISO colour. The noise that does appear is not grain and it can be treated fairly well by trading resolution for lower noise. Denoising can work very well but it always costs you some real information as well.

Disclaimer: obviously, many of us have strong feelings about the grain of b&w film. I love it, many of us love it. I know DSLR shooters who feel the need to put randomized, simulated grain into their DSLR captures. My comments about signal/noise do not imply anything about my allegiance to the grain and personality of b&w film!

imazursky · Jan 20, 2008

There is a bit (pardon the pun) more information in a 35mm than a coolscan can pull out.
I just finished a project for a client that entailed drum scanning 125x 35mm chromes.
I was redoing the job for her because the scans she had previously gotten from an Imacon where lacking fine detail and transitions.
At a final file size of 150 or so mb's. There was at least 10-25% more data in the drum scans then the Imacons.
It was also dependent on the film. Some where on par most were much better.

CCD scanners like the Imacon and Nikon's generate more noise and more apparent stair-stepping when your at or near the max resolution of the device. Even without sharpening the drum scans came out sharper and with better transitions.

There is still a gap between the best DSLR and a good 35mm drum scanned frame.
From the pro sumer scanner standpoint (Nikon) the DSLR will probably win alittle more than half the time.
I have seen some comparisons by friends and i tend to agree but if you go the really hi end route (drum scan), film can still hold that elusive last bit of detail. To me it also has that warm feeling. Not reddish, but that warm feeling inside when you hold that chrome up to light and you see something tangible in front of you.

I also own a DSLR (Nikon D200). Its now relegated to shooting items for ebay and quick portraits ands candid's. After i made the comparison with film and scanning, wether its a drum or coolscan, the film wins. Im dont want to open another one of those debates but thats my .02 cents.

Best
-ian

Daniel Balfour · Jan 20, 2008

IanMazursky said:
After i made the comparison with film and scanning, wether its a drum or coolscan, the film wins.

Ian,

I've heard a lot of talk here about drum scans and the inherent qualities however, it's not a viable comparison. Reason being, accessibility just isn't there. Drum scanning is expensive, time consuming and requires the additional steps of sending out film, etc. Additionally, most people (myself included) do not own the type of machine (Mac Pro & the like) that would easily handle manipulation of a $200+ mb file!

I remember having this argument with someone years back about the inherent quality differences between MF & 4x5. Sure, 4x5 film will produce much richer negs (information/resolution) but constitute no more then a distant fraction of the exposures made in the day because it's just not a practical grab-n-go format. I'm afraid the same logic applies to drum scanning. I've no doubt it's a better scanning technique, but it may as well stay in the lab as it's value is almost purely theoretic for most anyone who isn't doing this professionally.

- my $0.02

lenny · Jan 20, 2008

iserious said:
Ian,

I've heard a lot of talk here about drum scans and the inherent qualities however, it's not a viable comparison. Reason being, accessibility just isn't there. Drum scanning is expensive, time consuming and requires the additional steps of sending out film, etc. Additionally, most people (myself included) do not own the type of machine (Mac Pro & the like) that would easily handle manipulation of a $200+ mb file!

Drum scanning may not be for you. I certainly don't want to produce a file for someone that can't use it. These are expensive, high end, sensitive devices. They are for another level of printing. It's when someone wants "everything" out of their neg. You may be interested some day, but you're not now, and there's nothing wrong with that.

iserious said:
I remember having this argument with someone years back about the inherent quality differences between MF & 4x5. Sure, 4x5 film will produce much richer negs (information/resolution) but constitute no more then a distant fraction of the exposures made in the day because it's just not a practical grab-n-go format. I'm afraid the same logic applies to drum scanning. I've no doubt it's a better scanning technique, but it may as well stay in the lab as it's value is almost purely theoretic for most anyone who isn't doing this professionally.
- my $0.02

This is the real meat of it. It's all about purpose. I happen to be a Fine Artist. Unlike the commercial photographer (possibly), I care nothing about how many exposures one can do in a day. It isn't about quantity, only quality. I taught for many years at the college level and one thing I can say about a view camera is that it is wonderful that it slows one down. Every student ought to use one at one time or another, whether it becomes their ultimate tool or not. They produce a far higher percentage of "considered" images, where the deliberate choices of the photographer become clear. Taking a photograph, one usually stands back from the scene vs the downside of 35mm - the idea of looking at life thru a little hole.... it isn't that you can't get past that (as many have), it's that when you are learning, it's what comes natural.

