Jump to content

Recommended Posts

<p>Reading a link to some tests on film resolution it appears that film can actually capture at least as much data as the best FX digital cameras and potentially much more but we can't realize this unless we go back to optical enlargements in a wet darkroom. Since scanner technology development essentially stopped ten years ago we film shooters are stuck with an inferior digital conversion process.<br /><br />I had a thought, probably borne out of ignorance, but here it goes: Scanners are inherently complicated machines with all sorts of bits and pieces requiring precision tolerances-lenses, mirrors, focusing mechanisms, etc. We now have the availability of full frame sensors. Why not go back to the concept of contact printing and do away with all the lenses and focusing issues? In other words, slap the film frame right against the sensor and shoot some collimated light through it and be done with it. Would this work? If not, why not? It seems some clever fellow could test the concept with a full frame DSLR if he could figure out a way to sandwich the film frame up against the sensor.<br /><br />Okay, all those filling their buckets with cold water can now let go.<br /><br />Al</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The fact is, there are 'perfect' scanners already. They would be drum scanners and compete with the best optical images.</p>

<p>But.... I use a cheaper varity, an Epson v700 with a fluid mount tray. Fluid mounts are about as close as your going to get without going to a dum (which are also fluid mounted).</p>

<p>Al, lenses are used to focus the image onto a sensor. It's not a defect to have one, more like an enhancement. Without one, any scan would be a waste of time. The unmentioned aspect is scanning is a huge skill. Much more complected than the hardware and takes time to learn.</p>

<p>ICE is a marketing hack that (in my opinion) just covers for poor work flow....keeping things clean. Good for only the 'quick-and-dirty' scans. If I need to spot, it's minimal. Another nice side effect for fluid mounts.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first sentence fails to take into account what type of film: black and white or color, and if color, whether negative or

transparency and if transparency, which type -Kodachrome K-14 (or older) , or E-6 compatible (or older) ; also what

sensitivity or ISO range; or how it was processed; or what size the format was.

 

In other words with no parameters given, saying "film can actually capture at least as much data as the best FX digital

cameras" is totally meaningless.

 

Also during the printing process a lot of the potential range of "film" was absolutely lost even by the most meticulous of

darkroom craftsmen working at the limits of tools and technique. Underneath which the very nature of the various printing

process materials put a very real cap on the dynamic range and color palette that could be reproduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Al<br>

For the films mentioned in your link, those can be covered by the best flatbed scanners already at 6000 dpi. For films that have a higher lp/mm then just realize that unless you are doing extreme cropping the prints would need to be humongous to to take advantage of that level of resolution.<br>

Yes, present day sensors e.g. Nikon D810 are pretty high resolution yet are still 5207 dpi for the type of application to which you refer.<br>

<br />So yes it would be technically feasible to do what you are talking about yet what would be the advantage over today's scanners or just using a macro lens with a film adapter and take it right with the camera. In addition, today's scanners can cover negatives larger than 35mm at the 6000 dpi resolution as well as scanning prints.<br>

Though an interesting academic question, it does not seem like there is any significant buyer market for the product above what is already available. And in the case of the macro lens and slide/negative adapter, you get to keep the macro lens for other uses.<br>

<br />Just my two cents.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>it appears that film can actually capture at least as much data as the best FX digital cameras and potentially much more</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As said, it depends on film and format; but for 35mm film, you're living in the past. Your source(s) is full of beans and his 'results' and 'methods' are literally incredible.</p>

<p>Even with midrange scanners, you can resolve the 'grain' even on Kodachrome or Ektar and they sure beat Provia 400, IMHO.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, for one thing, I would not <em><strong>project</strong></em> images to judge resolution. The source cited uses invalid methodology, just to start with, never mind the conclusions.<br>

As for my "credible results," you can see some very informal testing with scans of Kodachrome at<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b9l6<br>

where even fairly lo-res (ca. 4000 ppi) scans reveal film structure that you would not find in a 20+MP digital image. The problem is not the scanner, but the film itself. You can't get orange juice out of a turnip.</p>

<div>00d0yn-553309984.jpg.78be9d8c5a5c30ae7c5d5e6e25a03a2c.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Additional note:<br /> The dust and other specks on the slide <em>are</em> crisp and 'grainless' in the 4000 ppi scans. If you examine the slides under a high power magnification, the image is as in the scans.<br>

