Wow - read this re: Film versus Digital debate!

A general comment on this thread: the thrust of this thread has been in the opposite direction of what it should

be. You should observe and form theories to explain your observations. We seem to be arguing theories without

paying enough attention to observation.

 

Keep the context of Michael Reichmann's article in mind. When digital was on the horizon, there were plenty of

estimates regarding the resolution digital would need to reach to match film in print. They were typically based

on average grain sizes or even on individual silver atoms and dye molecules. They ranged very high, double if not

triple digital megapixels.

 

But then digital became affordable and people observed something surprising: digital cameras could match film

images in print at much lower resolutions than expected. 6 MP capture held up very well against 35mm at 8x10,

11x14, and even against some films to 16x20. 12 MP full frame capture held its own at any size against 35mm.

We're now at the point where 20+ MP full frame sensors comfortably out perform any film of the same size, and

reach towards medium format.

 

How could this be when a formula based on grain size or molecules predicts you need hundreds of megapixels to

come close?

 

Reichmann reached back to his experience and/or works like The Negative and published a theory explaining why.

Observation, then theory. Unfortunately he had a bit of an axe to grind, and used terminology which offended

people who wouldn't have blinked twice at Ansel Adam's essentially identical description of tonality and detail

resolution in film.

 

You can't argue against observation. You can't insist a theory which says Acros should have resolution down to

the sub-micron size of an average grain is true when in real life at normal contrast it's 60 lpmm, or roughly 8

microns for the thinest line. You can't insist a theory which says film records umpteen megaquadzillion shades of

color is true when 12 and 14-bit digital capture produces images with all the same tones and gradients which are

just as smooth. You can't insist that sensors can "never reach film's resolution" when owners of cameras like the

1Ds don't even bother comparing them to 35mm, but instead compare them to the larger frame sizes of MF.

 

It's not a win or lose situation. Use whatever you want. Explore both, please! I am grateful for my darkroom time

and continue to spend time there because I feel working with B&W film materials calibrates my eye as to how B&W

should look so that even my digital B&W improves as a result. I'm more likely to keep playing with color balance

and saturation than some friends I know who have only shot digital because I grew up on films like Velvia and

learned that there's more than one way to interpret the color in a scene.

 

Just keep the theories in line with real observations ;-)

You guys seem to be assigning opacity or translucency to atoms. Atoms have no such property. If they did, carbon

atoms would be "black" and "opaque" so sugar could never be transparent.

 

You also seem to be saying that you can't see anything other than a black grain in a microscope at 400x and you

show that image to prove it - the source content in the image is binary - which means you can draw no conclusion

whatsoever, but that doesn't seem to bother you.

 

If you see specks of silver under a microscope at 400x, how can you tell that they are specs belonging to the

same grain, or individual "binary" grains? EM evidence points to the former, but you want to continue ignoring

that. This is the single crucial point that is being missed - looking at film under a microscope provides no data

to distinguish between the two cases.

 

You ignore all facts that pertain to the fact that at the macro level very few processes in nature have "states"

- (sudden, threshold based phase change of matter being one of the rare examples) - the vast majority of

processes are linear, or continuous. You coolly switch from the quantum to the macro to suit your arguments.

 

You ignore the nature of "sudden state change" - it requires some really contrived physical processes to achieve.

You do not truly understand the nature of binary, non-linear, switching systems because if you did, you would

even be imagining such a thing.

 

You also ignore all logical absurdities that arise from a true binary system - such as independence from

development time.

 

Are you guys serious?