I actually decided I wanted to be faster with my 8x10 while shooting landscape. I got to pull the camera out, focus and expose, put it away in 60 seconds. Truth is, even tho' one can do it faster, it's much better to slow down and think about it a while - and maybe you will get a better image.

Printing is the same. It's better if it takes a little while. I often stop at the end of the day, before I am done and sleep on it. Did I approach this right? Is this the type of treatment the image needs. It isn't about speed. It's about understanding and that usually takes time....

Lenny
EigerStudios

imazursky · Jan 21, 2008

Iserious,

I think it is a valid comparison. The dslr compared to the nikon exclude the high end.
In order to compare the 2, you should also compare the results to a drum scan.
You would then have a range. Especially if you want to compare sharpness and tone.
I have seen variations in an individual scanner line from the same model/manufacturer. It happens when so many are made.

I wrote about my latest experience scanning a large batch of 35mm chromes to illustrate a point. I probably could have explained it better.
The client scanned the slides on there own Imacon. (The Imacon is much more expensive than the Nikon but the file quality is also better)
Anyway, I did some test scans to show them the difference. It was large enough that they wanted to rescan them.
As Lenny said, drum scanning isnt for everyone. You can get some great scans from the Nikon but you need to know what you are buying.
I figure the more you know the better off you will be.

Lenny is correct. Know your final output. Know the scanner/dslr quality. If it produces a file that is acceptable to you then buy it.
I always say this when I am asked about scanners. Find a friend or a lab that has one of the scanners.
Scan 5 or 10 pieces that represent your work. Compare your options. Then make a decision. You are the best judge.

There are many pro and amateur photographers who have chosen to also buy a drum scanner in addition to a coolscan or Imacon.
Yes it takes time to learn but so does a Nikon or Imacon. They are not that expensive.
Btw, I dont have a mac pro, I have an old G5 that does just fine with files up to 2gb.

I was just expressing my opinion on the subject of scanning. Maybe this was not the correct thread to add it too.
At the time, I did not see your other thread titled "Is my Bronica SQ-A an 81mp camera?"
I didn't want to turn the thread into one of these run on, back and forth never ending arguments. I apologize if I did or offended anyone.
The reason for my post was to inform and not to start another argument.

toyotadesigner · Jan 21, 2008

Film grain will limit the useful enlargement of the 35mm scan.

The old 'die hard argument'. It's ridiculous, really. If there are no arguments left, people always come up with the grain story or the faster workflow in favor of digital (which is more a tell tale story because people have very short memories and forget to calculate the time to electronically process the RAW data).

I had the chance to compare a 5D with a 24-105 L lens (if I remember it correctly), a Zeiss Contax G2 with some Zeiss lenses and a Rollei 35s (also a Zeiss desin), using Provia 100F, scanned with a Coolscan 5000.

Even the Rollei 35s images rendered better and more precise colors, more detail, less lens distortion. Not to mention the Zeiss lenses of the Contax system.

We've sent some images to the lab to get photopaper quality at 90x60 centimers (almost 2x3 feet) on Fuji paper. Though you can see minor 'grain' as you put it, you can see many ugly blocky pixelation in the 5D image at the same size.

I didn't buy the Canon but another Nikon F4s after that experiment (because all my other systems are already complete). For me digital still has a very long way to go, and even then nobody will have a solution for a perfect data storage (just had to re-scan 96 images for a client because the speciall Kodak DVD turned out to be unreadable despite the 10 year guaranty...)

keithwms · Jan 21, 2008

Jens, if you saw "ugly blocky pixelation" in a 5D image at 2x3 feet then the image was improperly prepared.

