scanned film vs digital

<p>Pass the quantitative resolution advantage of film,<br>

Since I'm lucky enough to own an Epson 7880, an Epson 3800, an RZ 67II, a Coolscan 9000, and my own development room. <br>

I can share my results:<br>

- a print of Velvia or TMX 67 at 24x30 (this is over 360 dpi native printer resolution) is spectacular with no visible grain (at least on Ultrasmooth and VFA) - even after sharpening.<br>

- a print of Velvia or TMX 35mm up to 12x18 is spectacular with no visible grain (at least on Ultrasmooth and VFA) - even after sharpening. 16x20's are also excellent.<br>

- a print from my 40D 10MP DSLR at 11x14 is the largest "I consider acceptable" to display or sell a landscape.</p>

<p>This comment is to share the actual results on print (beyond the specific published test).</p>

<p>Mauro -- thesis proposal done & everything went well, minus my getting sick from unnecessarily stressing myself out :)</p>

<p>So did you do any of those DR tests on slide film also? That would really test the Dmax performance of these film scanners.</p>

<p>I'll let you know when my scanners are 'ready' for your DR film tests so I don't unnecessarily hold on to them for longer than needs be. Currently my light source is detached from my Minolta, so, wouldn't do much good right now :)</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Rishi</p>

<p>Congratulations! I guess I need to mail you the DR film strips now. I'll try this weekend if I can remember.</p>

<p>Sadly I didn't run the DR test with Positives.</p>

<p>Dan Lovell wrote:<br /> "PS Are you really quoting Ken Rockwell?!? Don't do that, as it lowers your credability... ;-)"<br /> <br /> Why not? His catalogue of Nikon cameras and lens equipment is good, at least one page of his site contains truth and nothing but the truth.<br /> Here it is: http://www.kenrockwell.com/colophon.htm<br /> He writes there "All of the gallery images were shot on film (not digital) in sizes ranging from 35mm to 4x5", mostly Fuji Velvia transparency (slide) film. The photos in the California, La Jolla, San Diego and Guatemala galleries are from 4x5" Velvia, the France, Zion, New Mexico and Death Valley galleries were shot on 6x7cm Velvia, and the Mexico gallery on 6x6cm Velvia. ... Nothing here is from digital cameras or from print film."<br /> He also has some kind of self-limitation in the exiting by modern technology and he tries to be not-so-technical. If you take into account that he wrote hundred of lens review on his site, it will be fun to read this: "You people were consuming 3 gigs a month just downloading all the photos of my lenses, you perverts. "<br>

Get it? Make photos of alive people - most complex creations in the world, not of your lens or your "sophisticated" equipment. THAT is "photo art".</p>

<p>Rishi Sanyal wrote: "Yeah, I must say I don't understand any of Sergiy's arguments as they appear to all be emotional ones rather than objective ones."<br /> So, You want me to ... measure ? Why ? (Again?!) If the difference between digital and film was non-visible or hardly-visible, then I think I should "measure it". But the difference is visible, so the job to measure it and to narrowing it - it is a job for digital camera developers.<br /> I am talking about non-measurable issues of photo art. Do you want me to measure? Yes, I can, but I dont want to. (I have three patents on electronics, two of them about high-end ADC and DAC. That is analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters).<br /> Paraphrasing famous german mathematician Karl Gauss I would say that "Art of measure is in ability NOT TO USE it whenever possible". <br /> What do you want to see here about "measure of photo art"? Maybe, dynamic range calculations of DSLR camera vs. film? The NET is full of it! Here another one with detailed explanation:<br /> <br /> --The Devil is in the dynamic range--<br /> "What are some benchmarks?<br /> The following are estimated (or published) dynamic ranges for a number of materials. Remember, whether you realize the full range is highly dependent on how well controlled your exposure (and where appropriate, developing) is. Negative films are computed according to contrast index and slide film according to gamma (see above for explanation why).</p>

<table border="0" width="600">

<tbody>

<tr valign="bottom">

<td width="269"><strong>Item</strong></td>

<td width="76"><strong>Numeric</strong></td>

<td width="241"><strong>Stops of range in subject</strong></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Polaroid Sprintscan 120 scanner</td>

<td>3.9d</td>

<td>Depends on the film being scanned.</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Tmax 400 film (0.58 CI)</td>

<td>3.4d</td>

<td>19.5 stops</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Tmax 100 film (0.58 CI)</td>

<td>3.0d</td>

<td>17 stops</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Tri-X 35mm film (0.58 CI)</td>

<td>2.4d</td>

<td>13.5 stops</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Kodak DCS Pro 14n digital</td>

<td>69dB</td>

<td>11.5 stops</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Fuji Finepix S3 digital camera</td>

<td>--</td>

<td>10 stops (estimated)</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Tri-X 35mm film (0.75 CI)</td>