Since were are on this topic....can anyone tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Vijay.... yes we are. Like I said before, I can't argue as to the veracity of a lot of the minutiae of this debate, but as

I've esssentially said, the minutiae don't really matter in this case (of film vs digital resolution). You and Mark have

your headspace in the wrong frame of reference. You continue to argue your point of view from the

molecular/individual grain level. You need to remember that film and prints are a VISUAL medium. Stuff that goes

on at sub-visual frames of reference, whilst undisputably important, don't really matter when it comes to tones in a

negative or a digital print. This is because tones are a VISUAL perception. You need to bring your frame of

reference up into the 'visual', and this really should become a non-argument. At visual scales of reference, negatives

are made up of clumps of black and clear regions. Even if we granted that the 400x magnification image was only

fully black and fully white, Ansell Adam's has verified this in presumably inumerable negatives. Daniel has stated

that he has seen many negatives none of which display shades of gray at the filament/grain level. Hopefully, he can

get an image of one and show it. Even if he can't, none of you guys have even acknowledged that you have seen

shades of grey in negatives at the clumped grain frame of reference. I'm sorry if you don't like what we are saying,

but the onus is well and truely on you guys to show some proof, or at least give some first hand anecdotal evidence.

<i>Since were are on this topic....can anyone tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?</i><p>

Why certainly, if you would just tell us what their heights are and what the diameter of the pinhead is, we can

perform the necessary computations.

<i>carbon atoms would be "black" and "opaque" so sugar could never be transparent.</i><p>

 

You realise the spaces <b>between</b> atoms is greater than the region <b>within</b> atoms? This should be obvious when you correctly observe that sugar isn't opaque.

Bernie: I can't argue as to the veracity of a lot of the minutiae of this debate, but as I've esssentially said, the minutiae don't really matter in this case.

 

Yes, the "minutiae" do matter. Asserting one of those minutiae leads to absurdities. I've been repeatedly saying that at the visual scale, you may see black specs but there is no information at that scale that tells you that several black specs are not part of just one grain. If they are, then the grain is sort of grayscale by halftone, if they are not, then the grain is binary, i.e., a switching system.

 

Good so far?

 

If the grain were a switching system, you'd get into several absurdities as I have repeatedly pointed out, so by reductio ad absurdum, the grain has to be grayscale.

 

You could argue about the physical and chemical processes till the cows came home, but you can't escape logic; if you want to disprove me, all you have to do is show the error in my logic. You could do this by postulating some theory that allows grain to be binary AND bypasses all absurdities associated with switching systems. If you can't do that, then reductio ad absurdum will continue to apply, keeping the onus of proof on you.

Bernie: You realise the spaces between atoms is greater than the region within atoms? This should be obvious when you correctly observe that sugar isn't opaque.

 

So you do assert that transparency is a property of atoms, then?

<i>if you want to disprove me, all you have to do is show the error in my logic.</i><p>

 

What strange world is this in which you live, where evidence doesn't matter? I love a thought experiment as much as the next guy, but when the evidence is clearly pointing against you, what are you going to do? Think yourself out of it? It's not going to happen. Tones in a negative are composed of clumps of black and clear. Until you show, or even recount, some evidence to the contrary, no amount on reductio ad absurdum will change that fact.<p>

 

But hey, let's play your reductio ad absurdum little game. Infact, Daniel already has. In a post above he takes your argument to the extreme, and what do we find? That film supposedly has <b>molecular</b> resolution. I don't know about you, but that seems pretty absurd to me.

My Nikon ED 5000's 4000 dpi 16bit scans of 35mm color negative film are clearly superior in terms of

dynamic range and resolution than the 14bit RAW images from my Nikon D300.

 

There is STILL alot of hype regarding digital, but to my eyes, film is still much nicer.

 

I think it will be 15 to 30 years, if ever, before dynamic range in digital capture matches that of negative

film.

 

Black and white film, Pyro developers, fiber based selenium toned prints will NEVER be equalled by

digital capture and their (often) corresponding ink jet prints.

Bernie: That film supposedly has molecular resolution. I don't know about you, but that seems pretty absurd to me.

<p>

So by going to smaller grains (decreasing film speed) and going to shorter wavelengths of electromagnetic

radiation, you are saying you can't increase the resolution of film? Remember I said long ago that film is not

able to resolve finer than a grain, but this has nothing to do with the tonality of that grain. So you have to go

to a smaller grain, but that does not make it a switching system.

<p>

Molecular resolution has to be the eventual limit; what's so absurd about that? If you could create a case

wherein exactly one AgBr molecule got converted to Ag, and if you had the equipment to precisely observe this,

you could.

<p>

The limiting resolution for photographic film arises from the wavelengths of visible light, and the need for

reasonable sensitivity.