Frankly it's a bit stale whenever these discussions come up and somebody automically defaults to drum scanned velvia or provia shot at low ISO and expertly scanned. Fine, shoot it. Take it into a stadium and shoot it with your 300mm and your colour correcting filter for the stadium lights and go ahead and shoot at f/1.0 so that you can get your shutter speeds down to 1/100 sec.

C'mon it's completely ridiculous to do comparisons like this. At $30+ a pop, a drum scanned ISO 100 35mm slide may as well be a faberge egg to most of the sports shooters out there.

Film and digital are different tools. People need to stop taking swipes at one or the other and just do their thing, sell it, be famous, and stop blatantly slamming the intelligence of other photographers who choose a different path.

Bob Carnie · Jan 21, 2008

I like a lot of the replies above, Lenny is doing some tests for me as we speak,, film is leaving tonight, . I have a Imocan and onsite Phase H25 as well various Cannon DSLr.
But I am finding that I really like the prime lenses and rangefinder capabilities of medium format film cameras. Most of my work personally, and for clients are medium to large prints.
My big kick against the DSLrs is the zoom lenses that everyone seems to champion as state of the art. I have been looking at images from various input devices for a long time and have never been happy with the results from a zoom lens at high magnification.
I work with a few clients that scan at National Geographic Repro Dept, on a tango and the results are amazing, I believe Lennys scans will be as good or superior, and for my workflow that would be the route I would take.
I just love the familiarity of film with the added bonus of CS3 tools.

toyotadesigner · Jan 21, 2008

Keith,

Take it into a stadium and shoot it with your 300mm and your colour correcting filter for the stadium lights and go ahead and shoot at f/1.0 so that you can get your shutter speeds down to 1/100 sec.

I've posted a reply to another thread iserious opened

http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6051

where I mentioned 'if you are not a sports event or Formula 1 photographer'.

I think in this forum we are not talking about the fast lane processes and tiny newspaper or magazine pics, but about fine art or large format prints, so it wouldn't help if I'd say: Sure, digital is better in sports & events.

The fast lane is not my business and never will, and that's one of the reasons why I've joined this forum. There are gazillion other forums on the net if you want to discuss digital capturing.

And yes, my personal opinion is highly subjective, but didn't iserious ask for our personal opinions? He will decide which way to go, but we won't help him if all of us submit similar, streamlined answers: only a controversy will deliver results...

sanking · Jan 21, 2008

jens g.r. benthien said:
The old 'die hard argument'. It's ridiculous, really. If there are no arguments left, people always come up with the grain story or the faster workflow in favor of digital (which is more a tell tale story because people have very short memories and forget to calculate the time to electronically process the RAW data).

I find it rather odd that you chose to pick one sentence from my reply and then insult my opinion. People who know me, and who have read my posts on the subject on other fora, are aware the fact that I am a strong proponent of film (6X7 and 6X7 formats with Mamiya 7 and Fuji GW690, as well as 5X7", 7X17" and 20X24" formats). The only digital camera I own is a Canon G9 point and shoot which is used only in situation the use of MF or LF would not be practical, or sometimes just for fun. If you have personal issues with me please do yourself and others a favor and keep them out of the forum.

The suggestions that I favor digital over film is just simply absurd. I favor MF and larger film for the clear quality advantage it gives over DSLR in the 12mp to 20mp range.

There are certainly issues of grain and workflow that favor digital. If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore them that is your business.

Sandy King

toyotadesigner · Jan 21, 2008

Sorry Sandy, I just don't like statements like the one I cited. Don't take it personally. In addition I'd like to know why 'grain' is discussed in a hybrid forum, where all of us - without exception - do have more or less grain, depending on the emulsion and process, because film is a medium with chemicals and thus produces chaotic or stochastic patterns of tiny color pigments or 'lumps' (correct expression here?)

I wouldn't order a t-bone steak in a vegetarian restaurant - that's lack of style and character...

I respect anybodies decision to go digital, but if someone is going to ask I'll always submit my personal and professional point of view and opinion.