The above image was taken with a Nikkormat EL, probably with my PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8, perhaps with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 most likely at f/8 or 11 at 1/125.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here is a 100% of a scan of Ektar 100 at 4000 ppi - Contax IIa with Helios 53mm f/2 lens.<br /> This wouldn't be any sharper no matter how many ppi it was scanned at.</p>

<p>Now let me see your high-res film scans that show vastly improved sharpness above 4000 ppi. (no PS, NIK, or other sharpening allowed - my scans have sharpening turned off)</p><div>00d0zA-553310484.jpg.7cc4eefff61a46f0e83dca1a9ebd7778.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just to be clear, I myself have no developed opinion on whether film is superior or inferior to current digital technology. I know better than to get in that fight ;)</p>

<p>I do firmly believe however, that film scanner technology could be improved and that it's a shame that development of it has essentially ceased.</p>

<p>Al</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What is best, should only reflect the situation and the photographers preferences. I choose film because I want to, and I have a crap load of it. I don't expect anyone to shoot film, just because I do. The same otherwise should be said for the digital folk.</p>

<p>Les, I scan mostly BW. ICE does not do the deed. In doing so, I had to learn to 'spot' myself. And most of all avoid to by keeping everything as clean as possible. When dealing with colour, I found my talents better than any of the software (lasersoft,epson scan, vuescan) available to me.</p>

<p>Les if you are who I think you are, there was an evil woman in my life that is not there anymore. Fill in the blanks.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Concept seems OK, but the main issue is that there might be diffraction effects such as Newton's rings, or, if not right up against the pixel elements, lack of critical focus. That is why a lens is such a good idea: you can focus it critically. In addition, there will indeed be dust and dirt issues. Why not just us a high res DSLR and repro lens to copy the neg/slide? You minimize all these issues.</p>
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>it appears that film can actually capture at least as much data as the best FX digital cameras and potentially much more but we can't realize this unless we go back to optical enlargements in a wet darkroom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First of all, this statement is patently false. Digital printing is excellent, usually far exceeds what is possible in a darkroom print. At least in terms of range.</p>

<p>Second, the issue isn't resolution. At least not with a good scanner, and good scanning technique. Certainly not a drum scanner. The issue is range of tonality, or bit depth. It gets quite complicated, but it has to do with the smoothness of the print moving thru from one tone to the next. It is quite visible in b&w, which has always been more sensitive than color.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Second, the issue isn't resolution. At least not with a good scanner, and good scanning technique. Certainly not a drum scanner. The issue is range of tonality, or bit depth. It gets quite complicated, but it has to do with the smoothness of the print moving thru from one tone to the next. It is quite visible in b&w, which has always been more sensitive than color.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry, but bit depth doesn't play into it at all. When I project my slides I'm getting all the color my(very good) eyes can see. We are not talking about prints here or the scanned digital file; we are talking about the potential of film to hold information.</p>

<p>Al</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I’m surprised we’re still debating this. Here’s a little film vs. digital test I did way, way back in 1999 for PEI magazine. Keep in mind this is a drum scan versus a digital camera (actually three different ones) of that era. http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg. Here’s a PDF of the article: http://digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf<br /> <img src="http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Oops, was writing too fast. I'm actually in agreement with most of you. What I was saying was false, and I apologize for my lack of clarity, was that one had to go to the darkroom to realize the wonder of film. I think film is more wonderful than digital. </p>

<p>As to the "tonality" issue, it is my experience that black and white film is more sensitive than digital capture. There appear to be more steps between zone 5 and zone 6, for example. I have looked all over but don't see any real comparisons of this. I tend to print like a platinum printer, I want all the delicacy, the atmosphere, etc. </p>

<p>Andrew, I am underwhelmed by your scan in your image set. It doesn't seem very sharp to me. My scanner is much sharper than that... There must have been something out of whack...</p>

<p>Hope that clears some things up...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>There must have been something out of whack...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don’t think so but I honestly don’t recall what I did way back in 1999 in terms of the settings of which you’re seeing a low rez JPEG or PDF from a mag. There’s far more to the image quality of the very old digital capture than just it being ‘<em>sharper</em>’ and man, would the grain you see be even more visible (and yes, I’m pretty sure it was oil mounted but don’t put a gun to my head, it was nearly 16 years ago). </p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...