<p>

Look at <a href="http://www.konicaminolta.com/about/research/core_technology/material/silver.html">this:</a> they

are talking 50 nanometer grains. We in the semiconductor industry routinely etch 32-45 nanometer features using

short wavelengths. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolithography">Photolithography</a>. Yes, the

resolutions are in the thousands of cpmm.

<p>

No absurdity here - molecular resolution is just a theoretical limit that may not be reachable in practice, but

you could approach it asymptotically - keep reducing the grain size, and keep jacking up the frequency of the

impinging radiation and you can get higher and higher resolution. You are not limited by the physics or chemistry

until you get to a scale so small that quantum effects come into play, but we aren't talking about that are we.

None of this matters, Vijay. I am sorry I got dragged down into your nanoscopic frame of reference. What matters is, once again, tones in a negative are visualised through clumpings of black and clear on a negative. It doesn't matter what the black is, or how it got there. It could be a black marker pen for all it matters.

 

Until you present some counter argument to the direct objective evidence as presented by Adams and Daniel and Kodak, then you really are arguing from an untenable position.

Bernie, I thought Kodak, Ron Mowrey, Mark and I were in agreement and you, Rishi and Daniel took the opposing view. How come I am now disagreeing with my own point of view?

<i> I am sorry I got dragged down into your nanoscopic frame of reference</i><p>

 

And despite just saying this, I am going to go down the path one more time. The question is what wavelengths are you using? The link you posted is using UV. That is down at 100-300 odd nm. Light is shortest at the blue end which is about 450nm. So I would suggest your analogy is not really that relevant.

<i>Bernie, I thought Kodak, Ron Mowrey, Mark and I were in agreement and you, Rishi and Daniel took the opposing view. How come I am now disagreeing with my own point of view?</i><p>

 

Because, unless I am mistaken, the pictures Daniel posted are from Kodak.

I've only maintained one position throughout: grain is not binary and you can't resolve below a single grain.

 

You seem to want to say that grain is binary and you can't resolve below a clump of several grains.

 

I have provided several lines of reasoning to show you that it is mathematically and physically impossible for a photographic silver halide grain to be binary, and you want to accept none of those arguments. Ron and Mark provide several other approaches - like chemistry and photomicrographs. You want to accept none of that either.

To be honest, I don't care if grain is binary or not (other than for interest sake, of course). The crux of this argument (as it relates to Michael Reichmanns article about film vs digital resolution) is whether the resolution of film is as great as it was once thought. Reichmann points out that for black and white test charts, it is certainly high resolution. But when you shoot in the real world, and shades of gray are introduced, then it's resolution falls down when compared to digital. He explains this as being because grains are binary. Now I don't know whether he is using the right terminology or not (and like I said, other than for academic interest, I don't care either), but whether it is grains that are binary, or clumps of grains that are binary, the end result is the same. In the visibly relevant realm, b&w negatives ARE binary. You and your camp haven't produced one skerrig of evidence to suggest otherwise (or even attempted to disprove this). And the fact that they are binary at relevant magnifications, means that resolution that is dependant on distinguishing different tones (by that I mean more than just black and white), requires that clumps of this black matter exist. It is for this reason that b&w film resolution falls short of digital. You can't possibly deny this, without providing proof that at photographically visible levels the clumps of grain are not binary (i.e. have shades of grey in there).

 

Now, having said that I don't care whether grains are binary or not, I can't help but find an affinity with Daniel's argument that they are. How else do you explain why at 400x magnification the negative consists of ONLY black and clear areas. If the grains had tone (such that they could contribute to the tonal resolution of the negative), why can't you see them at 400x? Do they magically reappear at some smaller magnification? Reductio ad absurdum anyone?

There are 10 kinds of people - those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

(This is inserted as a marker so if I get up in the morning and there are 66 new posts [as I found this morning] I will know where to start reading again.)

So.....what was the question again?

Bernie: The crux of this argument (as it relates to Michael Reichmanns article about film vs digital resolution)

is whether the resolution of film is as great as it was once thought.