If someone would ask me: digital or analog? I'd say 'analog' and list the advantages, the feeling, **my opinion** from my 30+ years experience. At the same time some 10.000 others will say: digital - and start bashing and come up with the die hard argument 'grain'. That's today's society. Sad but true.

Warning: Personal opinion <on>: --------------------//--

digital is very short sighted, giving no value to the equipment or crafts. It's a toy for the cheap masses, a hype, whatever you want, but it seldom has something in common with photography.

Photography means to me: the image evolves in your head, and you use your toolbox to capture it with all details you have imagined. Digital data collection is pressing the shutter a hundred times, transfering the pixels into PhotoSoup and then starting to play and turn the wheels to see what kind of image you can make from the color clusters your toy has written to the chip.

Let's face it: digital without a computer would be hot air, whereas a slide is a slide is a slide and has all your ideas and details in it. (or a negative or b&w respectively)

Personal opion <off> --------------------//--

Ray Heath · Jan 21, 2008

jens g.r. benthien said:
Sorry Sandy, I just don't like statements like the one I cited. Don't take it personally. In addition I'd like to know why 'grain' is discussed in a hybrid forum, where all of us - without exception - do have more or less grain, depending on the emulsion and process, because film is a medium with chemicals and thus produces chaotic or stochastic patterns of tiny color pigments or 'lumps' (correct expression here?)

I wouldn't order a t-bone steak in a vegetarian restaurant - that's lack of style and character...

I respect anybodies decision to go digital, but if someone is going to ask I'll always submit my personal and professional point of view and opinion.

If someone would ask me: digital or analog? I'd say 'analog' and list the advantages, the feeling, **my opinion** from my 30+ years experience. At the same time some 10.000 others will say: digital - and start bashing and come up with the die hard argument 'grain'. That's today's society. Sad but true.

Warning: Personal opinion <on>: --------------------//--

digital is very short sighted, giving no value to the equipment or crafts. It's a toy for the cheap masses, a hype, whatever you want, but it seldom has something in common with photography.

Photography means to me: the image evolves in your head, and you use your toolbox to capture it with all details you have imagined. Digital data collection is pressing the shutter a hundred times, transfering the pixels into PhotoSoup and then starting to play and turn the wheels to see what kind of image you can make from the color clusters your toy has written to the chip.

Let's face it: digital without a computer would be hot air, whereas a slide is a slide is a slide and has all your ideas and details in it. (or a negative or b&w respectively)

Personal opion <off> --------------------//--

what?

so film users user don't over shoot? film users always have a preconceived idea and express it unambigiously? a digital capture is not a photograph? the camera and techniques you use are the 'best'? there is no better way than the film way?

what??

toyotadesigner · Jan 22, 2008

so film users user don't over shoot?

Only on rare occasions I want a second or third image.

film users always have a preconceived idea and express it unambigiously?

I do so, yes.

a digital capture is not a photograph?

No, not for me, not im my opinion and not for my customers.

the camera and techniques you use are the 'best'?

Yes, for my customers and me they definitely are.

there is no better way than the film way?

Not for me. No.

And before you'll ask: I'm making very good money with it. Whereas my ex business partner went digital and is bankrupt now.

sanking · Jan 22, 2008

jens g.r. benthien said:
Sorry Sandy, I just don't like statements like the one I cited. Don't take it personally. In addition I'd like to know why 'grain' is discussed in a hybrid forum, where all of us - without exception - do have more or less grain, depending on the emulsion and process, because film is a medium with chemicals and thus produces chaotic or stochastic patterns of tiny color pigments or 'lumps' (correct expression here?)

Regardless of what you like it remains a fact that grain is a bigger problem for film scans than for digital capture. There are about 20,000 threads on the subject around the web, and a bunch of programs that have been created in an attempt to resolve the problem. To some extent this problem can be minimized by choice of film, choice of developer, scanning techniques and/or post scan processing. However, based on the work I have seen by very skilled photographers DSLR in the 12mp - 16 mp has a very distinct advantage over most 35mm film in terms of grain.

As for why we talk about grain on the hybrid forum, why not? This forum was set up to do just. If you don't like to discuss digital topics you might have a look at APUG. Except on APUG you won't be allowed to talk about scanning.