<td>2.4d</td>

<td>10.5 stops</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Nikon D2x digital camera</td>

<td>--</td>

<td>9.5 stops (measured)</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Typical LCD display</td>

<td>500:1</td>

<td>9 stops</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Kodachrome 25, 64, 200 (1.4 gamma)</td>

<td>3.7d</td>

<td>8 stops</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Ektachrome 100 (1.4 gamma)</td>

<td>3.4d</td>

<td>7.5 stops</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Human eye (no iris change)</td>

<td>150:1</td>

<td>7 stops</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>http://www.dantestella.com/technical/dynamic.html</p>

<p>No, Sergiy, I don't expect anything. I tend to like to do the tests myself to see what the usable resolution/ranges are *in my hands* with my technique & my equipment.</p>

<p>Holy crap, 19.5 stops for Tmax? I need to go try and shoot a sunset with that! I had no idea.<br>

-Rishi</p>

<p>Yes, 19.5 stops. That is the *real limit*. That is limit not only to film, but also in electronics - no device can sample signal with resolution more than 19.5 bits. (Forget about "24 bits resolution" audio ADC or DAC. That is a myph too.)</p>

<p>I have seen the table on the dante Stella website before but don't understand why it divides the Drange by contrast index to get the subject brightness range. My understanding of contrast index is that it is a measure of the degree of development that determines how well the density range of a normally exposed negative will print on a grade 2 (i.e.,normal-contrast) paper. So how does dividing Drange by contrast index give the subject brightness range? Can someone explain?</p>

<p>Explanation is on that page - because of such thing as SLOPE (that is "gamma" or "gamma correction" ):<br /> "But because conventional materials do not have a proportional response to light, you then need to divide by the contrast index or gamma. These measure the slope of the response curve of material as developed. This last calculation determines how many stops of subject exposure will get the film up to its D_max ....<br /> So if you are dealing with negative film, divide those 10 stops by 0.58 (a typical contrast index), to reach a result of 17 stops. If you are dealing with slide film, divide by 1.4 (a typical gamma) to get 7 stops."<br /> Explanation of GAMMA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction</p>

<p>Being a B&W man for 30 years I cannot give any advice for color scanning or color comparison.<br>

6 month ago, I started scanning my 35 mm B&W negatives with a coolscan 5000 and printing them with an epson 3800 Ilford and Harman baryta paper , I found it very easy to use and like the result (a lot more than my digital stuff Canon 5d).<br>

<img src="http://sd-1.archive-host.com/membres/images/122873898540633704/C-IMGH15302909-03-2009MENNECY.jpg" alt="" /><br>

http://imagepro.photography.com/Remyphotographe</p>

<p><a href="../photo/10604293"></a> 6x6 scanned with Nikon Coolscan 8000 - 100%crop<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10604293</p>

 

<p>Way too much technical here. It's about photography, capturing the moment, composing something meaningful. I shoot both film and digital and got good and bad from both. pixel peeping web comparisons bear no reality to prints. I've seen astounding large prints from a freind who is an artist shot with a point and shoot digital and printed at 30 x40, she used the softness to her advantage (and she is clueless when it comes to the technical end) I've also seen 30x40 printed from 4x5 that i though was a waste of paper - razor sharp good technically but just uninspiring may as well have printed a resolution chart...... Really i shoot film because i like the tonal qualities particularly in b/w. I will get cheap 4 bit scans done at processing on colour because i can post them to the web for distant friends to see but with my b/w and medium format stuff i rarely scan (it's a giant PITA and I can't afford an imacon or Nikon 9000 so results would just be web shots anyway. I do however make contact prints of everything and then edit and make some 4x6 proofs. If I like it or am going to use it for a show then i will print larger ( and frequently though I can do it myself I will take it to a Local B/W lab that hand prints fine art... they are much better printers than me. Film is more expensive to use but the hardware is cheap as chip now days and cared for will likely outlive me (I'm 50)<br>

My Digital on the other hand is great for fast turnaround, and i use it to back up Film so frequently i shoot the same thing 2 ways though I much prefer film for B/w and Infrared..... really if i get an image i like I'm not concerned with how i got it just that i managed to capture the moment i was seeing in my mind<br>

Really this constant wanking over technical specs and gear (on this forum and others I belong to) disheartens me. Get out and Shoot some pictures with whatever gear you want and enjoy life and return to what drew you to photography in the first place<br>

One thing I will give film (whatever format) If you are shooting Manual Focus and handheld metering it will make you slow down and think about the shot, you'll spend more time composing and shoot less with more keepers this doesn't work for sports or action like concerts but for most everything else it will make you a better photographer<br>

thats my 2 cents from a forum newbie sorry for the rant but after scrolling this thread because the topic interested me I just wanted to scream just take some pictures for Christ's sake :_)</p>