 

Yes, and there is ample experimental and anecdotal evidence of that, such as the K64 picture posted by Hugh

Templin above. Of course, there are higher resolution films K25 for instance, and lower resolution ones, like

some 1600 ASA stuff. But if the question is if the maximum attainable resolution with film is the equivalent of

25-30 MP, then the answer is yes.

 

We are trying to theoretically correlate this practical experience with the physics of film to cross check ourselves.

 

Bernie: To be honest, I don't care if grain is binary or not.

 

It is OK to say that you don't understand binary - and it is also OK to not care about it. But if you assert that

something is binary in nature - such as what Reichmann did - then you better be prepared to have your statement

examined critically. Reichmann makes a claim that is impossible - physically and mathematically.

 

All I am doing is challenging that statement. The rest is all noise.

 

That something is either only black or clear does not make it binary. If grain size varies continuously with

exposure it is not binary. If you must insist that it is binary then you don't know what "binary" means and

neither does Reichmann. This is not a mere question of terminology; it directly affects how you estimate

resolution of film. Since Reichmann makes an error right there, he comes up with some rather low estimate of film

resolution that is easily refuted.

 

You can continue to not care about this, but then you shouldn't be insisting on caring about film resolution

either. Film resolution is also eventually "binary" - either enough for your needs, or not.

<i>This is not a mere question of terminology; it directly affects how you estimate resolution of film. </i><p>

 

Exactly. This issue of binary or not binary is really a side issue. The real issue is how you explain film resolution. Answer me this: If a film grain is say 2 microns in size, and you claim that resolution is achievable to these sizes, but at 150 microns all you can see is black or clear, then how is resolution that involves grey tones present? Do the grains magically reveal their hidden tones at magnifications lower than 400x? You love to argue logically (so do I), but this point is a gaping hole in your argument. Why do these tones disappear at 400x magnification, and then supposedly reappear at lower magnifications? Until you answer this question that you and Mark and everyone else in your camp have avoided, your argument is illogical.

By the way, myself, Daniel and Rishi understand binary fine. You seem to think the definition of binary is somehow dependant on the method by which you arrive at one of two binary states. Here's a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+binary&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7">link</a> to a google search for the definition of binary. I only see references to the final states. In electrical circuitry and computers it is undoubtedly important how the process works, but in relation to b&w film, it doesn't matter. Like I said, I may as well mark the negative with a black pen, for all it matters how the black clumps got there. All that is important in the visual sense is how those black clumps contribute to tonal resolution and the final image. They contribute in a similar fashion to the halftone examples given above. If individual grey tone grains did exist, they certainly don't contribute to tonal resolution, as they are not VISIBLY apparant at 400x and below magnification.

I think there are some issues with Hugh's example that need further exploring. Firstly, I don't really get the argument how this translates to film having resolution of at least 23 MP's. If someone could explain it again, that would be appreciated. In relation to Hugh's claim that the heels are one pixel wide, that isn't the case when I blow the image up in photoshop. They are a number of pixels wide. Regardless of this, you can only read so much into a scan of film as presumably the scanner has some sort of anti-aliasing filter. This effectively results in tones being created that may or may not have even been in the negative. Noise reduction and sharpening will also fiddle with the results as well. But once again, I'm not really following the argument of how this image means film has a resolution of 23 megapixels, so hopefully someone can further explain this.

As it seem everyone else is sleeping, i'll just keep on merrily posting away. I have taken what I think Hugh's example is and applied it to one of my own digital images. On the left is the original image taken with a 13mp dslr. To get the picture on the right I up-scaled the original to 78mp, and took a crop at pixel resolutions. So, following what i think is Hugh's logic, I should now be able to claim that my original 13mp image carries as much resolution as a 78mp dslr because I can discern edges and tones at the pixel level. If this is the wrong interpretation, let me know.<div></div>

Paul: "Since were are on this topic....can anyone tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

 

As many as you want. Because angels are all in your head. Kind of like God. So the real question so to ask is: 'how many Gods can dance on the head of a pin?' This is where you ask me if I'm a Pagan multi-theist low-life scum. And I tell you to get a life.

 

:)