Sandy King

toyotadesigner · Jan 22, 2008

Regardless of what you like it remains a fact that grain is a bigger problem for film scans than for digital capture. There are about 20,000 threads on the subject around the web

google comes up with around 1.860.000 entries

and a bunch of programs that have been created in an attempt to resolve the problem.

...to turn a photograph into a plastic look image, correct.

based on the work I have seen by very skilled photographers DSLR in the 12mp - 16 mp has a very distinct advantage over most 35mm film in terms of grain.

Correct, if you shoot lots of blue sky. Other than that - no. In addition the topic starter mentioned MF, not 35mm.

As for why we talk about grain on the hybrid forum, why not?

Because it's boring due to the fact that always the same dull arguments as in the other 1.860.000 articles are warmed up over and over. No news on this front.

If you don't like to discuss digital topics you might have a look at APUG.

I'm a registered APUG user (my alias over there is 'toyotadesigner'), and I enjoy it as much as I enjoy it over here or at the rangefinderforum ('toyotadesigner' as well), where my very own opinion tends to stirr up the digital parties and communities...

I use film for several reasons. And because film consists of chemical particles, I just don't want to discuss grain, because it belongs to the medium. In short words: I accept and value the medium film with all it's advantages, benefits and flaws. If you don't want grain, use your digital for the ultimate plastic look or start illustrating with a vector graphic software. If you use a grain remover - be it the grain reducer from Kodak or Neat or Noiseware or whatever - you should go digital. A t-bone steak comes with a t-bone, without a t-bone it carries a different name. If you drive a car you have the choice between an engine which uses fuel and pollutes the air or an electric motor. But an electric motor is not an engine. It's simple as that.

I am a photographer who learned this craft decades ago. If shooting an architectural project, I walk around a building and remove trash cans, have cars pulled away, turn on the lights here and there, have walls/murals painted over, use a tripod, level the camera...etc.

Many digital 'enthusiasts' or data collectors (I avoid the word 'photographer' here) rely on PhotoSoup and say: what the heck, I will retouch the image and remove the trash can etc with my electronic CS3 toys later and straighten up the image with PhotoSoup.

The point is: I am a photographer, I don't complain about the character of the medium film. On the other hand the data collectors shouldn't complain about the plastic look and purchase a plug-in to artificially produce grain.

See what I mean?

lenny · Jan 22, 2008

I don't mean to be rude at all, and with all due respect to iserious, who seems to be just trying to get clear about something, I think this type of post should be banned.

There are clear advantages in using film over digital. BTW, I get 96 megapixels of good data, or meaningful megapixels, off of a 35mm. There are also clear advantages of digital over film. I am interested in fine printing and there film has a clear edge - at least for now. Digital will get better, maybe go Foveon, and film is getting worse by the day. There will be a point when the two factors meet. When, who knows...

Regardless, back to the point - this kind of post can only incite a flame war. It's like going on the Scan High End list and asking whether an Imacon is as good as a drum scanner. The answer is no, of course, unless your criteria is only scanning speed. People get into the "but it says its a virtual drum," which is just marketing, and the others will say its just a CCD, it aint a drum, period, and that's that, and btw, they overstated all their claims. Back and forth, add nauseum. It incites a discussion that always leads to one set of people feeling like they want to throttle the other set. The only answer is to send people to the archives and let them read for themselves, rather than having to go thru it all over again and again.

There are lots of decisions to make in this insane business. Unfortunately, many of them you have to make for yourself. You can rent equipment and check things out, or go visit someone who has a piece that you think you might want to choose. Many people on this group have a lot of years studying one form of technology or another, and spent a fortune in that technology. A lot of photographers, and certainly labs, are going out of business. I spoke to a guy this morning who is a top-notch architectural interiors guy - and he finds his clients really don't care about the quality he has so carefully developed over many years of work. He has lost a lot as a result of digital, as have many others. There is a lot of emotional charge on this. Asking a group with diverse opinions which is better, film or digital, is just going to incite a riot.

My 2 cnts.

Lenny
EigerStudios

keithwms · Jan 22, 2008

You know, I think all of us have seen these silly discussions from both sides. I feel like I know both arguments backwards, forwards, and sideways because I shoot digital and LF film, but yet every attempt I make to offer a reasonable statement on the matter leads somebody's ego to get all out of whack.

For everyone's amusement have a look at this thread, where I play the role of the film-loving, drum scanning idiot going up against the megabrilliant 5D shooters with fancy lenses. Some of you are about to become more sympathetic to my cause :

http://www.naturephotographers.net/...&b=vf3&st=520&la=751&ph=530&sid=28828&u=29303

<sigh> ya just cant win, never ever! Not when big egos are in play.

I would leave this discussion the exact same way I left the other one. There is a very apt Russian phrase that comes to mind, everybody should learn it: Kazhdi drochit kak on khochet. Translated into polite English, it means, everybody pleases himself in his own way.

And so it goes. There's really nothing more to say.

sanking · Jan 22, 2008

keithwms said:
<sigh> ya just cant win, never ever! Not when big egos are in play.

Yes, when the dogmatists and ideologues start to circle over the carrion reasonable discussion goes out the window.

The problem is there are very few absolutes and the dogmatists and ideologues insist on only allowing their own point of view, "the my way or the highway" mentality."

Sandy

donbga · Jan 22, 2008

lenny said:
Asking a group with diverse opinions which is better, film or digital, is just going to incite a riot.

I agree whole heartedly with Lenny's closing statement. I would like to see these discussions avoided completely as they are senseless and don't accomplish anything. There are a lot of us who walk on both sides of the street shooting both digital and film, printing in the darkroom and the lightroom and a combination of both - HYBRID!

I would like to see any future discussions of film vs. digital banned regardless of the motives of the OP asking the question.

Newbies wanting information about digital editing, printing, digital negatives, etc. should take the time to do some research on their own before asking their questions. They can search the archives here or Google the internet, in short exercise a little elbow grease before asking to be spoon feed. Once they've done that then ask questions.

In their defense though I can see a need for wanting to ask questions in a friendly non hostile environment, and that's a good thing. No one knows all of the answers, that's why we gather here.

So please no more digital vs analog. I can point to successes and failures in both camps.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

sanking · Jan 22, 2008

There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing the pros and cons of film capture versus digital capture so long as the discussion is based on knowledge and logic and not just personal preference and zealotory.

Film and digital both work, but there are clearly times when one works better than the other. At the very least discussions here can direct interested parties to studies that have made specific comparisons.

Sandy King

Daniel Balfour · Jan 25, 2008

lenny said:
I don't mean to be rude at all, and with all due respect to iserious, who seems to be just trying to get clear about something, I think this type of post should be banned.

There are clear advantages in using film over digital. BTW, I get 96 megapixels of good data, or meaningful megapixels, off of a 35mm.

Lenny,

No offense taken - But i disagree. Why not discuss pros/cons of one capture medium vs. the other?

I certainly had no intention of starting any "flaming wars" (I only understood the term in context!)

As for my $0.02 -

I have a acquaintance who's been shooting film for probably over 30 years. A few years back he bought a Canon D60 Body. I felt betrayed! I couldn't believe someone of his stature (not to mention age!) would be "learning new tricks!".

To this - He laughed! And to this day I remember what he said:
"You can toil for nights on end over a single print in the darkroom and people will still not give it a second glance if it fails to make the required impression in 5 seconds flat."

Nothing could be more true. Film or digital capture - IMHO is nothing more then a means-to-an-end. I don't care "how" i get the image, the final result - the print, is what counts (for me at least). I spent ten years in a darkroom NOT being able to do what I've learned in TWO WEEKS with a lousy $300 computer program!

The purpose of my thread was pure and simple - to ascertain the advantages of one capture method vs. another, and thus to determine somekind of direction for myself.

As for Sandy King - IMO if he's not an authority on photography then quite frankly, I can't begin to guess who is! I've read materials written by Sandy for years now, and based on his information (and from my own very basic math) I can't imagine how you can obtain FIVE TIMES the resolution from a 35mm negative then even the most exaggerated claims.

As for digital being "flat" ? That's hog wash. However, if we must debate the esthetics of one print-medium to another, there's always the Hybrid Process. Best of both worlds! Capture however you want, edit in the best "darkroom" ever to exist, and output to digital negative

Problem solved

Bring on the flames!

-------------------------------------------------

Daniel

keithwms · Jan 25, 2008

iserious said:
I can't imagine how you can obtain FIVE TIMES the resolution from a 35mm negative then even the most exaggerated claims.

Daniel, let me correct you slightly! From the thread above, you have already seen how I feel about this whole issue, but this statement that you just made is not quite right and it is actually close to the source of why people get so bent out of shape in these discussions.

If someone says that they get, what, 100mp out of a 35mm frame, and another annoying person says that they only get 20 meaningful mp out of it, then actually that is not a fivefold difference in resolution, not even close.

The reason is that the lateral resolution goes as the square root of the mp count. It is simple to understand, but if you don't belive me, you can also prove it by going to dpreview, look up the camera of your choice, look at their tabulated and tested resolutions, and voila, you will see that a ~20mp camera does not have quadruple the resolution of a 5 mp camera. I drew up a chart to explain this simple scaling argument at a seminar that I gave some time back:

See the square root dependence? That is the source of so much unnecessary dispute on the net.

Aside: the dslr industry makes a lot of money off people's misunderstanding of what a meapixel is really worth, in terms of resolution But bit depth and dynamic range is the thing... or better yet, signal to noise ratio.

Back to the example at hand! A 20mp is, say, 4000x5000 pix. To double the resolution, you have to double it in both directions. That requires 8000x10000 pixels, or 80 mp. BIG difference in filesize, no? (And a much more expensive sensor if it existed!) But only a twofold increase in resolution. Not fourfold. So... bottom line is that comparing 20mp to 80mp, that is "only" a factor of two increase in resolution. Now I hope that you see why I am so blase about arguing that you get 20 or 40 or whatever mp from a frame.

I hope that now it is a bit more clear why reasonable people don't engage in pitched battle over debates about whether you get this or that mp count from a given frame.

Daniel Balfour · Jan 25, 2008

keithwms said:
I hope that now it is a bit more clear why reasonable people don't engage in pitched battle over debates about whether you get this or that mp count from a given frame.

Hahhaha Keith...

Your posts never fail to impress me

Though I only understood a small fraction of what you explained (the part about the square-root uh... I was with wats-her-face during third-period in high-school math) I certainly take you at your word -

Let me just get to the bottom line. I have a Nikon F-100 with an 85mm/1.8 lens. I want to know that I'm not simply making myself crazy "putzing-around" (that's jewish for "wasting time") with 35mm film instead of simply picking up a nice, nifty little Canon body (similar configuration).

My concerns are very simple - *print quality*. No more, no less.

We had a similar exchange in another thread a few days ago where it was clearly explained (I believe you had a hand in this!) that capture/scan resolution was directly related to enlargement/magnification (print) quality. I remember sitting there for about an hour with my tiny calculator doing all the conversions (mm -> cm-> inches -> ppi & vice-versa) and I clearly came out with a 24x36mm frame being 'equivalent' in most respects to a 10-15mp digital body. Hence my current frustration. I find myself sitting here starring at the Nikon F100 dumbfound for what to do?!

By my calculations (scanned res / 360ppi = print size) nothing comes close to Medium Format (and mind you, I'm taking into account Sandy's 25% discount on the LS9000's 'effective' optical resolution of roughly 3200ppi). But by those same calculations, it's a draw for 35mm.

In dumb terms - (mostly for myself!) A shirt that costs $10 costs 10. It costs $10 on Sunday, or Tuesday or whatever.

Either a frame of 35mm scanned at 'effective/optical' 3200ppi contains more useable resolution/data then an equivalent sized digital capture, or it doesn't. What am I missing here?

Scanning Film vs. Digital Capture - A practical Comparison

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency