Film vs Digital - Color Rendition

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by mauro_franic, Feb 26, 2011.

  1. A COMPETITION !!!!!!!!!!
    As we all know film and digital are very different when it comes to color.
    First, film (or scanners) do not interpolate color and this translates into higher color resolution which provides a less smoothened (infamously "plasticy") rendition.
    Additionally, and most importantly, different films give photographers a characteristic and predictable look, an array of ammunition with different color responses to individual wavelengths. This cannot be reproduced with digital cameras (as of today) since the response of a single sensor to different wavelengths cannot be changed.
    Consequently, it is impossible to reproduce the look of a particular film (e.g. Velvia) starting with a digital capture unless that particular film is used alongside the digital camera to match the colors later in PS.
     
  2. The competition:
    I have shot different scenes under different light with a digital camera and also with several films alongside.
    At the beginning of the competition, everyone will be presented with only the digital capture.
    Participants will provide their best effort to render the color for each picture as closely as possible to the different films and post their exercise replacing the question marks with their guesses.
    Participants can revise their guess any number of times. Only the last one will be taken into consideration.
    After 1000 posts, 100 participants or 30 days; whichever comes first, the competition will close, I will post the results (in my possession already with the exception of Velvia which was sent to the lab) and the judges will deliberate and announce the winner.
    I will provide the prizes.
    00YIXv-335745584.jpg
     
  3. This is a link of higher resolution:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Portra-400-and-TMAX-400-G/15789423_WvenE#1199752673_TWJoL-O-LB
     
  4. The Prizes:
    1st place:
    - Minolta XD11 in perfect condition.
    - Matching prime 50mm lens.
    - $100 worth of film. The film will be purchased new on-line and drop shipped to the destination chosen by the winner. The winner will also provide the list of films desired not to exceed $100.
    - Eternal recognition as Color Master (at least by me).
    2nd place:
    - $100 worth of film. The film will be purchased new on-line and drop shipped to the destination chosen by the runner up. The runner up will also provide the list of films desired not to exceed $100.
     
  5. Discussion:
    Welcomed to all people - participants or not.
    .
    Judges:
    I need three volunteers.
    Myself and three volunteers (film or digital shooters with a record of participating in Photo.net) will be the judges.
    Please email me at franicma@yahoo.com if you desire to act as a judge.
    .
    Enjoy.
     
  6. Arrrgghhhhh Mauro, not again! :) Please take away the forbidden word from this thread and this FILM forum! Else you be very weary of what the xxx lurkers and xxx crusaders are going to do to you! This is warning no. 1!
     
  7. Seems like a fun game, Mauro, and some very generous prizes. I'm just a bit confused as to what to do and how to do it. I understand the digital images are at the top and the films listed on the side.
    Participants will provide their best effort to render the color for each picture as closely as possible to the different films and post their exercise replacing the question marks with their guesses​
    What do you mean render? Do you mean I should download the three digital images and post process them in Photoshop to what I think those films look like? Then paste them back into a grid? In this thread? Why are two N/A?
     
  8. This weekend I will be out shooting pictures (I seem to remember that is what our hobby is about) with both film and digital. It's called a "Life". Maybe Mauro you should think about why you spend so much time on the unwinnable debate and get back to why, I assume, you got interested in photography in the first place. People seem to be very happy with whichever medium they choose, why the endless round of This vs That?
     
  9. @ Tony Leinster
    I shoot pictures too and I enjoy it. I also enjoy the technical aspects of photography. I've always found Mauro's posts well-designed, impartial and thought provoking. I look forward to some more interesting and thought provoking discussion in this thread.
     
  10. Louis, for each of the three digital pictures, you have to start with the digital pictures and modify them (colors, saturation, etc) to try to provide the look of each film below.
    You have to post a chart like the one above (same size if possible) replacing the question marks with your guesses.
    You can used any tool at your disposal (including specialized software if you would).
     
  11. I shot each individual film so I have the results with me. After the competition is closed and I post the actual film shots, I will also provide close ups to discuss color/tonal gradation relative to each film. Resolution and dynamic range are also observable although it was not the driver for this test.
    I had never actually created a formal exercise like this myself and it was very interesting last night for me to see he subtleties in color palette between Portra 160c and 400 for example under different lights.
     
  12. Thanks Lex, this created a good color reference chart of reusable value. Can't wait to share the results.....
     
  13. @ Lex
    I will be delighted to see a well designed and impartial discussion, I just hope this will be one. I do object to the constant "film vs digital" confrontational tone to these debates, look at the "Film vs 5D MKII" to see what I mean, there are 23 pages to it ( didn't seem to lead anywhere reallly) and all were based on a very flawed first set of examples. As Mauric will know I asked many times for a level playing field test but had no response to this. I hope this will be a more balanced debate but really, hasn't this been done to death now? I like the technical aspects as well, I worked in the industry for years including owning a pro lab, whenever these threads come up they just seem to turn into a slanging match between film and digital. I wait eagerly to learn something new from a well balanced and impartial discussion. Please don't blame me if I don't hold my breath.
     
  14. I received a recommendation to make the presentation a bit larger. Participants are welcomed to use this format to submit their guesses.
    00YIcy-335819584.jpg
     
  15. So another thread with a stupid premise, digital users are supposed to guess how inaccurately various films reproduce colour, with no targets at all, they are then supposed to post their guesses, you can then pull them apart and use them for ever more as examples of how bad digital is at making the same mistakes film does!
    Why not take an image of a colour checker card with your various films then get people to try to get the colours correct, not just accurately white balanced. At least competitors would have an actual, accurate and indisputable target to aim for. No contest really, digital can just do it automatically, even if it is a scanned film image.
    You seem to be setting this thread up as a "film has a better "look" than digital" tomb. Digital has far more looks than film, if people want grain, colours etc that give a film feel it can be done far more easily in a digital workflow. So you see an image that really needs a Kodachrome "look", how you gonna do that on film? You see an image that needs a Velvia look but you only have Portra with you, what are you going to do? Will the digital conversions be similar enough for pixel level internet nerd comparisons? Probably not, without a decent bit of effort. Good enough for everybody else including lots of image pros and buyers? Yes.
    It seems the record player is still broken.
     
  16. Any of the negative films will have the color and contrast controled by the details of how the film is scanned. There is not aboslute color or contrast in a negative film, so it is like shooting at a moving target. The Velvia could be more interesting, but even there the color and contrast can be different in the scan then in the slide. I have had a Velvia slide scanned from two differeent scanners and the results look miles apart.
    So show us what your film scan looks like and then see how close the digital image can come to matching it, that would be of far more interest to me, of course we would want the raw files to work with.
     
  17. This is not a film VS digital test. This is a Digital VS Digital test as soon as you scan the film it becomes Digital.
    To do a film VS Digital test you would have to shoot film and then print it in a Dark room then shoot the same shot on Digital and print it on a digital printer.
    Sigh I am not even sure why I started to read this thread. Have fun boys but don't look to prove anything with you Digital vs Digital test.
     
  18. Mauro, I think I see three problems:
    1. Shouldn't have put "Film vs Digital" in the subject line. It only causes problematic individuals to go off topic and insult you. See above. (Not directly above but a few up. Seriously, problematic individual, if you're so down on film, just don't read the film forum. It's only going to annoy you.)
    2. I can take my digital raw files and make them approximate how films look when I scan them, but I don't know how you scan. That's a problem especially with, say, Ektar and Portra 400, where there's so much flexibility deliberately built into the film.
    3. These are JPGs and there isn't enough shadow detail to do a proper job on what I would think negative films would look like in those situations.
     
  19. I'm taking this a fun "Match-the-Film" experiment. I have some experience with the films. I'm not using plug-ins, just winging it in Photoshop adjusting contrast, color and saturation going from memory. I hope I'm doing this right. Certainly individual monitor calibrations, including the judges, will be an issue.
    In the end only Mauro's direct side-by-side comparison will be of any value for technical discussion. All the individual game players are doing just that...playing a game. Thanks for an interesting, fun game, Mauro.
    Here are my entries:
    Velvia 50
    00YIgt-335869584.jpg
     
  20. I agree with Michael and Andy: As long as we compare images on a computer screen we would not do an all-film work flow (from capture to print or slide projection) justice.
    Also, 8bit jpg images as a starting point for any further image processing is not doing justice to an all-digital workflow.
    Lastly, I think several of your statements in your first post are not correct. In digital, the sensor does not produce the image, or the color rendition. That is done during the digital image processing step. Different programs will give you different results for the same RAW data, and the same program can give an infinite large number of different results. Different sensors will give you different signal, and thus RAW data, to work with, but processing has a significantly larger impact on the final result. Let's face it, simply by looking at a digital image, you cannot tell if it was shot with a Nikon or Canon.
    What you propose is an exercise in Photoshop techniques. I think there are programs that simulate certain film looks.
     
  21. Ektar 100
    00YIgv-335869684.jpg
     
  22. Portra160NC
    00YIgx-335869784.jpg
     
  23. Portra 400
    00YIh0-335869984.jpg
     
  24. Tmax100
    00YIh3-335870184.jpg
     
  25. Tmax400
    00YIh7-335870284.jpg
     
  26. Looks like fun Mauro. And for those with an issue, like Scott who thinks it's a dumb idea, don't bother posting. Your opinion piece is off topic in this thread. Mauro has laid out the rules. Pretty easy to follow.
     
  27. I don't shoot film because it is just as good as digital.
    I don't shoot film because it is better than digital.
    I shoot film because it is different. Comparing film and digital like this is just forcing film to revert to the mean.
    "Louis, for each of the three digital pictures, you have to start with the digital pictures and modify them (colors, saturation, etc) to try to provide the look of each film below."
    I shoot film and have no interest in modifying digital images.
     
  28. "Your opinion piece is off topic in this thread"
    Like a thread involving digital photography is on-topic for this forum. Try casual conversations, instead.
     
  29. Andy,
    If you mean me as the seriously problematic individual why not just say so? I am an adult and see no point in debating with people I agree with, but tell me where what I have said has been wrong.
    Where is the benefit in comparing guesses against others guesses unless it is just a bit of film user fun, but if it is then why call it film vs digital? I am not down on film, I use it in 135, 120 and 220 sizes, but I don't hold it up as a holy chalice that's abilities can never be questioned. I am pragmatic enough to know when film holds an advantage over my digital camera for my use and the vast majority of the time when it doesn't. I am not against film users, far from it, I am one, I am against misguided crusades and badly presented unfair comparisons that are put forward as facts. Why come to the film forum? Because misleading information needs to be countered, oh, and I am one!
     
  30. This COULD be a worthwhile exercise if administered properly. I have some suggestions.
    (1) The digital photos should come from someone who understands digital exposure and post processing well, not someone who launches anti-digital Internet crusades on a regular basis.
    (2) The digital and film photos must be taken in the same light of the same subjects and, in the case of natural outdoor lighting, and almost the same time. A few seconds difference might be acceptable, but even in a few seconds light can change.
    (3) Processing of the digital photos should be documented and made public. Likewise, processing used on the scanned images should be published and made public.
    (4) All digital processing must be done on properly calibrated monitors.
    (5) Post only JPEG conversions of the original files, no composites. Leave all EXIF data visible in the originals.
    (6) All parties must acknowledge that JPEG (sRGB) versions of digital images (scanned or native) have undergone a conversion process and do not represent the full color gamut and dynamic range that digital sensors can capture.
    (7) Scrap the 40D and use a professional full-frame DSLR with top-quality glass. After all, you're using professional film, not drug store grade print film. Why used an outdated hobbyist camera for comparison?
    Does anyone have any objections?
     
  31. Now that could be interesting Dan.
    I would say that the film scans need to be provided at the same time as the digital capture, how can you try to emulate something if you haven't seen it?
     
  32. All right Scott. Some of your points are good. I was too harsh and I should rephrase.
    Mauro, it's an interesting contest idea, but why the "Film vs Digital" stuff? It's just going to encourage arguments on what might otherwise be an interesting thread, and this isn't really about film vs. digital anyway.
    Scott, of course you're right that this isn't a perfect exercise. E.g., we'd agree that there's a lot of play in here. Scanned negative film color isn't really reproducible from person to person or siutation to situation. Even if we've all shot hundreds of rolls of, say, Ektar 100 and know what it ought to look like, what it ought to look like to me is not the same as what it ought to look like to you or to Mauro. And JPGs that are contrasty aren't a good starting point for this sort of thing. But Mauro wants to do an experiment and he's being quite generous with his time and the prizes. And if he's being more provocative than I would think he has to be, so was your post. It was more insulting than it had to be to make a point about your opinion of this exercise.
     
  33. Andy,
    Thanks for the reply. You might feel that my first comment was too strong, in the context of this one thread it might seem so, in the context of the various threads that Mauro and I have posted, and the hounding I have received for pointing out obvious errors, inconsistencies and ignorance in them, I didn't feel it was.
    Sorry if I have offended anybody, but crusades, however well meaning and earnestly believed in, normally, with the benefit of hindsight and history, prove to have been pointless and wrong.
    For those that think that trying to guess what an emulsion you didn't develop, scan or process looks like, and how close you can then get a cheap outdated consumer digital camera jpeg file to look like those files is a good idea, or worthwhile use of time, knock yourselves out. But this is not, as titled, a film vs digital thread, and any conclusions drawn are not relevant to that contentious issue.
     
  34. If you are not starting from the raw file you really don't know what processing has been done to get the jpeg, so I think acess to the raw files would be a must.
    And seeing the film scans would also be a must IMO, when I scan I get different results depending on if I use VueScan or the Minolta software, so not being able to see the film scans would make this a very hard task indeed.
    Note that Velvia has a pretty deep notch in its responce around 490 nm, deeper then the human eye. Also the blue sensitivity goes out further then the eye, so anything that is reflecting a lot of blue at the short end is going to look different in a Velvia slide then to the eye. The peak sensitivty for red in Velvia is around 650 nm, for the eye is is closer to 600nm So how well you can match Velvia depends a lot on the subject. And whether you would want to match it depends on your taste.
     
  35. One can only hope that beginners reading this post aren't mislead into thinking it has any meaningful relevance to
    photography.
     
  36. First entry for Luis is in the books!
     
  37. I will ignore problematic individuals that feel compelled to write without adding value or participating unless they develop an interest.
    I forgot to mention: THIS CONTEST IS OPTIONAL.
     
  38. "problematic individuals....... without adding value"
    The value added is otherwise known as a reality check.
     
  39. Andy, to your points:
    1. Your are right - but it really doesn't get to me.
    2. I find Velvia, Ektar and Portra to be very consistent in daylight with the Coolscan 9000. Also this is consistent with the colors produced by Imacon and Tango. They are by no means perfect in absolute terms but relatively accurate. To address your point, when you post your guess (and I hope you do) I can set a neutral point on both your guess and my scan and then compare the relationship of colors - This will be accurate.
    3. I find the jpgs very good for this exercise but I can ftp the raw files to you if you would like them.
    Thank you for the feedback.
     
  40. "Will the digital conversions be similar enough for pixel level internet nerd comparisons? Probably not, without a decent bit of effort. Good enough for everybody else including lots of image pros and buyers? Yes."
    Scott, his is not a pixel level comparison - just er reduced files. I would love to see how you can recreate the look of the films good enough for image pro. This is to the hear of this game.
     
  41. Peter, I believe I just answered most of your comments above.
    Regarding your observation of the sensors; the relationship between the different wavelengths captured by a single sensor is static and cannot be changed. You cannot just set the Velvia look in PP because many variables as the incidence angle of each wavelength is not recorded.
    Give it a try.
     
  42. Louis, very impressive first try!
     
  43. Dave, could you please accept a judge position?
    I will not share the results with you until the end so the entry is valid. Your entry will be evaluated by the other judges excluding you.
     
  44. Dan, could you also become a judge? It will balance the opinions.
     
  45. Mauro,
    That's the classic tactic shown by you and Les and Dave all the time, you set up a contentious ill thought out scenario, when people (not just me) question the scenario, it's objectives and why it has limited value you don't try to address the points, you just keep on, any doubters or contrary points or posts are dismissed.
    If you were after a bit of film forum fun that is fine, I might have given it a go, but you are not, you titled this thread "film vs digital", after giving numerous teasers in another contentious totally biased and misleading thread, because that is how you see things. Most shooters don't see film vs digital as a competition, they have preferences, for whatever reason, and use one or the other, or both, to that end. I know I do. For my work my 135 format digital camera vastly outperforms my film use up to and including 6x7, I still drag the 6x9 out every now and again but more for the fun of it than the outright detail or colour or "feel".
    If you are trying to prove that film can give you a "look" not repeatable with digital you are onto a loser, you can't. For most people getting close enough is easy enough. For many film users getting accurate colours was a nightmare for years.
    If you really want to prove things, anything, then you have to suggest a methodology and then listen to input about how your methods are valid or not, if there is a consensus on that then repeatable and open tests are the only way to gain credibility.
     
  46. Mauro, I'll post a guess, I can't resist talk of a free Minolta :) And raw files would help - I don't think I can get Portra from these JPGs with their shadow areas. But, with the B&W films - did you use any filters and how did you develop them?
     
  47. "Scott, his is not a pixel level comparison - just er reduced files."
    At the moment yes, but I know how you and Les continue these threads, if somebody gets close then you will look deeper, if they get closer again after actually showing them what they are trying to copy then you will look ever closer, you are very happy to compare pixel level posts, well you have been before.
    Just as an example, we know Dave can't be considered impartial and how in the hell could he enter a competition that he is judging? Even if you say he won't judge his own work that means he is not judged as the others were! Amazing........
     
  48. Dan, to your comments:
    "
    This COULD be a worthwhile exercise if administered properly. I have some suggestions.
    (1) The digital photos should come from someone who understands digital exposure and post processing well, not someone who launches anti-digital Internet crusades on a regular basis."
    No post processing is done and all settings to neutral.
    "(2) The digital and film photos must be taken in the same light of the same subjects and, in the case of natural outdoor lighting, and almost the same time. A few seconds difference might be acceptable, but even in a few seconds light can change."
    Yes. Check on that!
    "(3) Processing of the digital photos should be documented and made public. Likewise, processing used on the scanned images should be published and made public."
    Yes. Check on that!
    "(4) All digital processing must be done on properly calibrated monitors."
    No processing other than the stated.
    "(5) Post only JPEG conversions of the original files, no composites. Leave all EXIF data visible in the originals."
    I can add that no problem.
    "(6) All parties must acknowledge that JPEG (sRGB) versions of digital images (scanned or native) have undergone a conversion process and do not represent the full color gamut and dynamic range that digital sensors can capture."
    Color clipping vs ARGB will be immaterial and especially on a monitor. Subtle differences in yellow and greens could be perceived on a printer but very marginal. RAW files can be made available as well.
    "(7) Scrap the 40D and use a professional full-frame DSLR with top-quality glass. After all, you're using professional film, not drug store grade print film. Why used an outdated hobbyist camera for comparison?"
    The 40D produces no observable difference in color to the 5DII and the 60mm 2.8 is probably the sharpest lens made. Too late to rerun the exercise but I can post a 5DII vs 40D to satisfy your question.
     
  49. "Mauro, it's an interesting contest idea, but why the "Film vs Digital" stuff? It's just going to encourage arguments on what might otherwise be an interesting thread, and this isn't really about film vs. digital anyway."
    Agree. Can someone email the admin to change it to "Film and Digital - Color Rendition"?
     
  50. "If you are not starting from the raw file you really don't know what processing has been done to get the jpeg, so I think acess to the raw files would be a must."
    - Upload RAW in DPP
    - All settings to neutral
    - Auto WB (not materially different than daylight - I checked)
    - Export to PS as 16 bit TIFF
    - Cropped and converted to Jpeg - 8 bit for post.
     
  51. Les, for your question.
    This is the XD11 the winner will receive (along with $100 of film). I am including a new Hoya HMC to protect the baby.
    00YIlz-335921584.jpg
     
  52. Andy, (or anyone else),
    Please let me know what is the best way to make the RAW files available to you.
     
  53. How has the scanner been profiled? And it does have a fixed spectral response curve?
    For many film users getting accurate colours was a nightmare for years.​
    I'm tearing my hair out everyday, try to coax correct colors from slides scanned on my profiled scanner... some batches have rapidly aged, but still...
    and, oh... it's a Minolta scanner...
     
  54. Sure Mauro. Love to participate in this.
    Regards.
     
  55. "with the B&W films - did you use any filters and how did you develop them?"
    Just a UV(0) on all the lenses.
    Developed both on Xtol 1:1 at 75F for 7 minutes.
     
  56. Dave becomes the first honorary judge.
     
  57. Dave, after you post your entry I will send you the scans.
     
  58. First, film (or scanners) do not interpolate color and this translates into higher color resolution which provides a less smoothened (infamously "plasticy") rendition.
    This is simply not true Mauro. See attached. Note that the 7D has finer resolution of relief texture details, which are color, than 35mm Velvia 50 on an Imacon scanner.
    "Plastic" is a complaint that comes up when too much NR is used on high ISO images or when large prints are made from lower resolution files. It is not the result of Bayer interpolation.
    00YInp-335943584.jpg
     
  59. Daniel, would you like to be a judge. Dave and I are the judges so far and two more are needed.
     
  60. Entries will be posted here:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1200457847_Makh3
    00YIoa-335957584.jpg
     
  61. Additionally, and most importantly, different films give photographers a characteristic and predictable look, an array of ammunition with different color responses to individual wavelengths.
    There is some truth to this statement if we're talking about color slide film viewed directly. But there can be a considerable amount of variability once you scan or print any color film, even using traditional techniques. I recall putting a lot of work into making scans match slides on a light box back when I did more scanning. Maybe I just needed a better scanner or better profiles, but it was not automatic. The scanner had more or less difficulty depending not just on film, but on how the film was exposed and what the lighting was like in the exposure. This was even harder with negatives because, well...what's the reference point? This, incidentally, was a big reason why slide film was preferred for publishing.
    Still, a photographer can load up a particular film and know that the "look" will be the same within a certain range of variability. A good scanner with good profiles can narrow that range down. That can be useful, but should not be over played as an "array of ammunition" when a photographer can create hundreds, if not thousands of different renditions using RAW converters, PS, and various plugins. Once a photographer has established a look and the digital work flow to achieve it consistency is remarkably high because digital is remarkably consistent to begin with. Skim over the color chart samples at DPReview or Imaging Resource. There's little variation at base settings.
    B&W is more interesting because the photographer has so many choices during development and printing. It takes a little bit of work to develop both the eye and experience necessary to do good digital B&W conversions, but they are doable and digital is quite flexible once you get the techniques down. I think it took digital longer to produce satisfactory results in B&W however. The tools needed to evolve and so did the printers. Today B&W work of the highest caliber can be produced with a completely digital work flow.
    This cannot be reproduced with digital cameras (as of today) since the response of a single sensor to different wavelengths cannot be changed.
    Consequently, it is impossible to reproduce the look of a particular film (e.g. Velvia) starting with a digital capture unless that particular film is used alongside the digital camera to match the colors later in PS.
    These are contradictory statements. The response or output of the sensor can be changed which is why it's possible to match images later in PS. PS is changing the response.
    For anyone who really loves the look of a particular film and wants to emulate it digitally, shooting both side by side for a couple months under a wide range of conditions and taking the time to match the digital shot to the film shot is the way to go. It's more work than a plugin, but in the end you will have a feel for what needs to be done under different conditions. The plugins tend to fail under certain variations. But if you just want the feel and are not concerned with pixel level accuracy as in a test like this, then the plugins are a simple and effective way to go. Alien Skin Exposure is a lot of fun to work with.
    As to the contest...it would be more interesting and fun without the crusade aspect. It also requires the RAW files IMHO, especially since you used AWB rather than daylight balance.
    But it doesn't prove anything. Imagine the opposite of this contest, a digital photographer posting a dozen renditions of each image and asking if any films can match them.
     
  62. Daniel, would you like to be a judge. Dave and I are the judges so far and two more are needed.
    I appreciate the offer but I probably don't have the time this week. I will be curious as to what different people submit however, so I'll probably drop back in after a couple days. I'm sure the thread will still be going.
     
  63. Shame. You can follow the entries from an ipad/laptop here:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1200457847_Makh3
     
  64. Daniel - Why do you keep posting your optimized processed digital result to the none processed straight up scan when we already concluded this - It all comes down to the print - page 17 Conveniently forgot it?
    Page 17 is highly focused on an area of B&W detail, not color detail, using a level of magnification that degrades the digital image due to interpolation effects. See my comments at Apr 26, 2010; 08:45 a.m. on page 23 http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00WErk?start=220.
     
  65. "This cannot be reproduced with digital cameras (as of today) since the response of a single sensor to different wavelengths cannot be changed."
    This meant that it cannot be reproduced without shooting the film side by side.
    Let me know if there is a shareware file share I can use to upload the RAW files for everyone.
     
  66. Les, I expect you will submit an entry in this contest...
     
  67. "First, film (or scanners) do not interpolate color and this translates into higher color resolution"​
    What nonsense! Where is there any evidence to support this assertion?
    The colour in film is captured by 3 and only 3 discrete colours. When film is developed its colour couplers form tiny oily globules of dye in combination with oxidation products from the developer. These tiny blobs, called “dye clouds” are between 2 and 3 microns across, and there is a limit to how many of these dye clouds can be stacked vertically in the thickness of an emulsion layer. It’s this overlay of dye clouds that gives variation in colour density, and we can fairly easily estimate the number of different densities of colour they can represent.

    In addition, each film dye cloud has a fairly uniform density, so shades of colour have to be represented by additions of densities or by the natural dithering of randomly scattered dye clouds. Therefore film colour is definitely a product of an interpolation process.
    To put some real numbers on the theory: The thickness of one film emulsion layer will support a stack of around 5 dye clouds, and we can fit between 9 and 16 of them into the same area as one digital pixel (assuming a 12 megapixel full-frame sensor). However, it’s only the vertical stacking of dye clouds that has any bearing on the number of different densities of colour that can be represented. So let’s be generous and say that we can represent 6 levels of cyan, yellow or magenta for each 2 micron by 2 micron square of film. That’s a maximum of 16 x 6 (= 96) levels within the same area as our example pixel above. Now, can anyone see a slight discrepancy there between the 256 levels of each primary that one digital pixel can represent and what we can optimistically expect to get from the same area of film?
    Digital pulls even further ahead when RAW capture is used to extract 4096 or more shades of colour from each of its red, green and blue channels.
    Sorry, but digital capture is technically capable of far smoother tonal transitions than film could ever hope to achieve, and the very fact that we can use it to imitate the limited range of colours that a particular film reproduces should be ample proof of that.
     
  68. I'll get a chance in a few days. I'll be busy until at least Wednesday.
     
  69. Frankly, I like the subjective element in this exercise--to a point. It really comes down to whether or not film does indeed convey some special quality that digital cannot capture. So, the fact that it is not a particularly rigorous test measured against some objective standard doesn't bother me at all.
    On the other hand, I think that I can see the day coming when these kinds of threads will be so totally passé that we will tend to look back at the film v. digital debates as being an inevitable phase that we had to go through. After all, let's face it: digital is so convenient, and the work flow starts with a very direct, very quick scan.
    In other words, it is almost up to film users to be able to show why film is worth the extra trouble. I am committed to keeping an open mind, and, when I look at old prints made from film, I have to say that I am looking at something wondrous indeed. But those are tests of PRINTS--the ultimate test for me--and it seems almost impossible to make the case for film on the digital medium of the internet. I HAVE to see the prints in order to decide. That is one of my ultimate dogmas: SHOW ME THE PRINT(S)! I have to see the prints. Since we cannot really do that here, I am not too optimistic that this is going to be at all decisive--but one can hope.
    So, for at least one more time, Mauro, let us have another marathon and see if anyone manages to offer something so compelling that we will all set our digital cameras back on our shelves (or on the auction blocks) and say--again, one more time--"I'm going back to film!"
    I don't see that happening, but, given the amount of old film equipment sitting around my house, I sort of hope it does.
    The brutal fact is that I have not shot film for at least a couple of years, much less made serious prints from film. Nonetheless, Mauro, if only for old time's sake, let us see what you and others can pull out of the hat where film is concerned.
    --Lannie
     
  70. Joe, do you know the size of a pixel from 35mm film scan at 21 megapixels has about 40 microns? Then this is scanned at full 16 RGB after that.

    A pixel of a digital camera is just one color with varying luminosity.
    Please help me understand your math. I am not saying your are wrong- I just couldn't follow it.
     
  71. Nice Lannie.
    Color resolution aside, when it comes to color choice yes, you can try to make a Velvia look from a digital camera, the same way you can try to make a Velvia look from Ektar. Without shooting Velvia it would be almost impossible.
    Let's have fun with this exercise. It just came to me this is a great opportunity to test those film emulators people rave about and see how close they come to the real film. Do you use any of them? -> That could be your entry.
     
  72. Well, I don't care about the FvD debate, but I like the game. Here's my go at it.
    RS
    00YIuh-335995584.jpg
     
  73. Edit see post below:
     
  74. Thank you Richard.
    Your rendition (so will others that come in) has been posted here.
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1200457847_Makh3
     
  75. At any point before the competition is closed, any participant may re-submit their entry any number of times (only the last one will be considered). Hopefully this will promote exchange of ideas.
     
  76. Mauro, this might be a fun game, but you could also go about this rather objectively. Perhaps that wasn't your purpose for this thread?
    For example, you could shoot an IT8 target with 288 or so color patches on a dSLR vs different films, take the spectrophotometric measurements of that chart evenly illuminated with a standard illuminant (D50?), develop the RAW file/scan the films using pretty consistent technique (e.g. no auto corrections, etc.), then use Argyll or Lprof tools to build 'scanner' profiles (that include tone response curve corrections) for your RAW digital capture & all film captures. Then apply these profiles to each image. Theoretically, they'd all look similar at this point, & you'd have an objective basis for comparison of a lot of colors.
    To make a game out of it, you could add grain using RealGrain or something to the digital capture, then make people guess which is what. Or remove grain from the film scans, etc.
    Anyone think this might be worthwhile? I've considered trying it; just haven't gotten around to it.
    Cheers,
    Rishi
     
  77. That could have been one approach but I decided for a lively more day-to-day target that may spice people's interest (at the expense of less exactly quantitative approach).
    I also don't want to give too much away. The flowers and the face are plenty to experiment with the concept and value of color-in-a-can.
    I hope to see your rendition soon.
     
  78. After the contest is over I will still keep sharing all the information I can and they will be plenty for discussion.
     
  79. Sorry, but digital capture is technically capable of far smoother tonal transitions than film could ever hope to achieve, and the very fact that we can use it to imitate the limited range of colours that a particular film reproduces should be ample proof of that.
    If you are shooting digital then why would you want to imitate film? If you are shooting digital then why do you try to get your digital photos to look like film photos? if you are shooting digital they should look like digital. If digital is great the photos should be perfect already with no need for post.
     
  80. Rodeo Joe: interesting points. Your analysis of the # of colors that can be represented on film by an area the size of a pixel of course assumes that your film is only using that small area to represent a color. It may be using more (which, of course, lowers its effective resolution). So I really wonder how objectively this can be examined.
    A 24MP (pretty much the limiting resolution of film w/ very high contrast subjects) scan of 35mm Velvia translates to a 6 micron x 6 micron area of film. That's 36 square microns. How many dye clouds can fit into that small an area? And wouldn't you multiply that by 3 for the three emulsion layers?
    Also, you say:
    The colour in film is captured by 3 and only 3 discrete colours.​
    Yes, but the absorption bands of these dyes are incredibly broad. Like the human eye. So technically, each dye is responding to a large number of wavelengths. The transmission profiles of the R, G, & B filters on Bayer sensors are really strange. They have sharp peaks at very selective wavelengths. Colors are then interpolated. I wish I had a link to a transmission profile but I can't find one right now. Film can also be seen as an interpolation process. Which one is better is up for debate but technically having broader absorption profiles necessarily means you're recording more information. Again, whether that's useful information or not to the human eye in the final product? I don't know.
    Also, you say:
    In addition, each film dye cloud has a fairly uniform density, so shades of colour have to be represented by additions of densities or by the natural dithering of randomly scattered dye clouds.​
    Actually, I think you want very uniform properties to the 'primaries' when you're mixing colors in either an additive or subtractive process. Purer CMY pigments lead to a larger gamut of colors achievable using a subtractive method, no? And purer RGB primaries are used in wide gamut monitors, no? As I understand it, the purer the primaries, the more accurately you can mix them to get a wider gamut of colors than may be achievable with primaries that are 'polluted' by wavelengths of another primary. So basically what I'm saying is you want the dyes to have uniform properties so you get an accurate representation of the original color information when you 'add' them.
    I may be mistaken about that whole purer primaries & wider gamut thing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    Cheers,
    Rishi
     
  81. Rishi,
    I think that is a far more worthwhile approach and it should silence any film "feel" comments to boot, please do it!
    Eddy,
    Three times I have had paying clients ask for "film looks". Once was for Kodachrome, but what they actually asked for was "that seventies style with rounded corners and funny colours", when I showed them examples they were thinking of Kodachrome. Once was a very opinionated regional magazine editor who wanted Velvia 50 style high contrast and very saturated colours. The last was not for a specific emulsion but a grainy B&W set of images. All three got their images as they wanted them, all three were shot native digital. Were they close enough to the exact emulsions to satisfy some of the posters here? I doubt it, but they were close enough to get me paid by happy clients, one of which is an imaging professional.
     
  82. Scott Ferris says
    At the moment yes, but I know how you and Les continue these threads, if somebody gets close then you will look deeper, if they get closer again after actually showing them what they are trying to copy then you will look ever closer, you are very happy to compare pixel level posts, well you have been before.
    Just as an example, we know Dave can't be considered impartial and how in the hell could he enter a competition that he is judging? Even if you say he won't judge his own work that means he is not judged as the others were! Amazing........
    I always feel amazing how people like Scott Ferris have such a deep passion in this sort of threads which they themselves criticized till the end of the day. If when challenge for facts, the standard tag line would be
    For my work my 135 format digital camera vastly outperforms my film use up to and including 6x7, I still drag the 6x9 out every now and again but more for the fun of it than the outright detail or colour or "feel".
    Yeah, very true, because the above statement your 'digital camera vastly outperform YOUR film' And from what I know you do not represent anyone but yourself. Remember always, your experience is, well your experience ONLY... I don't think Mauro forces you to accept his experience as THE ultimate experience for mankind? :)
    To Scott et al. If you're not interested and if you feel so much unfairness and outright silly or whatever, then just ignore it. Let those who want to have the fun participate rather than fill up this thread with useless noise. Why not start your OWN TEST, comparison blah blah blah at your DIGITAL forum, and whack film however you like. Show to the world how impartial you are by hiring MR from LL (why am I even talking about this joke material?) and his gang be the judges. Won't that make your day? Why bother to create endless amount of noise in here? Last time I check, the competition was set up Mauro, so if you think it's not fair, don't enter. In fact, don't even bother since he's a 'track record' with his accomplice to make digital look bad.
    Go get a life.
     
  83. I really think everyone here should be more open to criticism & challenge, & not respond angrily when one person criticizes another as long as the criticism is objective.
    Criticism & being challenged is how you grow.
    Since Mauro, whose work I often admire, titled this thread "Film vs Digital - Color Rendition", it's reasonable for someone casually strolling by to assume that this might be an objective test of the color rendition of the two formats. When one then reads the thread & feels it's not objective at all, he/she might be inclined to point this out. At that point Mauro may say 'well, your point is well taken & I meant this as more of a subjective test' or he could defend his feeling of it being objective.
    For example, I pointed out what may have been a more objective test. Mauro said he'd considered it, but decided to go with this fun approach instead. End of story. No harsh feelings.
    You all need to just chill out.
    Personally I feel that more objective comparisons of film vs. digital are possible. In fact, Mauro's done a number of them in the past. So instead of the back & forth yelling, those with opinions would do better to simply express them in a calm objective manner and then, if they choose to make a bold claim re: one format over the other, perform their own tests and show us the results. We can then, as a community, engage in banter over whether or not those tests are valid. That's pretty much how good science is done. I do intend to do the experiment I outlined above, just to see how far each format can be pushed. In the meantime, I'll enjoy this thread for what it is: and that is certainly not an objective comparison of the color capabilities of the different formats.
    Rishi
     
  84. Rishi
    one final attempt! As you say the problem comes when a thread is labelled "Film vs Digital" or "film vs 5DII" or similar. Then when anyone questions the criteria the answer is "well it's not really film vs digital it's just....". Why use that sort of title then? If Mauro wants to just have some fun looking at trying to reproduce a film "look" then just say so. If you use a confrontational title then you will get a confrontational response, especially if the methodology is flawed. As I have said many times, I have no particular axe to grind either way, I just like to see fair play.
     
  85. Daniel Lee Taylor:
    "Note that the 7D has finer resolution of relief texture details, which are color, than 35mm velvia 50 on an Imacon scanner"
    And where are blue river lines gone ? - river network drawing is clearly visible on velvia scan, but missing on 7D image (actually not missing, but drawn with background color tone instead of blue)


     
  86. Tony, if it were me, I would've chosen a different title for the thread :)
    I also have no axe to grind b/c I use both formats & have researched scanning/processing of film (hence I use a 'digital workflow' for my film) enough so that when I ask people to look at a bunch of prints from my Epson R2400 & tell me which one is film or digital, often they have a difficult time (except for dead giveaways like reciprocity failure or pepper grain).
    I do like objective tests though b/c they help me push these technologies to their limits. Something I derive pleasure from :)
    That being said, this thread here is about as objective as me asking you to go here & tell me which ones are film & which ones are digital. If done properly, it shouldn't be a dead giveaway until you start pushing the limits of the format (100% crop or large prints), at which point you will see grain for film and jagged edges & sharpening halos for digital. Or something like that; I don't know if I explained that well.
    This thread doesn't push the limits of either format as far as I can tell (perhaps Mauro shall prove me wrong). The more objective test I outlined earlier might; or it might show that both formats are equally capable -- I won't know until I do the test!
    -Rishi
     
  87. I wonder what the conclusions will be from this thread.
    Without the film scans or reference images it is near impossible to match them with digital as you have no reference. It would also be impossible to make Porta 160 look like Velvia without Velvia reference images and equally difficult to make make Potra match a DSLR image.
    For me I feel people should shoot whatever floats their boat and stop worrying film VS digital. Some prefer one medium over the other that does not make them wrong either. Some like to take advantage of both mediums and enjoy shooting both.
     
  88. Certainly an important topic, but it would have been more convenient to just do another comparison rather than have a competition. The comparison would then spur on others to try the exercise for themselves. Just IMHO.
    I agree with the question of whether or not film is worth the trouble. The problem is that there is no answer to agree with. It's all subjective and chaotic. Which trade-offs are easier to live with?
    BTW do web browsers support colour profiles yet?
     
  89. BTW do web browsers support colour profiles yet?​
    If you're on a Mac, then yes for Chrome, Firefox & Safari.
    If you're on a PC, then yes if you're using Apple Safari. And possibly if you use Firefox's plugin, though I'm not sure if that gets you active translation to the monitor profile. Usually applications in Windows take the lazy route & convert to sRGB & just ignore your monitor profile.
    And, yes, that's a pretty sad state of affairs for PCs.
     
  90. Rodeo, dye layers have nothing to do with tonal accuracy, or bit depth....and nothing to do with the OP's post.
     
  91. Certainly nothing to do with bit depth, but I've always been curious about how large an area (e.g. in square microns) is needed to represent thousands of tones? We started broaching that topic in this thread, but never really hashed it out.
    The answer to this is relevant to film's native 'resolution' as one might compare it to a digital camera's megapixel resolution. (i.e. you take the square root of this area & then divide 36,000 microns by this number, in microns of course, to get the effective 'pixel equivalent' count along the long axis; then do the same for the short axis, etc.)
    Ok maybe not relevant to this thread, but, still very interesting!
    Rishi
     
  92. Radek,
    And where are blue river lines gone ? - river network drawing is clearly visible on velvia scan, but missing on 7D image (actually not missing, but drawn with background color tone instead of blue)​
    Lost in the algorithms of ACR which make the (reasonable) assumption that the human eye is much better at distinguishing contrast than color for fine details. Then again, that's like asking where is the green in the island of Sao Tome and Principe in any of the Velvia versions including Mauro's sharpened ones? Where are the ocean/land border lines near Port Gentil? The answer here is that they are lost in the dye clouds and scanner optics (and for Mauro's later version, the oversharpening.)
    You can pixel peep these images all day long and find minor differences where A is better than B for some definition of better. And if you change the workflow (raw processor + sharpening or scanner + processing) and repeat, you will come out with slightly different pros/cons. So what's the point? Both can be very good but neither are perfect and it's then down to a matter of preference (e.g., which artifacts you can accept or not) and achievability (e.g., do you have the expertise in optimizing one or the other.) Hence the neverending debate.
     
  93. Mauro, it seems that the JPG from a CR2 raw file opened in DPP is not a neutral starting point, no matter how few adjustments you make.

    I opened a CR2 file in DPP, in Picture Window Pro, and Raw Therapee. You can try RT; it's free. PWP and RT do not alter the exposure; the user decides what to do. DPP applies exposure and other changes when it opens a CR2 file. Perhaps I missed something in DPP.

    I discovered the difference when I opened your large JPG in Picture Window Pro. I cropped to the floral shot and applied a standard Velvia saturation action that a PWP user has contributed to the community. The result had the usual overdone green and such of Velvia, but it was not as different from the starting JPG as I expected.

    I suspect that even when DPP opens a CR2, it starts by applying all the choices you had in your camera's JPG menus. Anyway, there really is no "unbiased" digital image. The raw file is not a finished product, and canned adjustments or conscious post-processing happens. I suppose there is similar variation in developing film.
     
  94. Well here is my guess for Tmax 400.
    00YJ5M-336099684.jpg
     
  95. I will be traveling for one day and I may not be able to respond to questions until tomorrow.
     
  96. Stuart, please post the rest of the films. Great prizes await.
     
  97. Charlie, when you open the raw in dpp just set all the sliders to zero. Ignore any settings that dpp is importing from
    your picture styles set in the camera.
     
  98. "Charlie, when you open the raw in dpp just set all the sliders to zero. Ignore any settings that dpp is importing from your picture styles set in the camera."
    Mauro, DPP makes exposure adjustment(s) even when the sliders are at zero. Open a raw file in Raw Therapee or Picture Window Pro and you will see what an unadjusted raw file looks like. (Sorry, I do not have access to ACR).
     
  99. or do a conversion in the platform independent dcraw... of course it'll have no idea what to do with colors until you feed it a camera profile.
     
  100. A straight-up film scan, completely without adjustments (or just exposure control), is pretty ugly. It is one step short of a RAW (Nikonscan) or HDR (Silverfast), in which negatives are not inverted. If you have a scanned photo that looks presentable, it has been adjusted, perhaps not deliberately tweaked, but using default controls in the scanning software.
    In other words, when Mauro ultimately shows us pretty pictures that look so much better than DSLR images, they will invariably have been adjusted in some manner. What is it then, that demonstrates the film "look"? Nothing other than the hand of the photographer.
    The following example was the same Ektar 100 negative, taken with an Hasselblad and scanned with a Nikon LS-8000. The left panel is with auto-exposure, but all the boxes in Nikonscan unchecked, and the right panel with automation allowed (but not tweaked).
    00YJIF-336205584.jpg
     
  101. Here is a DSLR shot of the same subject, taken with a D2x, presented as it comes out of the camera (via ACR defaults)...
    00YJIQ-336207784.jpg
     
  102. I skip discussion and straight to the point with my submission for this fun game:
    http://www.martynas.org/Other/WEB/Film/1202224029_PTo8v-O.jpg
     
  103. Huang,
    Many thanks for your kind words and insight, your contributions have much merit and have furthered the thread immensely, again, thanks.
    I have a "deep passion" in countering some of the utter rubbish that is posted in the film forum, not really, more like a passing inclination. Whenever I post contrary images I am told that they are not right, condescendingly patted on the head and told "it looks quite good but", or even better, the post is just ignored. It is pointless trying to show several of you the capability of current digital cameras, you have completely closed minds, I do it because uncountered misinformation annoys me, sometimes enough that I can be bothered to comment.
    The reason I deliberately put "my experiences" in my comments is because that is all I am comfortable saying, I use film and digital cameras, I am not anti film, quite the opposite. I use a 135 format high resolution digital camera a lot though. I have printed and sold a fair number of prints at 20x30 and 24x36. 135 format film can't compete with 135 format digital, in my personal experience. How can I show you my experience? I do not scan my slides, I have had them wet printed, or scanned in house, to Cibachrome for years, or the magazines they went to had them scanned, but they subsequently own the scan, either way I don't own scans of my slides and see no benefit it getting them scanned. Now I just ftp digital files. I can't show you my film images as a digital file and even if I could the method of their digitization becomes the sticking point, that is a classic reply by Mauro, anybody that agrees with my observations is told they don't know how to scan properly and send a few slides to him and he will scan them and show you how wrong you are, how presumptuous! When I compare my 20x30 and 24x36 prints from digital and film side by side, the digital is markedly better.
    Now bare in mind when I say "my film" I am normally talking about slide films, I have no input in the way they are processed, I just send exposed rolls off to pro labs. My digital post work is mine and I claim no superior capabilities in that area, just competence, my digital camera is as many others too, it is not special. So "my film" is as anybodies could be, certainly nobody can claim "their film" holds more detail or tonality or whatever, and "my camera" is a standard current model. "My results" have been produced by highly regarded pro labs with vested interests in getting the best results they can, from whatever medium I send them, with experience and equipment I could never hope, or wish, to acquire. To infer better results could be achieved than by the pros I use is misguided at best, but truthfully, smacks of arrogance and bluster.
    I know my experiences are all I can express, that is why that is all I do, I don't make rash claims and then ignore countering posts. I don't doubt Mauro's integrity, I do doubt his digital post processing abilities, his methodology and his inclination to present fair and repeatable comparisons particularly in light of his very provocative threads. Why is it wrong for me to question that?
    So why did I start posting counters to Mauro's, Dave's and Les's posts occasionally? Because it was pronounced, and agreed upon in one thread, that a 21MP 135 format digital camera couldn't produce a 180kb in line image that compared to a scanned medium format film image for detail and tonality! I am sorry, rubbish like that needs to be held up and exposed as the utter nonsense it is. Now, could you try and explain to me how Dave can be an impartial and equally judged competitor in a competition in which he is highly biased and is also judging? That is the kind of silliness, unfairness and bias that these threads present as OK! It is laughable, don't moan at me because I laugh at it :)
     
  104. Here is the Tmax100
    00YJM9-336263584.jpg
     
  105. Potra160nc
    00YJMD-336263884.jpg
     
  106. Heres some old Gold 100. I like the colors in this.
    00YJMF-336264084.jpg
     
  107. Radek - And where are blue river lines gone ? - river network drawing is clearly visible on velvia scan, but missing on 7D image (actually not missing, but drawn with background color tone instead of blue)
    I believe that's discussed in the thread. Most of the differences are actually in my copy of the map. The people contributing each had their own copy of that map which is an unfortunate variable.
    That said there are one or two river lines which the 7D seemed to miss in terms of color. But I don't know if that was due to the beta nature of ACR. I haven't since reprocessed those test files using the latest ACR. I must be losing interest in these kinds of tests and debates.
     
  108. Les - The area shows precisely the processing degradation that happens when you try to sharpen detail lacking from the digital capture that the film resolved.
    No. It shows the degradation that occurs when you view the samples under excessive digital magnification/interpolation. More than half the pixels in that particular 7D screen sample were PS created during enlargement. That degrades the overall resolution and IQ. This was discussed in the thread.
    Just represent the similarly processed file else you might be thought as biased . . . ;-)
    Those are not the best samples. And they do not show any real color detail. My post was in relation to Mauro's statements about color detail and Bayer color sampling/interpolation.
     
  109. Let's have fun with this exercise. It just came to me this is a great opportunity to test those film emulators people rave about and see how close they come to the real film. Do you use any of them? -> That could be your entry.
    In a few days I could take the time to do this, but I would need to start with the RAW files. (You may have posted a link that I missed. I'm very quickly skimming the thread.)
     
  110. Scott Ferris,
    I assume most of us here are mature enough so I'll skip all the sarcasms as those are again, useless noise.
    Let us just concentrate on your point of how to 'contribute' to a thread like this, whether it's to make useful suggestions on methodology, or to point out what method is flawed, or even to participate. The least relevant would be "my experience count more than yours because I earn 100 Million from selling my digital photo or 1000 magazines used my digital photo" kind of silly statement as you could throw credentials however you like, it still won't change the fact that my experience tell me what I know and I believe plenty of us do agree on this point.
    Isn't it silly to have an argument as you mentioned when you have your points countered by the others claiming how they use their standard to measure against yours, and yet you use your own benchmark or experience as the ultimate to say what other have to say as 'utter rubbish'? Isn't that equally condescending? To me, your experience could very much be 'utter rubbish' (I'm not saying it literally, but use it as an example how it'd sound like with role reversed) because you can't extract more than what a 21MP digital camera can from a medium format film. I certainly can. Many of us can. But you don't see me (I don't know about Mauro, Les, Dave or anyone. Do you guys do that?) jumping into a digital forum and announce to everyone there that Medium Format film has a higher resolution than 5DII as if Christopher Colombus found America, and tell them to shut up since all their experience is 'utter rubbish'. Remember how LL say 3MP D30 is better than 135, 6MP D60 is close or better than Medium Format, and latest, 80MP better than 8x10? And many think of LL as the point of reference in photography so what they say MUST BE TRUE! If you can do better with digital, fine, but it's not the gold standard. So does anyone who can get better result with film.
    I can't show you my film images as a digital file and even if I could the method of their digitization becomes the sticking point, that is a classic reply by Mauro, anybody that agrees with my observations is told they don't know how to scan properly and send a few slides to him and he will scan them and show you how wrong you are, how presumptuous! When I compare my 20x30 and 24x36 prints from digital and film side by side, the digital is markedly better.


    When you brought up the point of scanning as mentioned by Mauro, could you explain how on earth did he extract the level of detail that he showed in many of the previous thread? Anyone with the slightest background of scientific theory would have formulated an outcome that it's either:
    a. There is really that much detail in film, you and many other can't extract it out.
    b. Mauro is lying, he crop the digital file so much as to use 1 MP against the full area of 35mm maybe?
    So which one is true? Or a combination of many other factors, like none equal playing ground as many have cried foul on the previous thread of "high ISO film vs digital", now with the handicap on the film?
    At one point you say
    I don't doubt Mauro's integrity, I do doubt his digital post processing abilities, his methodology and his inclination to present fair and repeatable comparisons particularly in light of his very provocative threads.
    Latter on you say
    I am sorry, rubbish like that needs to be held up and exposed as the utter nonsense it is.
    Sounds very much to me you're questioning Mauro's integrity.... And "How presumptuous" were your words, but use against your own line of "doubt his post processing abilities". Ouch...
    Lastly, just in case you do not understand this thread being a competition, there's no such thing as "digital wins" or "film wins". The result is solely base on how closely the participants could adjust the colour from the digital sample to match with Mauro's original scans. You seemed to have a preset mind on this must be a 'digital sucks, viva la film' thread since it's started by the (in)famous Mauro. You also seemed to form a very biased opinion about Mauro's 'evil intention' that even before the match is started you already cry foul (isn't that the 'completely closed mind' you said?) This part you should pick up. Notice here the results is based on how close it matches the original file, not how much better it looks than the 'crappy digital files'... Who cares if you change green to red or blue to yellow, as long as it matches the ORIGINAL the best! Even you could participate. So the question about Dave being a judge is just a none issue raised by you.
    That is the kind of silliness, unfairness and bias that these threads present as OK! It is laughable, don't moan at me because I laugh at it :)
    Now does all these sound silly, unfair and bias when the so call point of contentions were never there to start with? Now that is what makes me laugh... :)
     
  111. Scott Ferris said - So why did I start posting counters to Mauro's, Dave's and Les's posts occasionally? Because it was pronounced, and agreed upon in one thread, that a 21MP 135 format digital camera couldn't produce a 180kb in line image that compared to a scanned medium format film image for detail and tonality!​
    Scott, could you point out the post where I said a 21mp camera couldn't produce a 180kb file that would match a MF scan? You come to this thread acting some some kind of savior to correct all of our bias, etc. I can tell you this much, I have never said anything like that at all in any thread. If you're going to make up information to further some axe to grind, don't include me in your fabrication. What you have posted there is an outright fabrication. Period.
    If you wish to participate in this thread then feel free to do so and have fun doing it. If all you're going to do is make things up, while telling everyone I'm biased, then I don't welcome any input you have.
    I go with what I see from film and digital. I don't make things up. I have no need to lie about what I'm seeing to try and convince the world to use something inferior. As to MF vs 21mp digital, that's another discussion. If you're curious, then I'll tell you that for a fine grained film from a good scan....the film will beat the 21mp file. If you disagree, I don't really care.
    I'm sorry Mauro, I've had enough nonsense from people like Scott to last a lifetime. I will not participate in this when my integrity is being called into question. Let Scott be the judge. He obviously has more knowledge and experience than any of us biased working pros out there.
    Regards,
     
  112. "Now does all these sound silly,"
    Unfortunately, yes, the subtlety and nuance of what you are trying to communicate is lost in your abilities to convey those sentiments in English (my only competent language), this is not a slight on you, I just don't understand most of what you are saying so I cannot reply to it. I do understand you think I am bad and wrong.
    Several things I can say though, I don't assume my experience is more important than yours or Mauro's, I just point out that it is very different.
    I am not Michael Reichmann and I did not make claims about early low megapixel digital cameras. Further he has not said a medium format 80mp camera beats an 8x10 film camera, he has set a challenge to compare the two because he thinks it would be interesting. I have no interest in an 8x10 camera or its output so I have nothing but a passing interest in his comparison.
    I think the problem I have with Mauro's findings is not his undoubted abilities with a scanner and film, he is obviously very capable in that field, it is with his digital results. My digital results are way different to his, you mentioned the previous thread, what about the difference between my high iso image and his? Nobody addressed that. Am I lying? The image EXIF was intact! The only acknowledgment of it was a condescending "Looks good"!
    I still don't see how a competition, set up by a biased individual and judged in part by another one, who is also a competitor, to replicate something that has not been seen, with something they did not take, is anything but a series of guesses. Having a series of guesses is fine if that is what you title it and set out to do with it, but that is NOT a measure of digitals abilities to replicate film colours.
     
  113. Dave,
    If I have offended you then I am truly sorry. I offer an apology and an olive branch. You were not a participant in the thumbnail thread, but in the threads we have all been involved in you have always been solidly in agreement with Mauro.The main protagonist in the thumbnail thread was Q.G. de Bakker, a Photo.Net hero!
    I do not portray myself as some kind of saviour, I just occasionally try to stem the torrent of threads from the film forum that have vastly different results to my own. I am not trying to make people change what they use either, I use both, happily, but when film crusaders make constant comparison threads that are unfair and biased I think a counterpoint is needed. I use what I use, I get the results I want and need from that, I don't care that some film users can't seem to get good results from digital, but I would hate readers who don't have our experience to believe that digital is only capable of what is presented in some of the film vs digital threads.
    Again, offending you was not my intention and for that I apologise.
    Scott.
     
  114. Ah well, as I said on page 2 we have descended into the usual slanging match. No-one will accept anyone elses viewpoint, everyones methods are said to be flawed and another 13 pages are wasted on the same old same old. I would take up fishing but then it would be sea is better than coarse, fly is better than ledger etc etc. Just go shoot pictures for god's sake!
     
  115. I will accept and embrace others viewpoints. What I find difficult to accept is other peoples results that are vastly different from mine and many others. If that is wrong, then yes, go fishing.
    I can't go shoot pictures this week, it is all office work. Next week should be different though :). Maybe just start another pointless film vs anything thread next week.............
     
  116. "In other words, when Mauro ultimately shows us pretty pictures that look so much better than DSLR images, they will invariably have been adjusted in some manner."
    Edward,
    That scan is definitely ugly and I never get scans like that. There is definitely a problem somewhere (film or scanner) since you said you are not playing with adjustments just using Nikonscan with auto exposure.
     
  117. Thank you for the participation Martynas and Stuart. I am uploading the results now.
     
  118. Edward, the scans for this exercise have no adjustments.
    I cannot explain why your scan looks bad. I will mail you the Ektar film cut from this exercise after the contest is over so you can run it and test your scanner against my unadjusted scan.
     
  119. Your entries have been posted here:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1200954042_dD4Vs
     
  120. Daniel, let me know how I can get the RAWs to you. They are large.
     
  121. Scott Ferris,
    Please pardon my rudimentary English as that's certainly my 3rd language, a distant 3rd by the way. If you do not understand what I say, then I'll just put it in point form. Btw, do you not understand the above 2 points about scanning that I ask you? Really? If you need further explanation please do not hesitate to ask for it. Is the answer 'a' or 'b'?
    Now in order not to let my meaning engulf in the sea of advance English that I've yet to master, here are the points.
    -I don't think you must be a bad person or wrong, I don't even know you. I'm replying to what you said earlier
    -You have your right to voice out your disagreement and experience in any thread
    -When you voiced it out, you say the other must be wrong because it doesn't match your own experience
    -When, Mauro or anyone say the reverse, you say he's biased
    -Doing so, aren't you biased as well (that is if I've an equally closed mind)? Unless you're the ABSOLUTE standard?
    -What does it mean when you say
    "I would hate readers who don't have our experience to believe that digital is only capable of what is presented in some of the film vs digital threads."?
    -Can I put it to you that when you say you can't get better result with film, that your digital result is lightyears better than film result, then the above statement of yours can be changed to
    "I would hate readers who don't have OUR EXPERIENCE to believe that FILM is only capable of what is presented in some of the film vs digital threads." ?
    -You said
    "I will accept and embrace others viewpoints. What I find difficult to accept is other peoples results that are vastly different from mine and many others."
    -
    So if other peoples results are 'vastly different' from "yours and many others", they must be WRONG, and err, lying? Could it be that you're wrong?
    -Last time I read a little bit of history of modern physics. When Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity which gives a result 'vastly different' from Newtonian laws, 'many others' think he's absolutely wrong, because it's 'vastly different' from the day to day findings of 'many others', and he's not a 'professional'. He's just a CLERK! :)
    -This is what you said in an earlier reply
    To infer better results could be achieved than by the pros I use is misguided at best, but truthfully, smacks of arrogance and bluster.
    -
    It was lucky that Einstein didn't get labeled as a 'misguided' person 'smacks of arrogance and bluster' by the 'pros' then :) LOL The 'pros' embraced his theory with an 'open mind'. But I guess it's different to talk about science as it applies logic, and photography is more of art than science, hence logic has no place.
    -As for this competition 'set up by a biased individual and judged in part by another one', any kid who never shot a single frame of film in their lifetime, who knows basic colour tweaking in photo editing software, can participate.
    -Why must it be digital vs film? Why can't you see it with 'open mind' that who best guess the outcome wins?
    -Isn't it simple as that? You formed an opinion that Mauro has a secret agenda to give the digital worst possible 'look'. If that's the case don't you think Mauro should just tweaked the 40D shots first before letting us use them as a starting point?
    -Or Mauro tweaked the film scans so that they look so much better than the digital shots, and whoever that can 'praise the film' better wins?
     
  122. Dave, please participate.
     
  123. Scott and Tony, please do not spoil the thread which is enjoyable and meaningful to other people.
    If you have any questions (on the exercise, shooting details or reference to other threads) I will answer them.

    I always offer the RAWs and mailing the film to anyone interested.

    Your questioning people who have an honest scientific inclination to discover and spend the time sharing, and doubting their integrity is out of line. If you continue this, I will ask photo.net's moderator to intervene. Please do not let that happen and participate with direct experience, questions or opinions - Everyone is here to share and learn.
     
  124. Mauro sent me the raw files and asked me to share them, so I've put them at: http://rapidshare.com/files/450522063/Archive.zip
     
  125. Thank you Andy.
     
  126. That scan is definitely ugly and I never get scans like that. There is definitely a problem somewhere (film or scanner) since you said you are not playing with adjustments just using Nikonscan with auto exposure.
    Mauro, you are so predictable. As Scott said, as soon as anyone posts and example which contradicts you, you say they don't know how to scan properly, produce a good negative, or are using deffective equipment. Ha!
    Anyone with a scanner can easily demonstrate to themselves (if they don't already know) that flatline scans don't work - you must make adjustments during or after the scan to get an useable image. The extent of those adjustments determine the film "look", if such a term has any meaning at all. If you don't know this, you are either very lucky, or have a very short memory. Perhaps you are just playing games with the nubes who don't have a film scanner and little hope of ever getting (or needing) one.
     
  127. Edward, my experience with a low end scanner does somehow matches what you showed (the 'ugly' scan :)). I also found that the different software versions do have a lot of impact on how 'ugly' it looks, with the older version gaining more detail but poor colour. However, as scanning with that scanner is taking too much of my time, I don't even bother to scan now. It's either optical print or let the shop do it.
    I've no experience with Nikonscan so can't comment on whether Mauro being lucky. I guess he is because if he can consistently get good results right out from the box he wastes minimum amount of time adjusting the scanning outputs.
     
  128. Huang,
    I can't emphasize enough the importance of becoming very familiar with a certain emulsion, and how to deal with various subjects and lighting conditions, and subsequently how to achieve the results you need by scanning. It's not easy to get consistent results, but it's not impossible either. That's part of the fun of photography.
    There is an enormous difference between Fuji Reala and Kodak Ektar 100, for example. The scan settings for one simply don't work for the other. Yet with practice you can get good results with either. On the whole, I find digital capture relatively consistent between cameras (I've got a bunch by now), but not necessarily good right off the card. What I end up with is what I want to see, not necessarily what it actually looked like. A lot of things work that way.
     
  129. I'm sorry Mauro but I'm with Edward on this.
    Nikonscan may make some emulsions look good using 'auto' settings, but on others it has no idea what it's doing & renders colors wrong. And that's precisely b/c different negatives render things differently. For crying out loud, even the orange masks vary from roll to roll/brand to brand.
    I use Erik Krause's advanced workflow to adjust R, G, & B individual analog gains to subtract the orange mask, then invert to get a good base file to work off off. This base file looks as bad as, or worse than, Edward's 'thawed' example. And this necessarily has to be the case for negative film, b/c it compresses a large dynamic range into a small one (that's how it can record so many stops of exposure!) -- the only way you can do that is to have a non-linear (typically, though not necessary) response to light that decreases global contrast of the original scene to fit into the dynamic range of the medium. Nikonscan (or what have you) then increases contrast to get you your results; some of us prefer to do this step manually & therefore start with the flat file. I personally prefer to build my own profiles to do this step to bake some color accuracy into the otherwise colorimetrically very inaccurate medium.
    Film scans are what you make of them. This whole 'film look' thing is utter nonsense in the digital age of scanned film. The only area where we can talk about 'film look' is with positives, where one can recreate a colorimetrically & tonally accurate digital representation of what was on the film.
    Rishi
     
  130. On the whole, I find digital capture relatively consistent between cameras (I've got a bunch by now), but not necessarily good right off the card.​
    I don't agree with this statement for JPEGs out of the camera, which vary wildly based on the internal software any camera manufacturer bakes into their cameras; however, you're essentially right when it comes to RAW converters. Why? Because the ACR team literally takes hundreds of cameras, shoots color charts with them, then builds simple profiles to transform the camera's captured RGB values to the spectrophotometrically measured RGB values of the chart under a given illuminant. In certain cases they will tweak these profiles to make more pleasing conversions at the expense of colorimetric accuracy.
    You just can't do this with film. Though any film company initially had to calibrate their film to give reasonable color renditions, it's just an impossible problem to recreate this transformation process (described above for digital RAW converters) 'organically'. Easy to build look up tables that convert one color to another (think: input to output devices in color management) mathematically; much harder to bake that into the chemistry of a film. I really wish someone from Fujifilm or Kodak research could chime in here... But anyway, I think this is why films have their 'looks'; they generally reproduce reasonable colors but the same elements of a scene will have different colors in Velvia 50 underexposed vs. Velvia 50 properly exposed vs. Velvia 50 overexposed vs. Velvia 100F vs. etc. etc...
    Rishi
     
  131. Rishi, as you know I scan hundreds of shots from different films regularly. With just auto exposure focus. I always turn everything else off with the exception of ICE.
    Like I said, after I post the results (or Edward posts his entry), I can mail the film to Edward so he can scan them on he scanner using the Nikon scanner with only auto exposure/focus and with the rest of the settings off. Very simple and interesting cross check.
    Let's wait until he scans the film before issuing opinions since it can be tested quickly.
     
  132. "Nikonscan may make some emulsions look good using 'auto' settings, but on others it has no idea what it's doing & renders colors wrong. And that's precisely b/c different negatives render things differently. For crying out loud, even the orange masks vary from roll to roll/brand to brand."
    Rishi, you are always very technical and fact based so I am noot sure why you would make a statement like this. The Coolscan film holders have a cutout in-between the film frames to measure the unexposed emulsion. This is done every time.
     
  133. Mauro
    I have not questioned your integrity, just asked for these comparisons to be fair or for you to stop using the "Film vs Digital" type titles to these threads. As I have said before, if you use such confrontational titles you will eventually get the sort of slanging match that has started here again. I am quite happy to see a comparison of various media discussed but, as many others have pointed out , you do tend to get pretty defensive and attack other peoples abilities if they question you. I don't quite know why, surely properly presented evidence will prove your point. Again all I have ever asked for, and I think in quite considered terms, is a level playing field in this type of thread. Sadly I think the whole debate has been done to death over many years, no one side will ever win, but they will continue the same old argument for ever if you encourage them. My final point (apart from please don't threaten me with moderators , it's beneath you) is, do you think you will ever change the views of anyone here, and is it really worth all the angst. Just use a different title next time you want to have some fun with film and the whole thing might be a lot more enjoyable!
     
  134. There is clearly a difference in opinion as to how well defined the colors for a negative are. I would suggest that perhaps it would be good to make this a two part competition, the first part as it where the film images are not available and then a second part where we see how well we can make the film shots when viewing the film shots.
    I don't believe that it will be possible to exactly match the film shots but depending on the subject I find I can get pretty close.
    Now here is challenge for Mauro, when you have all the images that people have submitted make 4x6 inch prints of all of them along with the film scans. Give these groups of prints to people who have not seen the images before and see if they can guess which one is the film image.
     
  135. Rishi, you are always very technical and fact based so I am noot sure why you would make a statement like this. The Coolscan film holders have a cutout in-between the film frames to measure the unexposed emulsion. This is done every time.​
    Ok, I'm sorry Mauro, I stand corrected. I forgot about that. However, the point I was trying to make still stands: NikonScan on 'auto settings' often gets things wrong b/c different films have different responses/colors. In fact, this goes along with your whole 'different film looks' concept.
    Look at the characteristic curves of Ektar 100. That's what Ektar 100 does with incoming light. How could NikonScan reverse that to get accurate colorimetry of the original scene? Unlikely. Now those curves are going to vary for different films. So NikonScan just uses some rudimentary algorithm to even out channels (perhaps kind of like 'auto levels' in PS) to give reasonable color.
    The best one can do with a Nikon scanner is to do what you apparently do: turn all auto corrections off & only use auto-exposure (though I keep that constant for every frame in a roll after determining it from the blank mask). Now one should have an accurate representation of the negative film after base color subtraction. But I say 'apparently' in your case above b/c if this is actually what you do, then your incoming scan should look exactly like Edward's. So I'm not sure why you point out his scan as being bad. That's exactly how my scans look prior to adjustment. That's how they have to look b/c, like I said, negative film compresses a wide tonal range into a very narrow one. Therefore the resulting image must have decreased global & local contrast. You tease the contrast back in in post-processing.
     
  136. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    Note from Moderator: The film vs. digital and other arguments of this contest have gone on long enough. All further posts should only consist of contest entries or clarifications concerning this contest. Any further posts solely attacking the validity of the contest or individuals will be deleted. Continued abuse may lead to suspension.
     
  137. Yes Mauro, I will participate. Thanks for your clarification Scott. I'll post some samples later this week.
     
  138. To Scott's proposal "I would suggest that perhaps it would be good to make this a two part competition, the first part as it where the film images are not available and then a second part where we see how well we can make the film shots when viewing the film shots."
    That is a great idea. I am instituting a third price of $50 worth of new film to the person that can best match the films after the results are posted.
    This should be useful to determine the effort involved in recreating a certain pallete on digital while shooting film in parallel. Photoshop's color match can get a photographer 95% there so the challenge will be in finetuning curves, contrast and exposure on the raw side before exporting to PS.
     
  139. Mauro, I am downloading the raw files, but the free account takes a fair bit of time. If you don't have objections I will put the raw files up on my server, where they will down load much faster.
     
  140. Please do so. Thank you for doing that.
     
  141. Mauro I just created my entry, I emailed you the results to upload as I am having difficulty uploading to photo.net. The contest is harder than I thought, I used LR to adjust colors, SilverEffex Pro for the TMAX to show what kind of results a plug in can do and adjusted to my experience with the 2 films. I'm so glad the negative rude comments have been ceased so the contest can be fun and we can all learn something. I also sent Mauro a scan an old Mercury using Tmax 400 in a 40 year old Canon Rangefinder with a tiny lens and scanned on Nikon 9000 with no adjustments cropped at 50%, I love the feel of the picture and have spent hours on end trying to reproduce it digitally with no luck. Others may have have better luck! :) for me as a mostly digital user these threads are great knowledge and in turn have gave me the push to explore film and use is as a side-by side tool in my workflow and personally I love the results I have gotten.
     
  142. Thank you Josh. I received your email and I am posting it shortly.
     
  143. Josh, your entry is posted here:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1200457847_Makh3
     
  144. Mauro, are you keen to create a 'Mauro filter/Mauro colour profile/PN colour profile' in PS? :) I'm thinking of on the permission of the winner, we get his/her methodology and post it somewhere in the net as a guide, albeit being limited to Canon or 40D and nikonscan only. Something like a "40D default jpeg to Velvia, portra, Tmax" conversion.
     
  145. Thanks for the raw files, Mauro and Andy L.

    Some day we can play a reverse game. Here is one interpretation of the image done by post processing the raw file. The transformations, except for cropping, were all by global changes to the luminance and color curves - no brush work, no selection of areas for special treatment. Like designing a film's dyes in a Kodak or Fuji lab if you will.

    The reverse game (certainly not to be conducted in this thread) would be: what film does this treatment look like?

    [​IMG]

    For informational purposes, here is what the raw file looks like as loaded by Picture Window Pro and by Raw Therapee. Even raw developers interpret differently, but it is clear that Canon DPP does not present a raw file. The EXIF data says the camera was set to Contrast +2 and Saturation +2. The color temperature in the EXIF is 5200 K. (PWP calls it 4602 K; this program does the same sort of thing for shots from my camera, too, which is not a Canon.)
    Raw in PWP:

    [​IMG]


    Raw in RT:
    [​IMG]
     
  146. "Mauro, are you keen to create a 'Mauro filter/Mauro colour profile/PN colour profile' in PS?"
    Sure, this is a big endeavor though. Temperature and incidence of light are needed for this. The best effective way to do it would be to create a library of scenarios fed with actual film scans. The user could flip thorough them paired with color match to pic the one that comes closer to the shot environment.
     
  147. Charlie, that looks good. Try to generate the six films and I will add you to the pool of potential winners.
     
  148. Thank you Scott.
     
  149. Edward, I just mailed you a tube that you should receive Saturday morning.
    I included:
    - All the negatives from this exercise.
    - The RAW files and the TIFF exports from the 40D.
    - The direct unadjusted scans.
    - A collage of crops from all the results for comparison.
    - A couple small prints from unadjusted crops for direct on print comparison.
    - I also added some scrap old prints I had in the studio up to 24x36 from 35mm negatives so you can see the results directly.
     
  150. Can we see some results soon Mauro.
     
  151. Stuart, if no one objects, we can accelerate posting the results and begin judging next Friday evening (one week from today).
     
  152. Can I get a Nikon raw file? D200 or above?
     
  153. I think he shot with a Canon 40D....
     
  154. Results will be posted on Friday 11th in the evening. The first part of the contest will close as soon as I post the results.
    Judging will begin then.
     
  155. Results coming tonight... Coinciding with the Ipad2.
     
  156. Here they are. Please feel free to discuss. Judges will begin working now.
    00YNKS-338819684.jpg
     
  157. Dig in for details here:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1213274537_MXUuS-O-LB
     
  158. Here you have a crop sheet you can print at 360 dpi on a letter size sheet for comparison:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1213806875_bSoxT-O-LB
     
  159. So who won the prize and when is the second part?
     
  160. It is tough. I have picked first and second place. I am waiting for Dave Luttmann to post his opinion and we will then come to a consensus.
     
  161. It was hard to judge. The discrepancies are not easy to quantify. Yet overall in color the best renditions go to:
    * 1- Stuart Moxham ---- > XD11 Camera, 50mm lens, $100 worth of film from Amazon
    ** 2- Louis Meluso ---- > $100 worth of film from Amazon
    Honorary mention for B&W processing:
    *** 3- Josh Rienecke---- > $50 worth of film from Amazon
    All winners please post your film selection (try to check on Amazon it adds to the value of the prize) and email me your address where you would like the prizes shipped.
    CONGRATULATIONS!
     
  162. Well done Stuart.
    Mauro, can we have the other film images now so we can do the second part of the competition? Your crop sheet only has the flower images.
    The only thing I find really interesting about the crop sheet, however, is how bad all the films look in comparison to the cleanliness and detail in the 40D image. Horses for courses.
     
  163. I posted the link with the results. If you need more detail I will need an ftp because of the display limit of smugmug.
    Scott you need to print them and evaluate the detail and color gradations. From the prints, film has more detail as well as color subtleties that are not captured by the 40D.
    If you like the digital better that is ok as well. I prefer the film.
     
  164. Here is an 8x10 (360dpi) for you to print.
     
  165. http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1213806875_bSoxT-O-LB
    Here you have all the crops:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Film-and-Digital-Color/16002634_5Eo6Z#1213274537_MXUuS-O-LB
     
  166. Mauro, what was the ISO set at on the 40D, the colour seems a bit more neutral (and natural) on that than on the Velvia which seems a little blue on my screens?
     
  167. The 40D had problems with the reds (left flower) being overly intense and blocked out even with reduced contrast and saturation in RAW.
    The pinks (center flowers) lacked luminosity transition.
    The yellow (bottom right) looks good but the red marks on the petals were washed out.
     
  168. 40D on top
    00YSVD-342349584.jpg
     
  169. The bottom from the above picture was Ektar.
    Below is Portra 400 and Velvia 50.
    00YSVK-342351584.jpg
     
  170. Note DOF on film is shallower when comparing focus.
     
  171. Interesting,
    Are we now going to see Mauro's true colours (pun intended) again? The Ektar 100 is the only medium that rendered the scene with the colours anything like that. All the other films were as different as the Ektar was, i don't believe that Ektar image is a realistic representation of the scene, if it is then the Velvia and the two Portras are well off, my experience is that Portra is a much more accurate colour baseline.
     
  172. When comparing to the scene colors, I'd say they were between Portra and Velvia (closer to Portra with the exception of the red that was muted). Ektar was the farthest from the scene.
    The color gradations, although rendered differently, were best captured by Ektar and then Portra.
    Detail, obviously Tmax 100.
     
  173. Mauro,
    That has to be the most deluded support of film colour rendering ever! So just as I suggested, Portra is the closest to reality and Ektar, although rendered differently (the biggest euphemism ever, you mean totally incorrectly), is a complete joke.
    In what situation could you ever consider colour gradations (at best a questionable opinion anyway) with such dramatically inaccurate colour rendition an advantage?
     
  174. Scott, they are just observations.
    Let me clarify. Ektar colors are over the top (definitely not neutral to reality - it is more of a landscape film IMO) but they are crisply defined. Digital colors are more neutral but they are blocked and smudged.
    Which one to use/prefer is up to the situation and the photographer's intention.
     
  175. Wow I can't believe it. Thanks so much. I thought this thread had dissapeared. Wow I can't wait. For film old school B&W TriX, FP4, Foma, Neopan. I'm quite easy really ISO100-400 is good for me. B&W because I can't develop color at home and old school films as I like the look. I am happy to let you pick the films when you order as I am quite easy as long as it is traditional B&W ISO 100-400 mix.
     
  176. With B&W you don't have to worry about color just nice grey tones. I always tend to end up back where I started which is B&W film.
    I am supprised at why Ektar 100 is a very different color from the rest. I don't know if I like it colors but with scanning it is possible to adjust to taste.
     
  177. Well deserved Stuart.
    Let me know if this selection is to your liking:
    00YSb2-342427884.jpg
     
  178. Yep great selection thanks. Some I have shot and some I have not, that was the idea of letting you choose films now I have some new ones to try out and some old favourites too...
     
  179. Done. Is regular post ok from the US to Findland?
     
  180. Yeah any post you want. I've never sent to or received anything from the US so I don't know how long it will take. I think you might need to mark it as a gift or something but I am not too sure about that anymore... I will have to take photos when the package arrives and make a thread here...
     
  181. Thank you Mauro! My film choices are 1/2 Portra 400, 1/4 Portra 160 and the other 1/4 your pick. Thanks!!
     
  182. Cool.
    Josh, Portra 160 is still like the Ipad 2. I'll do my best to get my hands around it.
     
  183. Looks to me like some of the variability in colors is due to white balance differences. Are all the films balanced to the same temperature rating? What white balance setting did you use for the 40D? The Ektar, for example, just looks like it needs to be warmed up. But I guess if you rigorously did negative mask subtraction & absolutely no auto colors, then maybe that really is the color rendition of Ektar. Which'd be weird. Seems far too blue-shifted.
    Also, Mauro, how'd you manage to blow out the white flowers in the Portra 400 shot? Velvia should blow out well before Portra, no?
    Also, speaking of reds blocking up, ever tried to shoot red tulips with Velvia 50? ;)
    -Rishi
     
  184. All daylight.
    Ektar can always use a warming filter. For this exercise I wanted to show how each film looks without any color adjustment.
    Ektar is the coolest and Velvia is the warmest as expected.
    Regarding the whites at the top left, the were catching a direct reflection of the sun. I believe a small cloud may just have covered that section on the 40D and Velvia - I did not notice until now.
     
  185. Thank You, Mauro. It was fun! I would like 1/3 B&W film 120 Kodak Tmax400, 1/3 New Kodak Portra 400 120, and 1/3 New Kodak Portra
    400 35mm/36exp. Thanks.
     
  186. You are welcome Louis. Pls confirm this is how you would like it:
    00YShe-342537584.jpg
     
  187. Here is something I shot on Portra 400 VC. I tend to adjust to taste.
    00YSle-342605584.jpg
     
  188. Here is another from portra 400 VC
    00YSlm-342611584.jpg
     
  189. Looks great!
     
  190. Very nice. Is that an 85mm lens?
     
  191. This is from last week right before the storm in Savannah. Tmax 400.
    00YSmM-342617584.jpg
     
  192. And moss beat up by the wind.
    00YSmN-342617684.jpg
     
  193. Nikkor 105 2.5 (old sonnar version). I am really pleased with that lens. The real shame was that the store had a 35mm O there as well. I wanted to buy it but never got around to. I even shot some tests on a roll of film but kept putting it off. It was in the shop for two years. I finaly made a decision to go and get it and it was gone. In the end I got the cheap Nikon 35mm F2.5 E it's not super sharp but does quite well.
    I like the B&W shots. Is the Tmax 400 rated at box speed here or have you pushed it? I assume you used xtol. I have yet to try xtol. I do have some D76 ready to mix. It's so old though it is in a tin. Maybe I should just save it and buy some new stuff.
    A bit off topic but here is some APX100 in Rodinal. Shot it with a FED3 and Industar 26. The FED turned out to have holes in the shutter shame as it was real smooth in use. I've plugged them with nail varnish but have yet to shoot another roll in it.
    00YSoP-342641684.jpg
     
  194. Wish photonet would let us do 1000px wide image uploads.
     
  195. The 105 kens is great, I also prefer aprox 100mm for portraits than 85mm.
    Larger pics would be great... I posted them larger for you here if you want to check them out:
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Only-TMAX/15377450_94phW#1229610285_Uzc2H-O-LB
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Only-TMAX/15377450_94phW#1229538150_cBaiL-O-LB
    Used Xtol 1:1 pushed. It was overcast so I was able to push it to get the drama you only get with pushed TMAX 400 without fearing to blow the high density areas.
    I like how TMAX 400 looks pushed a couple stops. Xtol itself is awesome in my opinion and it is somewhat like a superhero with TMAX.
     
  196. Look at how the palm leaves on top where the sun was hitting turned almost metalic looking:
    00YSpN-342657584.jpg
     
  197. And the bottom that had clouds and shade over it look harmonious:
    00YSpR-342657684.jpg
     
  198. It's quite dramatic the metalic effect of the leaves. Like the larger versions they have more impact on the viewer.
     
  199. Interesting.
    The only thing I find dramatic about it is how badly it performed in the dynamic range, you have substantial and severe blocking with zero detail in the shadow and the highlights, this is not due to jpeg compression either as that can be set to just block up tonality whilst preserving the highs and lows. Similarly the grain and focus are so detrimental it is difficult to work out which is which in many areas.
    I know i am not welcome on these threads, but the more I look at them the more I realise we are talking about two completely different things.
    00YSq2-342661684.jpg
     
  200. You are welcome if you have honest questions you are looking to answer.
    Dynamic range is actually great. I did some clipping intentionally for my printing. The sky was a featureless white cloud in real life. If you want to check the DR prior clipping use a flat file.
    00YSqX-342669584.jpg
     
  201. Looks normal to me. You do expect some shadow loss when pushing, but I thought it was pretty clear that the high contrast version was done that way deliberately in post.
     
  202. Thanks Andy.
    Scott, also current B&W films are so smooth that actually trying to get an intentional hint of grain on a print even with just 35mm requires tons of work and lots of pushing.
     
  203. Scott, here is a crop from a similar vantage point I too with my Mamiya 7II and TMAX 100. You can see the difference. I deliberately chose the 35mm TMAX 400 pushed for the print because that look would be impossible to get from 6x7.
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Mamiya-7II-Pushed-TMAX-400/11732163_tSzxF#1230172751_hC9zr-O-LB
    (large file)
     
  204. Here is some Tmax 400 in HC110. It is the latest Tmax400..
    00YSsX-342697584.jpg
     
  205. Wow, Mauro, your MF scans seriously make me want to buy a MF system. Looks like that's a 30MP scan -- you can get up to 60MP using the LS-9000 @4000dpi, no? That scan is just gorgeous. 30MP of gorgeous. With a little bit of unsharp mask, it's tack sharp. Nice DR also. Funny that people report the 5D MII beating MF...
    Again, I'm surprised at how good focus you get across the frame (only a small fall-off at edges) without wet-mounting on your LS-9000!
    I just can't get around the entry price for MF. Plus you have to add the price of the scanner & the film. It just seems like a rich hobbyist's tool to me at this point... let me know if you know of cheaper entry options. I have to say tho that I like AF & the SLR style where I see the actual image (w/ DOF preview, etc.).
    -Rishi
     
  206. Rishi,
    Which bit of which scan are you seeing as tack sharp? Seriously, I think we are looking at different things here.
     
  207. Scott,
    Mauro's TMAX 100 shot, linked here.
    That's a gorgeous scan. And he hasn't even started to resolve the film grain so there's likely a lot more information in there that could be extracted from a 4000dpi scan.
    With some unsharp mask, it's even better (given that it's clean to begin with). Have you seen unsharpened data from a dSLR? It's certainly not any better than Mauro's scan above &, most of the time, worse. Though I don't know if Mauro's already applied sharpening or not.
    Not that this is at all surprising. A 69mm x 70mm piece of Velvia 50 film should give ~125MP of information for high contrast subjects.
    -Rishi
     
  208. Rishi,
    "Have you seen unsharpened data from a dSLR?"
    Yes, countless times, and if it wasn't considerably better than that scan then I wouldn't have moved almost exclusively to digital! There is nothing in that scan that makes me miss film one iota. All looking at it does is remind me why I only wet printed from film.
     
  209. yes Rishi, a MF scan has more detail that I can print on my Epson 7880 at 24x32.
    Cost wise I thought of the scanner like a one time DSLR purchase many years ago that never needs upgrading. Not too bad.
     
  210. Seriously Scott, if you don't like this discussion, just don't read it. You've already said you don't shoot film and aren't interested in it, so I'm not sure why you're reading this at all considering where it's posted - all I ever see of you on this board is when you pop up to disagree with something Mauro said. Mauro's just been very generous with the prizes and I find it terribly inappropriate to troll his thread. Don't you have some raw files you could be writing about on the Canon board or something?
     
  211. Yes, your normal version Mauro clearly shows the range & latitude of the B&W film. Scott, might I suggest a digital forum for you? It would be welcome if the mods blocked you access to the film forums. Your posts have become repetative, tired & whiny. If you don't like the look of film, don't use it, and save yourself the aggrivation in posting about it. You obviously find it a horrendous inaccurate medium. Lucky for you, digital capture is available.
     
  212. Scott,
    Interesting. I've looked at countless 5D shots w/ L-series lenses at apertures of f/11-f/16 to ensure good DOF but not so small as to introduce diffraction-induced softness. With a setting of 0 in ACR for sharpness (not the default 25), they don't look any sharper than Mauro's scan above at 100%. They still look good & clean, yes, but certainly not sharper than that scan of MF film.
    I guess I could post a 100% side-by-side crop here, but it wouldn't be objective enough to convince anyone of anything.
    Besides, there's no objective reason that one should be sharper than the other b/c Mauro's scan is at 50% of the scanner's resolution capability, & at a 30MP scan, only at 24% of the film's capable resolution (160 lines per mm, as per Fuji's own rating which Mauro & I determined years ago to be rather conservative). So with the proper downsizing algorithm, there should be virtually no softness in this scan; with image data, not film grain, dominating the information at this resolution.
    And since it's clean (read: no film grain), it's just as amenable to sharpening as digital. So based on how you sharpen, one could be made to look just as sharp as, or sharper than, the other.
    So arguments about sharpness at this point are subjective.
    What's not subjective, however, is the simple fact that 6x7 film will out-resolve today's 35mm digital sensor by a large margin (Mauro shot resolution test charts & I myself looked at one of his pieces of film under a light microscope & 35mm Velvia resolved up to 24MP). I sincerely hope that changes in the future, b/c I find film far too cumbersome & moody (I shoot slides alongside digital). But that doesn't mean I fail to recognize its potential...
    Cheers,
    Rishi
     
  213. I just can't get around the entry price for MF. Plus you have to add the price of the scanner & the film.​
    It's the scanner that's the killer ain't it, and it's really too bad. The camera and optics is cheap; the film (if you do B&W) is maybe $0.50/frame of 6x7.
    I bought my Nikon 9000 just prior to discontinuation. I'm glad that I bought it then, but it doesn't make sense at current prices. That will be the the end of film.
     
  214. With no good replacement for the Coolscan the quality of photographs newcomers will be able to produce will be crippled. Sad.
     
  215. What's not subjective, however, is the simple fact that 6x7 film will out-resolve today's 35mm digital sensor by a large margin (Mauro shot resolution test charts & I myself looked at one of his pieces of film under a light microscope & 35mm Velvia resolved up to 24MP).​
    I would love to see these claims verified by someone with no axe to grind in either camp. I've seen prints from 8 MP cameras that out-resolve any of the tens of thousands of 35 mm slides I've taken over the years, or the hundreds that I've had scanned and printed professionally. Are my anecdotal tests inferior to yours? And how exactly does one measure MP with a microscope?
    I still have boxes of Velvia in 135. I keep looking for a reason not to toss it into the trash. I take a roll out from time to time in order to run some exposure exercises, but beyond that, I haven't much use for the stuff anymore. 6x7, yes, that gives decent results, although I have demonstrated in this very forum that a 21 MP camera provides equal resolution in a more convenient package. 4x5 is still a delight to shoot and view on the lightbox (but killer expensive to scan properly); I plan to shoot boxes of it when the flowers start popping out. But 135 film has little utility in today's world.
     
  216. Andy, Dave,
    Remember the title of the thread? Film vs Digital, so this is a "discussion" only open to film users? Of which I am one anyway! I shoot 135 digital and 6x9 film. If you don't like the tone of film vs digital threads then you are also free to not involve yourself in them.
    Rishi,
    As Dave says, your opinion on resolution is very far from indisputable fact, I, and Dave, and many other film and digital users have not found that to be the case. I am being vilified for questioning Mauro's methodology and results and the comments he puts next to them. However on detailed examination on occasions his methodology and comments have been questionable. For instance, what possible positive could you take from that sunlight image from the Ektar 100 image? I would say none, but he cheerfully proclaims the tonality is more accurate! His 40D resolution images are always far from the results others can get with the same camera, or more importantly, more recent, larger sensored, higher resolution digital cameras.
    This is not a personal attack on Mauro, it is just a simple questioning of his opinions of his results from his various film vs digital threads.
    How is that wrong or inappropriate?
     
  217. Yes, countless times, and if it wasn't considerably better than that scan then I wouldn't have moved almost exclusively to digital! There is nothing in that scan that makes me miss film one iota. All looking at it does is remind me why I only wet printed from film.​
    Sounds past tense to me. It doesn't address my point that all you ever do on this board is argue with Mauro, or the fact that you're the only one still making this a "film vs. digital" thing while the rest have moved on. You're going beyond simple debate by arguing with Mauro every time he posts anything about film that makes the stuff seem desirable.
    The rest of us read the film board because we are interested in discussing shooting film. You read it because you are interested in arguing about film vs. digital. Prove that you can be constructive by doing something other than argue, or go process your raw files and stitch your panos on another board.
     
  218. Andy,
    If I find my need to use film more infrequent nowadays than previously, is that not relevant in a film vs digital thread? If I find inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the results being proclaimed as facts am I not entitled to point that out? I post in the film vs digital threads, whatever forum, why do you think only pure film users should be allowed to air their opinions in such threads? If I find the results from one camera match the results from a 6x7 camera am I not entitled to point that out? Why is it that when questioned about methodology and results you guys repeatedly try to get me banned?
    I use film, I have used huge quantities of it over the last 34 years that I have been paid to take images, occasionally I still use it. There is no excuse or reason needed to use either film or digital other than "I want to", or "I like it better" and to those posters I never take issue. Anybody that can't remember the buzz from their first B&W print coming onto the paper in the developer tray, or the utter excitement of seeing their first MF chromes on a light table has missed out on a huge chunk of what I feel from photography. What I do take issue with however is people so entrenched in their opinions that say "you can't do this with this medium", or "this is better than that at doing this", invariably they are wrong. Can you get clean grain free images from film use? Absolutely, yes. Can you get film "like" images from digital cameras? Again, absolutely you can. Can you print high quality 12x18+ images from a 135 format digital camera? Of course you can.
    You feel I have picked on Mauro? Yet he is the one who repeatedly makes film vs digital threads. The main issue I have with his work is that whilst he is obviously very skilled at scanning MF film, he has proven on many threads to be far from as competent in his digital camera work, and often, when offering "comparisons", they have been in unequal situations that strongly favour the film images. These are points for discussion, not vilification or banning!
    You say the thread has moved on, I moved with it. A B&W image was posted that was used as an example of superlative film tonality, why was I wrong to point out that it was a blocked up mess? This is a forum!
    When Sebastião Salgado switched from MF film to a Canon 1Ds MkIII and then a 5D MkII, during his Genesis project, he was very particular that the digital work replicated "the look" of the MF film images he already had. Even to the most discerning of his highly critical team, they were matched. If scrupulous examination by such successful imaging professionals can't tell the difference between MF film images and images from a high resolution 135 format digital camera, am I wrong to point that out?
    If you want to use film, because you want to, great, same for digital, just don't try and hold either up on a pedestal.
     
  219. I would love to see these claims verified by someone with no axe to grind in either camp. I've seen prints from 8 MP cameras that out-resolve any of the tens of thousands of 35 mm slides I've taken over the years, or the hundreds that I've had scanned and printed professionally. Are my anecdotal tests inferior to yours? And how exactly does one measure MP with a microscope?
    There are huge variables at play. One of the most critical yet often over looked factors is that film's resolution depends upon the contrast of the detail being resolved. The resolution of digital sensors varies much less with detail contrast. So 35mm Velvia 50 might out resolve a particular DSLR when shooting a B&W line chart, but not when shooting a real landscape.
    Pixel peeping a test chart or studying a slide under a microscope also emphasizes small differences in detail which are completely missed in a real print. Resolution at MTF10 is most important when counting line pairs under pixel peeping conditions. But in a real print the resolution at MTF50 is much more important to the viewer's perception and enjoyment.
    Now add in all the other massive variables: lenses, technique, subject matter, lighting, scanning equipment, film flatness, RAW converters, post processing choices, printers, etc. It's easy to see how personal results can be all over the place.
    I've gotten into long discussions about this before on photo.net, complete with endlessly studied and debated samples. In my opinion 35mm Velvia 50 on an Imacon is roughly equivalent to 16-18 MP processed using ACR on high contrast detail, and falls somewhere between 12-15 MP on low contrast detail. (Note that I listed scanner and RAW converter as they are very significant.) Velvia is the best color emulsion available today by a significant margin when it comes to resolution. I would rank just about everything else considerably lower, at least in 35mm size.
     
  220. Looking at Mauro's crops...
    * I don't think anything gave an ideal rendition of the scenes.
    * The 40D did OK with all of the scenes. Velvia 50 did OK with the sunlit flowers but completely blew the studio shots. Ektar gave a weird rendition of the sunlit flowers but did OK in the studio. (Which surprises me. I would have expected the opposite.) Portra is too cyan across the board.
    * TMAX was excessively contrasty for the sunlit scene and even for the portrait (the shirt).
    That leaves me with the following question which may throw fuel on the thread: what is the purpose in trying to match the digital shot to any of the film shots given that none of them gave a particularly pleasing or ideal rendering of the scenes?
    Finally seeing the full set of crops just reminded me of how lucky we are to live in the digital age regardless of whether our shots start on film or digital. We have incredibly precise control over color, tone, and contrast in our images. More control in color than even expert darkroom printers had with B&W in the past. I don't know about any of you, but I have become spoiled by this because looking at any of the crops I can't help but think "this can be improved with some PS work."
    Great color rendition, or great B&W rendition, does not usually come from a particular film or film in general as opposed to digital. (Though sometimes you get lucky and the scene seems to magically match the response characteristics of whatever you're using.) It comes from the work of the photographer in lighting; film choice and color filtration when film is being used; RAW conversion when digital is being used; and final post work before or during printing, which can sometimes be extensive whether it's done digitally or in the darkroom. Digital just affords more freedom and precision, even if you're starting with film as you can scan and then have access to most of the available digital tools. (I say most because RAW converters can do some things that are near impossible to duplicate with PS alone, namely in color temperature and tint.)
    Maybe a better contest would be to photograph 3 interesting scenes and ask everyone to submit their most pleasing or creative renditions from the RAW or film samples.
     
  221. Very good points Daniel. I agree with your resolution assessments of Velvia 50 film scanned on an Imacon. Actually for low contrast (1:1.6) material, Fuji themselves rate Velvia 50 to resolve ~5.5MP of information for a 35mm frame of film. So Fuji Velvia's resolution translated to megapixel count using Fuji's own ratings leads to a resolution of anything from 5.5MP (low contrast) to 22MP (high contrast).
    Interestingly enough, there was a study done quoted in 'Basic Photographic Materials & Processes' where they sent the same piece of film shot of a resolution test chart to 6 different companies & had them assess the limiting resolution in lines/mm. There was a variance of up to 23% in reported resolution for high contrast targets & up to 40% in reported resolution of low contrast targets (p. 269, 2nd edition).
    Hence, as Daniel pointed, there are many sources of variance in personal evaluation. A considerable amount of subjectivity is inevitable. Furthermore, you have to use a really good scanner (IMHO an Imacon or a LS-9000 or Minolta DSE 5400 w/ some modifications). I'm not even gonna mention drum scanning b/c it's too cost prohibitive.
    Scott Ferris, FYI, the way you get MP ratings for film is by assuming that a line pair resolved is the equivalent of 2 pixels resolved. Hence, if you take Fuji's rating of 160 lines/mm resolved by Velvia film for high contrast subjects, & you take the dimensions of the film (24mm x 36mm), you get:
    [160x24] x [160x36] = 22,118,400.
    Or, 22 megapixels.
    If you look at my scan of one of Mauro's test shots of a target on Velvia 50 film, you can see that lines are resolved down to about 4.25 on my Imacon 848 scan (full resolution file here):
    [​IMG]
    Note these images are shown at 400% for clarity.
    I actually think I'm being somewhat unforgiving by saying the limiting resolution here is 4.25... in fact, viewed under a light microscope, I can clearly see the lines resolved down to 4.75. But let's just stick with 4.25 for argument's sake.
    The value read out multiplied by 100 gives you the lines resolved per picture height. The height of this picture is only 1/8.6 the height of the full shot (measure it in Photoshop if you don't believe me... here's the full shot).
    Hence, we have:
    [4.25 x 100 x 8.6] = 3655
    Since 35mm Velvia has a 3:2 aspect ratio, our megapixel equivalent is:
    3655 x 3655x1.5 = 20,038,538
    Or 20MP.
    Let's compare that to the same target shot on a Canon 5D Mark II by dpreview (view full-resolution file here):
    [​IMG]
    Note that the above is shown at 200% for clarity.
    Dpreview shoots these charts so the full picture takes up the full vertical field of view, so we just multiply the limiting number by 100 to get the number of pixels resolved along that axis. I'm gonna say we can resolve the lines down to 35.5. So here's our calculation:
    [35.5x100] x [35.5x100]*1.5 = 18,903,750
    Or 18.9MP. I'd imagine color resolution for certain colors might be worse.
    So if you're asking why I think 6x7 film will clearly out-resolve any 35mm digital sensor of today, there's your answer. Because here even 35mm film out-resolves a Canon 5D Mark II. You may think the digital shot looks better, but that may be because of acutance... but that's a whole 'nother subject. Suffice it to say, though, that I'd probably agree with you that a real-world 24x36 print from a 5D Mark II would look better than the same print from meticulously scanned 35mm Velvia. Because of the low noise & the less gradual fall-off in faithful reproduction of contrast.
    Now what'd be interesting would be to re-perform these tests with test charts of varying contrast. Because there I believe the 5D Mark II would come out ahead of 35mm film b/c of exactly what Daniel mentioned: digital has a sharper fall off than film (you can see it in the test charts above).
    So what I'm saying is: Scott, you may not be wrong. In your experience, given your scanning methods & the contrast of your subjects, you may very well find digital to outperform film. But don't fail to recognize the potential of any one format when pushed :)
    Daniel, or anyone, what's the easiest way for me to measure the actual contrast of my printed test chart under my lighting conditions? And when Fuji quotes Velvia to have a resolution of 160 lines/mm at a contrast of 1:1000, are they really talking about 10 stops difference between black & white? I'd imagine my reflective print under halogen lighting would have much less contrast than that... I imagine that if I printed a huge patch of black vs white on my printer then held it up under my halogen lighting then took spot meter readings I could get the exact contrast?
    Cheers,
    Rishi
    P.S. Credit goes to Mauro for taking these shots on film & mailing them to me. Though Mauro may start some flame wars by using the term 'film vs. digital', at least he's always willing to provide the raw images to whomever may ask. I really applaud him for that; he's not scared to back up his claims with hard evidence. That being said, Mauro sometimes I do find you to over-exaggerate some of your claims... your initial measurements of the resolution of this film shot scanned in on your LS-9000 was helped by some ridiculous over-sharpening :) But you were in the general ballpark!
     
  222. I bought my Nikon 9000 just prior to discontinuation. I'm glad that I bought it then, but it doesn't make sense at current prices.That will be the the end of film.​
    Any electrical engineers here that want to get together & build a new scanner? I've got some software devs here in Seattle I could pull in on the project, I've done extensive research on materials to flatten film (no wet-mounting please) & some methods to enhance the resolution of scans using current lower-tech linear CCDs, as well as some ways to increase Dmax detail for slides, and some methods to compress the tonal range of negative scans to avoid the ever-so-present 'washed out' look of over-exposed negative regions... I bet if we could make a 35mm & MF scanner that is actually user-friendly, introduces no film curvature-based softness, is high-enough res to extract all the detail out of even MF, & maintains color accuracy by use of custom profiles, there would be a market for it.
    I would argue that one of the reasons these $1k to $2k scanners failed in the market (besides the advent of digital) is because they were so user unfriendly & yielded so vastly different results, ranging from poor to great, in the hands of different users (just search photo.net for all the threads over the years!).
    In the digital age, though, there's even *more* of a need to digitize those stocks of film we have lying around. And it's just sad that for quality we have to buy a $13k Imacon scanner, or rent time on it for $60/hour, or get drums scans at $60 a scan.
    The success of such a project would, of course, depend on the price point of the scanner. But if Plustek can sell their POS scanners for $500... I know that I or a number of us on these threads could design a much, much better scanner.
    Just a thought/dream I've been toying with for a while but finding interested/qualified/motivated folks & the capital is hard when you're pitching a product meant to serve a market of diminishing returns :) I still think there's a need for it though simply based on the forum posts that pop up here on photo.net every week re: 'the best way to digitize my film'... right now, there hardly is a way at a reasonable cost/effort (unless you've got yourself a LS-9000 with glass holder). I revamped the optics in my Minolta DSE 5400 & built an entirely new holder for it & now finally get scans I could compare to one of the newer Imacons (which are just ridiculously priced). But that was a lot of work/innovation that your average Joe does not want to spend time doing.
    Film users: would you be interested in such a product?
    Cheers,
    Rishi
     
  223. I should probably say that Plustek had the right idea in their 7600Ai model, just poor execution.
    For example, good ideas: including an IT8 target & offering multi-exposure for enhanced dynamic range (though, ironically, they say this helps most with negatives... and I quote: "A recent review indicates that Plustek film scanner’s performance to show the shadow details is remarkable, especially in scanning color negatives."... that's not at all what Mark Segal was trying to say if you read the actual review... Dmax is the highlights in negatives, LOL, and it's Velvia's Dmax that is the beast that needs to be tamed).
    So, I was saying: they had the right idea, but poor execution. The multi-exposure barely helps, fixed-focus and lack of film-flattening methods ensures no edge-to-edge sharpness (imagine buying a dSLR where 10-20% of your edges were all out of focus!), & the light source doesn't help with film's inherent defects (enter the work of Erik de G!). Not to mention the (real, not quoted) resolution is sub-Nikon's resolution, and so resolution-wise we have:
    Plustek < Nikon << Minolta DSE 5400 << Imacon
    And let's not even get into the shadow detail one can see within Dmax regions of Velvia under a light microscope...
    I don't see why we should be stepping backward in technology as we move forward in time...
    Rishi
     
  224. In the digital age, though, there's even *more* of a need to digitize those stocks of film we have lying around.​
    There might be more of a desire to scan them but is there really a need?
     
  225. Put another way, here's a glaring example of why people may not see the potential of film. Let's compare the resolution of a 35mm scan using a Nikon LS-5000 vs Imacon 848 (same piece of film):
    [​IMG]
    Link to Full-Size Image (Images shown at 400% for clarity)
    I've already shown above that the Imacon scan shows ~20MP of information from this 35mm frame of Velvia 50.
    The Nikon scan seems to resolve down to about 3.0 by my eye (it resolves a little more along the stepper axis, but I think it's more fair to take the worse of the results). Doing the same math as before:
    [3x100x8.6] x [3x100x8.6]*1.5 = 9,984,600
    Or about 10MP, half the resolution of the Imacon scan (which still doesn't resolve everything on the film when compared to a light microscope).
    That's a pretty large difference (compare a 10MP dSLR vs a 20MP dSLR...). And that shows the underperformance of a LS-5000, regarded as one of the best 35mm scanners amongst some folk. That Nikon scan was also the best of a number of focus attempts, using film-flattening techniques. Imagine the results with even lesser scanners or worse technique.
    -Rishi
    P.S. Steve: ok, sure, 'desire' not 'need'.
     
  226. I doubt it will come close to a Nikon 9000, but maybe better then a flatbed.
    I see its optical resolution is 3200 dpi, which tells me it is not going for the high end. But if it is sharp at 3200 dpi then it could do fairly well with MF.
     
  227. We'll have to wait and see on this one Scott. I used to get incredible results from my old Imacon 343 at 3200ppi. I agree that if the optics are sharp, 3200 should be enough for my 6x7 frames. That's a 29x36 at 240ppi on print.....or 13x19 from 35mm film.
     
  228. Interesting. Thanks for the link Dave. But, honestly, Nikon optics were supposed to be sharp & still couldn't resolve half the detail in the film at 4000dpi. The Imacons resolve so much b/c they have good optics & a huge enlargement factor (& correspondingly a large CCD). Looking at the form factor, I doubt they have much enlargement going on & therefore 3200dpi doesn't inspire much confidence... Neither does 3.6 Dmax.
    Furthermore, I don't see one innovative thing about the scanner listed on that site. But at least it's nice to know apparently there's enough of a market that people are still coming out with these things.
    I eagerly await the tests on this unit...
    Rishi
     
  229. Rishi,
    I didn't ask "Scott Ferris, FYI, the way you get MP ratings for film is......" . Dan South did say "And how exactly does one measure MP with a microscope?"
    Now if you look at my posting history you will find that I have always been against home scanning film captures, the probability of image quality lose is too great. That is one of the many problems with using film nowadays, realising its potential in a digital world. Using your Nikon scanners, that get more expensive on eBay than they were new by a long way, you are losing any theoretical advantage the film might have in the first place. For prints up to 20" I have said many times wet prints from film are the best thing to do, otherwise you are better off shooting native digital. For prints above 24" the problems of enlarger lenses and paper handling start to become apparent, unless you have a very well equipped darkroom and a lot of skill wet prints over 24" are disproportionately difficult and expensive, as are enlargers for 6x7 and 6x9 negs. On the other hand digital prints of any size are comparatively easy, cheap and consistent.
    So your theoretical film resolution advantage can only be realised if you wet print or you use a $13,000 scanner. In this day and age of digital printing even film captures that doesn't seem like much of an advantage. It is like saying my car has a top speed of 200mph but is governed to 155mph. Your car has a top speed of 155. For considerably less than the Imacon scanner you could buy a new Pentax 645D, or have your choice of many used Hasselblad digital systems.
    Despite all that, from my experiences of pro printers printing my images, my 20"x30" 135 digital prints outperform the same ones done wet with Velvia 50, maybe it is the pro printers I have used, though they have the highest reputations, but they just look better. My best selling print, by the way, is a 20x30 image I captured on 135 format Velvia 50.
    If there was a scanner market, the companies that are geared up to exploit it would. They have the hardware and software in other products, it would not be hard, they just don't see the market.
    But my real interest in the thread, the reason I am so bloody minded has been asked very eloquently by Daniel.
    "what is the purpose in trying to match the digital shot to any of the film shots given that none of them gave a particularly pleasing or ideal rendering of the scenes?"
    That is my biggest issue with film, if you are going to digitise it anyway then save a step and capture it digitally. And, few would argue that digital post processing gives such superior control it has far superseded anything that was possible in the darkroom and adds so much quality to the final result it is, effectively, necessary.
     
  230. DLT, good points about the many variables. One important note is that the lenses that I am using today to shoot
    digital full frame are much sharper than the lenses that I had at my disposal when shooting most of my 35 mm slides.
    Lens quality cannot be overlooked in such comparisons.
     
  231. Rishi, I added the scan of the same film with my Coolscan 9000.
    00YTJa-343079584.jpg
     
  232. Trying again. The scan I added is from my 9000 using the glass holder.
    00YTJf-343081684.jpg
     
  233. Sorry Scott, my bad. Hopefully Dan South finds the explanation satisfactory.
    Also, I pretty much agree on most of your points.
    "If there was a scanner market, the companies that are geared up to exploit it would. They have the hardware and software in other products, it would not be hard, they just don't see the market."​
    I would argue though that Nikon, Minolta & Canon all dropped the ball on their film scanners by not providing Imacon-like quality at a reasonable price-point (& even then, only the newer Imacons provide acceptable scans IMHO opinion b/c up to the 848, the harsh light source accentuated pepper grain far too much to get good enlargements). The LS-9000 came the closest with their innovative diffuser & glass holders (which IMHO only worked to modest effect). But didn't cut it in terms of resolution (you can see this in the simple fact that the stepper motor axis has higher resolution than the CCD axis... less a problem on the Minolta DSE 5400 or the Imacon). Better quality/reasonably priced scanners would've given film a little longer life.
    And Scott, yeah I agree that's a good question. The really interesting question to me is whether or not film actually captures more color information than digital (given its broader absorption peaks compared to transmissive spectra of bayer pattern filters).
    Has this ever been accurately assessed/answered? I can think of a couple ways to try the experiment...
    Rishi
     
  234. Yeah but Mauro you did some extensive processing to that scan to get it to look like that... which is fine, it's just that most images you can't treat that harshly. That's why I was conservative and gave the Nikon LS-5000 only a resolving capability of '3' on that chart. Although I'll admit I think the LS-9000 has higher resolution than the LS-4000/5000, perhaps b/c of better optics or a larger enlargement factor/CCD? I don't know.
    To be clear, I had to perform an unsharp mask of +168, employ NeatImage to reduce noise, then boost contrast 60% to get an image that looks like your LS-9000 scan (qualitatively), shown below:
    [​IMG]
    Full-Resolution File
    With that kind of enhancement, my Minolta DSE 5400 resolves as much as the Imacon. I don't buy it simply b/c you can't do this kind of enhancement to normal images.
    Also, you have considerably more resolution along your stepper motor axis than your CCD axis (I know you know this)... this is less of an issue with the Minolta, and almost a non-issue with the Imacon (which makes sense, since the latter have increasingly higher resolution linear CCDs).
    -Rishi
     
  235. Seriously Mauro, your last post is really misleading. My Imacon scan was not sharpened/enhanced like your LS-9000 scan... it's just not a fair comparison.
     
  236. Rishi, you are correct on the direction too. My Coolscan resolves 3900 dpi along with the motor and 3650 across the sensor. A sensor upgrade could have realized some gains.
    To your point of building dedicated scanners, I can help the project with engineering and financing but the effort may be better spent financing/lobbying with Nikon for additional production. I thought about approaching them but I can never get the time.
     
  237. Sorry, I always apply sharpening to measure resolution. It makes it easier for me to evaluate.
    Both the Imacon and the Minolta resolve the film almost completely. The Coolscan leaves detail unresolved.
     
  238. We should think about it. There are ways around a sensor upgrade than can still yield an increase in resolution. Perhaps trying a proof of principle & then approaching a company would be more reasonable. At any rate, I think those of us passionate about film owe it to ourselves (& others) to try. Thanks for the (preliminary) support. I'll try & get back to some experimenting & shopping around of some of my ideas in my 'free time'. Are you an engineer by trade?
     
  239. I have a bachelors in Engineering, a Master in Engineering and an MBA in Finance.
    (Industrial)
     
  240. And that misleading representation is the reason Mauro and I have had such heated threads and the reason people think I am a digital zealot and pick on him, he too often presents excellent work in stupidly, and unnecessarily, misleading ways.
    I have seen him do just as drastic disservices to native digital captures from both his 40D and a 5D MkII. I feel it is a shame and try to point the inconsistencies out.
    I did a lot of work on film scanning and digital workflows in 2002-2004, I was investing in AF gear for the first time and wanted to know if I should get a 1Ds or two 1VHS's, I got the two film cameras. At the time very high quality wet prints were still easy to get and the time commitment to anything digital was ridiculous. But time moved on, with the goalposts, and one of those $2,000 film cameras ended up with less than 100 rolls through it. You are 100% right in saying the scanner manufacturers dropped a ball, and that did have a big effect on film use, if scanner technology and software had even approached digital camera technology I am pretty sure I'd still be shooting those 1V's instead of using them as bookends. Maybe that was Canon and NIkons plan......
     
  241. Dan, your point is always true form me. Some of my film 15 years ago was shot with a consumer level zoom (sometimes even kit lenses). Over time my lens collection grew and so did the contrast and detail of many shots.
     
  242. And I have a large stomach and had lentil patties for dinner (non industrial)!
     
  243. The Coolscan 9000, in my opinion was close to perfect for $2,000.
    It just needed a few more years of R&D and upgrades and it could have been scanning 6,000 dpi in half the time with roll feed. Timing was against it.
     
  244. The Minolta DSE 5400 is really a feat of engineering. Just the optical module itself is beautifully done, from the collimators to the strip of IR LEDs... 'grain dissolver' is weak at best though, & depth of focus is just as dismal as the LS-4000 though. Some good ideas... just not good enough.
    For the record though, there's more of a dropoff in contrast at the limiting resolutions with the Minolta in comparison to the Imacon, meaning that the Minolta could still benefit from an increase in resolving power. So could the Imacon, given the contrast I see with my eye on the film under a light microscope at 4.75.
    BTW, does anyone know how the diffuser in the LS-9000 works?
     
  245. I didn't understand the lentil patties comment but I can give you a good offer for your 1Vs if they are in like new condition.
     
  246. I'm afraid to open my scanner to see since they are sort of scarce.
     
  247. Scott, as far as I've read I, for one, think your input is valuable. I like dissent b/c it either re-affirms one's own opinion or forces one to look at it from a different angle & learn.
    Good point with the 'maybe it was Nikon & Canon's plan...' :)
    Another gripe I have with Imacons & drum scanners: because they roll the film around a drum, geometric distortions unique to each frame (depending on the exact alignment of the film) make it darn near impossible to stitch 3 bracketed shots together into a HDR because alignment software can only correct for translation & rotation, not complex geometric distortion... trust me I've tried. The same 3 frames of film scanned on a Minolta/Nikon? No problems with alignment. Just problems with edge-to-edge sharpness due to film flatness problems (unless I break out the holder I built for my Minolta).
    Still, given the choice, most of the time I'd shoot digital b/c of the convenience & b/c of the enhanced latitude in comparison to slides (I just don't like negatives b/c of the increase in noise once you decompress the tonal range that was compressed into the limited tonal range of the negative... though maybe I should give it another try b/c of its latitude).
    However, if there were a desktop scanner that were as high-res as an Imacon, didn't show pepper grain, held film flat for edge-to-edge sharpness (I'm talking the kind of edge-to-edge sharpness you get out of a dSLR!), & really saw into the shadows of Dmax regions of Velvia, then, yeah I'd be much more enthusiastic about shooting Velvia. Right now I shoot it more as a novelty & rely on my 5D for the heavy lifting (well that's a lie: I'm waiting for my 5D to be fixed... shorted it in the rains/waterfalls of Oregon).
    Rishi
     
  248. Mauro,
    "I can give you a good offer for your 1Vs if they are in like new condition."
    Thanks but I couldn't, hand on heart, describe either of them as in like new condition! The low count one is close but spent a few years, even when I went mainly digital, being a fallback to familiarity backup camera. Still got all the boxes, paperwork, instructions and receipts somewhere, I think they are in a loft in England!
    Rishi,
    Thanks for the acceptance, and the intelligent and unemotional but authoritative input. Shame we couldn't cull the first hundred or so comments in the thread down to this last bit. Interesting point about drum scans and HDR, another factor I had not encountered having never relied on scans.
    If we are not on exactly the same page, we are definitely on the same chapter and reading the same book. I would almost certainly buy a good reasonably priced desktop scanner that worked and that realised the true potential of my 135 film, I'd pay good money for it if it went up to my 6x9 as well. My first half a dozen or so digital weddings I took a full compliment of film bodies and stock to use as backup, I enjoyed using them side by side.
     
  249. Yeah I kinda stopped reading this thread somewhere in the beginning b/c I had initially entered it under the impression that this was going to be some sort of objective test of the color capability of film vs. digital (I still intend to do that test I mentioned earlier & that you thought might be useful Scott, though in general I hear it's difficult to make profiles for negative film b/c of the complex TRC... I'd assume a LUT based profile should do the trick but maybe there aren't enough patches on an IT8 chart, I dunno). I quickly lost interest when I found out it wasn't & no one wanted to partake in the more technical talk (no offense Mauro -- it was still a fun competition for some & certainly a magnanimous offer on your part re: the prizes!). That's just me. Else I would have more knowledge about why people kept knocking you.
    I think the opinion of someone such as yourself who's done film/darkroom in the past & now shoots digital is invaluable. Because you've tried both mediums in your hands & so your results, though not necessarily the best obtainable, are very relevant to the conversation. I say 'not necessarily the best obtainable' here b/c I'd like you to perhaps realize that perhaps you could've obtained better results with film had you scanned them in a capable-enough scanner & then post-processed them (sharpening, noise reduction, etc.). Because your previous quoted results seem to show film underperforming more than it should. For example, I've made some gorgeous 16x24 prints off of 135 Velvia... but the only way that happened was by scanning on an Imacon, doing some very selective & subtle noise reduction, & then selectively sharpening the heck out of it (using a lot of Bruce Fraser's philosophy) & then using intelligent upsampling algorithms. That's the sort of stuff you can't do optically in the dark room (AFAIK), even though I realize staying in the darkroom means you don't experience any of the resolution/contrast loss introduced by scanning.
    Thing is, digital capture is also significantly sharpened by the RAW converters & in post-processing software. So I think there is still a space for high-quality film scans + post-processing... much like DLT mentioned.
    Anyway, yes let's keep the conversation unemotional & civil, please. People are simply stating their experiences. That doesn't mean they're wrong or lying, & their experience is valuable information to all of us.
    Rishi
    P.S. Does anyone want to take a guess at what the contrast ratio between black & white might be on the printed ISO chart Mauro shot & I provided all those scans of? Just a ballpark guess even! I'm really curious as to what contrast of the chart I'm quoting when I say the Imacon scan of 135 Velvia yields 20MP...
     
  250. Or, at least, someone please answer this simpler question:
    To get the contrast ratio of my chart under my lighting, print a file on the same Epson printer that printed the chart that has half of the image black & the other half white, then put that up right next to my chart (under the same lighting) & meter the black vs. the white using a spot meter (or my camera's meter for that matter for a rough value)?
    Thanks in advance,
    Rishi
     
  251. Rishi,
    The standard ISO chart is specified to have a minimum contrast ratio of 40:1, and is typically printed closer to 80:1.
    Link
     
  252. Thanks Scott. Wow it just seems unbelievable that my meter would show 6 stops (2^6 = 64) difference between a big black patch vs. a white patch under my indoor lighting... But Norman Koren does say that a photographic print can have a 100:1 luminance ratio... I need to invest in a spot meter :)
     
  253. That link is a good read :)
    They do point out that the iso 12233 is generally accepted to be much too high a contrast ratio for accurate testing of digital cameras and suggest 10:1 is better for a relatively high contrast target. Even the iso agree the 12233 chart has design flaws for current testing purposes.
    Have fun, Scott.
     
  254. Great, I'll finish reading that & then perform some resolution tests using lower contrast charts to maybe get a better 'real-world' resolution for some of the films I use (Velvia, Ektar, Portra). Thanks Scott.
     
  255. Do we really need to drag every last bit of detail out of a piece of film to make a pleasing print. Once we get to a certain size with a given format the grain becomes the bigger objection for most than what details they could see under a microscope. If you need bigger prints then shoot a larger format instead of trying to drag the last bit of detail from 35mm film. Even if you could scan 35mm film at 10,000ppi does anyone really think that in general the prints would be nicer than scanning 6x7 at a lower resolution?
     
  256. Grain is random in appearance, unlike most elements being imaged. Noise removal software takes advantage of this very fact. Oversampling to retain detail of actual imaged elements while also resolving more grain is therefore still advantageous especially if you use grain removal algorithms. In the end you'll preserve more image detail. It's hard for me to see why anyone wouldn't want that. For MF, you'll also resolve that much more detail.
    As for switching up to the next higher format, easier said than done when it comes to film. On extended backpacking trips, for example, the versatility of the 35mm format is unparalleled. Of course a lot of these discussions will become moot with the release of higher resolution 35mm dSLRs...
    I have really been considering stepping up to MF for fun anyhow... is it just me or are lens options with MF more limited compared to the plethora of zoom/wide-aperture lenses Canon offers for their 35mm EOS line? If so, why?
     
  257. Stuart, I think you hit the nail on the head. I use 35mm film for about 75% of every wedding I now photograph. I don't use film because of superior resolution. Fuji Pro 400H and Portra 400 are not resolution champs....especially not in 35mm.
    My reason for using them is that when the 400 speed film is exposed for shadow areas, with a rating of 160-200 iso, I get incredible skin tones. In fact, I've had brides comment about how some wrinkles and blemishes have been rendered nearly invisible. I think a point that has been missed here is about color accuracy. Pleasing color is not necessarily "accurate" color. Nor does high resolution always make for a better photograph.
    For me, in terms of on print, a 5D2 offers a resolution advantage over 35mm film. Not always in absolute terms, but in lower contrast situations, it does. Does it provide for the color I want? Nope. It can't. There is no way to overexpose the 5D2 (or7D or any DSLR) by 1-2 stops, while metering for shadows, without blowing out highlights.....and I still don't get the color I want from film. I can get close....maybe 85-90% of what I want, but not without a lot of work. The film workflow in that respect is more efficient. I shoot it, send it Richard Photo Lab, and then download the shots....done. Pretty much no PP is necessary.
    There is more than one reason to use film.
     
  258. Same as Dave and Stuart here, even with a single MF frame scanned with the Nikon I have a lot more detail than my Epson 7880 can print at 24x32.
    Pleasing (to my personal liking) colors, tones, and organic look are the main drivers why I shoot film. Also the fact that I can obtain a certain color rendition (not accurate in absolute terms) consistently and predictably. I don't shoot film only bcs I need to print large. With color negative I refer to color gradation or color definition advantages (difference in colors are crisp not smudged) but not color accuracy. I almost never shoot a gray target outside the studio.
    On size, as part of my workflow I always make 8x10s, 8x8s or 4x4s first to green light a print and adjust framing lines. Some times I make 4 4x4s on a single sheet with different framing for evaluation. A print is judged small before I consider it for either small or large output.
    I do like digital for some applications. For most uses I choose film. Although I wanted to use digital more when I got my 40D, after several months my personal preference pushed me back to film. In most cases it is just that, a personal preference.
     
  259. I often shoot 35mm alongside 6x7 and I never hesitate to use a 35mm shot over a 6x7 shot for a large print if my instinct tells me so.
    I sent Edward 24x36 prints from 35mm (along with the film, scans and raws from this color exercise). With pushed 35mm, grain may be visible at close inspection on prints that size but it never bothers me and I sometimes seek it. With all the grain removal tools I have, I have never made a print in my life where I had chosen to remove its grain.
     
  260. I enjoy the workflow also with B&W film and I find it easier to get something that I like. I can develop B&W film myself which saves me trying to find a good lab.
    00YTTe-343223584.jpg
     
  261. Just to go back to the original title of this thread (sorry guys lol) but we are talking supposedly about film vs digital COLOUR RENDITION. So for what it's worth and I know I'll be wearing teethmarks later,
    the 40D seemed to do very well, the outdoor shot was probably too saturated but still pleasing. The wood tone was at least like wood. The studio shots were both good with what I assume was the grey background looking neutral, maybe a very slight hint of yellow but about as good as it gets. Skin tone was, to me very good.
    Velvia was OK on the daylight but the studio shots seemed very blue and the skin tone was therefore cold. Also it did seem quite grainy for the ISO it is.
    Ektar, daylight was awful unless the wood really was that pink! Studio not too bad at all but still grainy for 100 ISO.
    Portra 160 and 400 to me look slightly washed out and the white flowers are blown, again both are grainy but the 400 is acceptable for that ISO.
    TMax All I can say is why is this in a post about colour rendition, not being funny, just don't understand it.
    I have to say that all these can probably be improved in post production but from the examples shown I would rather start from the 40D results in this instance. I fully understand that for medium format this may not be the case, well scanned film should, at the moment , be better.
    Since we are talking qualifications just for interest I worked for many years for Pentax, Nikon and Contax/Yashica and have owned two pro photo labs dealing mainly with commercial printing. I was in the photo industry for about thirty years, now retired. I use both digital and film although nowadays mainly digital for colour.
     
  262. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    Note from moderator
    "...he too often presents excellent work in stupidly, and unnecessarily, misleading ways."
    As the moderator of this forum, I don't like to see the word "stupidly" used in that way when referring to another forum member. Differences of opinions are welcome but let us be a little more careful of ad hominem attacks.
     
  263. The standard ISO chart is specified to have a minimum contrast ratio of 40:1, and is typically printed closer to 80:1.​
    Gave this site a read, which says that the ISO 12233 chart is printed closer to 80:1. But this confuses me. Tonight I used my camera's spot meter & a 50mm lens w/ extension tubes to measure the black vs. white on my print of the ISO 12233 chart under pretty uniform indoor lighting. I got 4.333 stops of difference, or a contrast ratio of 20:1 (2^4.333). Which makes sense, right, since prints, being a reflective media, are typically only supposed to have up to 4-ish stops of dynamic range?
    How does one even get that a print of that chart to show 80:1 contrast? That's over 6 stops...
    Also, the site has two charts available at contrast ratios of 20:1 & 2:1. But isn't the final contrast ratio dependent on your printer, paper, ink, & lighting of the print?
    I feel like I'm confused & missing something here... please help.
    Thanks,
    Rishi
     
  264. Rishi, I generate my charts on a dye printer instead of my Epson printers. Dyes are bad for archival but are higher resolving and produce better contrast than pigments on the same paper.
     
  265. Thanks Mauro. Did you physically measure the contrast of the chart you shot with a spot meter?
     
  266. I didn't but next test I run I will.
    The 4+ stops you are getting are pretty good though. I've run test with target printed on matte paper that wouldn't surprise me if they had just 2-3 stop range.
     
  267. Yeah but I hear it's more accurate to use resolution charts with lower contrast b/c real world detail typically has less contrast. E.g. a 1:20 or 1:20 contrast ratio chart. I believe we covered this in an earlier thread. Do you recall what contrast ratio best simulates real world data? As Daniel Lee Taylor has pointed out a # of times in threads over the last few years, shooting such high resolution charts for comparison may be why film sometimes outresolves digital in these tests, yet underperforms in prints compared to digital SLRs of formidable resolution (the other huge reason being poor film scanning, which I think you & I agree on).
    Also, sometimes the final reported value of the limiting resolution looks at where the response of the media has dropped to 50%. Or perhaps 10%. Your method of sharpening & increasing contrast before determining the limiting resolution of the film potentially overestimates the resolution of the film in comparison to the numbers reported when some of these sites test digital sensors.
    I guess that's why it's important for the same person to perform some of these tests using the same exact methodology. I'm curious so I intend to.
    Btw, interesting site showing Orthopan film clearly outresolving a 18MP Leica M9. That looks like good methodology to me...
    -Rishi
     
  268. Also, to Stuart & anyone else suggesting MF:

    I realize that MF & LF are the way to go for pixel peepers & landscape photographers, but man I have a lot of respect
    for anyone that can tame these beasts for the often time-critical type of sunrise & sunset photography I'm a fan of. B/c
    I feel that these instruments will try to do anything & everything to mess up your shot (from what I've read, not from my
    own experience). From rangefinder focus calibration errors, to difficulty of framing with a rangefinder given different focal lengths, to
    1-stop accuracy in metered manual mode for the M7 (a nightmare for Velvia), to manual focus for the Pentax 67II & also mirror/shutter
    vibration, to film flatness problems with the Pentax 645N... with 10-15 shots a roll (or 3-5 b/c of bracketing with slides),
    how much time to you spend just fiddling with the darn system & changing film vs. actually composing & shooting the
    fleeting sunset?

    I want to try MF, I really do; it's just that older (film) systems seem unnecessarily prohibitive from what I've read so far. Granted I'm spoiled coming from
    Canon EOS. Perhaps the Mamiya 645 AFDIII is more what I should be looking at... Nice hefty $$ tag tho!
     
  269. Mauro what lens/f-stop did you use for the 35mm Velvia shot off of which we determined the resolution of the film?
     
  270. It was so long ago I don't remember but it should have been f8 or f5.6 on 35mm.
     
  271. Regarding your question about real life contrast, in general for landscapes you can have it all depending on the light. Much higher than resolution charts (like trees against the sky) and much lower (shadowed areas).
    Medium format (as well as 35mm) are great, but you need to be prepared to invest on a scanner. Up until the time the Coolscan was sold, a one time scanner purchase that would last a lifetime cost the same as a DSLR which would be replaced sooner or later. Now it is more difficult.
    Those who purchased a Coolscan 9000 invested the least money for the obtainable quality.
     
  272. I think we measured around 150 lines/mm (which corresponded to 4.25 on your chart) for 35mm Velvia 50.
    Any idea why this site rates the highest resolution MF combo (Mamiya 7 | 80mm f/4) at only 120 lines/mm?
    Are they just being really conservative (e.g. looking at where the response of the film drops to 50%) or are MF lenses just much worse than Canon EOS lenses?
     
  273. Yes, user error, not optimal developer (d76) and probably bad technique. With techpan I measured 350 lpmm. Roughly 500 megapixels of true data (not DSLR megapixels).
     
  274. Check out the TMAX sample I sent.
    TMAX tops at about 200-220 lpmm with XTOL. This is the limit of this film; not the Mamiya 7II-80mm.
     
  275. Right, I believe you :)
    I'm just wondering if medium format lenses are worse or something, since I keep hearing 'MF lenses don't have to be as good as 35mm lenses b/c MF is more forgiving since the magnification factor going to print is less... yada yada'.
    Over the next few weeks I'll do the tests myself with resolution charts of varying contrast ratios (I want to go down to a 1:2 chart), & will rent a Mamiya 645 to try the same test on 120 Velvia 50 (yes, I realize that will be a test of the Mamiya lens; the film's the same as the 35mm film!).
     
  276. To put it in perspective, the Epson printers (nominal native resolution of 360 or 720) can only resolve between 240 and 300 lines per inch.
    A shot with the Mamiya 7 and Techpan captures more detail than the Epson 60" wide printer can output.
    Film and camera are not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is either the scanner or the printer (or both).
     
  277. Rent a Mamiya 7II + 80mm. Why rent anything less? Plus if you like it, you can buy the combo NEW on ebay for less than $2000 (cheaper than a ff DSLR with a kit lens).
     
  278. "Right, I believe you :)"
    I don't. That would put Mauro as the only person in the world to get close to those figures. Most testers get 110-140 center, holding well to the middle then dropping off to 60-80 corner at the best apertures.
    It is commonly accepted that the larger the lenses designed image circle the lower the lpmm figure is. The reason they render such sharp images is that to make the same size print you enlarge so much less than a sharper lensed but smaller format print.
     
  279. I could rent the Mamiya 7II, but I tried it out the other day & I'm afraid to say I absolutely hated it. Not being able to
    see my composition is just unacceptable to me growing up on Canon EOS systems. The possibility of the rangefinder
    focus calibration being off introduces another huge variable (not user adjustable AFAIK). Metered manual only giving
    you information in 1-stop intervals with Velvia film? Good luck!

    I realize some people love this system. 20 minutes in my hands & I never want to pick one up ever again. Just my
    personal opinion, of course!
     
  280. Unless, Mauro, you think I should test the Mamiya rangefinder lenses separately from the 645AFD lenses... Let me
    know.

    Scott, the outer edge numbers are no longer measuring the resolution of the film, but more optical defects of the lens.
    Of course, all together we're measuring the resolution of the system, not just the film, etc.

    The test chart WAS in the center in Mauro's shots. He sent me the film. I get about 150 lines/mm, though the contrast
    at that point is well below 1:2. See for yourself the contrast of the lines at 4.25 in that Imacon scan I posted a while
    back...
     
  281. Oh sorry, so if I don't use a camera, just contact sheet my film behind very small drawn lines I can get a higher figure than any camera system can deliver? Bit too theoretical for me.
    How exactly was the 350lpm figure achieved? With a contact exposure?
     
  282. Since we were talking about resolution of digital sensors vs. film, or at least that's where I kinda side-tracked the discussion to (sorry Mauro), yeah, we're getting theoretical here.
    But anyway, if I'm trying to measure the resolution of a sensor or film, obviously I'd draw my conclusions from the center of the frame since I'm not trying to bring optical defects into the equation. You answer one question at a time.
    As for the 350 l/mm, I'm not surprised. Kodak's own tech sheet for technical pan lists 200 lines/mm showing a 30% response. Maybe by 350 l/mm there's only a 10% response which some testers may still be able to discern? What do you think the response of the Velvia 50 in the Imacon scan is at 4.25 (corresponding to 150 lines/mm) below?
    [​IMG]
    Full-Resolution Image
    Probably pretty low... If anyone wants to do the math:
    • Whitest white of the chart on the Imacon scan of Velvia 50 is 30% K (Grayscale in Photoshop)
    • Blackest black of chart is 88% K
    • Black line @4.25 is ~70% K (100% yield would yield 88%)
    • White line @4.25 is ~65% K (100% response would yield 30%)
    Honestly, I'm not sure of the best way to calculate the response from that information, but I'm sure someone else here can help me out? Either way, 65% vs 70% between the white & black lines, respectively, at 150 l/mm is obviously a very low response. Still discernible on this test chart though.
    Furthermore, Scott, take a look at this comparison of 35mm orthopan vs. a Leica M9 (18MP). The guy used an enlarger to make a large print of an enlarged portion of the negative (much like you yourself suggest), then scanned that in... effectively removing poor scanners from the equation. It blows away the 18MP full frame capture. Of course I think that orthopan film has 2x the resolution of more 'normal' films like Velvia 50, so, again: I'm not surprised.
    Cheers,
    Rishi
     
  283. LOL Mauro you're on the front page of photo.net again! You're welcome :)
     
  284. Mauro can one still buy the techpan or Spur Orthopan films? I'd love to try to make high-resolution 35mm color images from them using filters... just for fun! Well I guess first I'd have to find a way to scan all the detail out of them ;)
    Guess I could try this with Tmax 100, but that orthopan film seems out of this world...
     
  285. Rishi,
    That is yet another fatally flawed comparison, if you are trying to maximise the two then that is what you have to do. You have to interpolate the digital capture, it works very well. Showing a digital file at 400% without work is pointless.
     
  286. You know Scott, I was actually thinking the same thing last night. And was wondering if you should do bicubic upsampling on the digital file.
    But then that got me to thinking what goes on optically during enlargement. Does bicubic upsampling better mimic what goes on optically (which probably actually averages contrast from a significant surrounding area for any given spot that is being enlarged)?
     
  287. Man, Mauro, I'm having some real problems with that 150 lines/mm number we came up with. Because if you take the formula:
    1/Rsystem = 1/Rlens + 1/Rfilm
    And if the film is 160 lines/mm (it's probably lower than that since your chart is not 1:1000 contrast), then a system resolution of 150 lines/mm would require the lens to resolve 2400 lines/mm.
    Something's very wrong here...
     
  288. Rishi,
    This very evening I have just been doing some up-sampling tests. Obviously you could argue that the scan could be upsampled, and so on and on.
    The key to all this, other than academic interest, is to work out what you want to print and at what sizes. I am vilified for saying that very good 36x24 prints can be made from 135 format digital.
    Here is a 100% crop from a 135 format digital enlarged 400%, but interpolated. This gives a good file 7488x11232 pixels, or a 31"X47" print at 240ppi. It has had minor sharpening and noise reduction but is not optimised, it shows zero pixilation unlike the linked to comparison.
    I am not saying digital is "better" than film, I never have, I am just pointing out that if you wanted to you could make pretty good huge prints with small digital cameras.
    00YUzE-344511584.jpg
     
  289. The full image, remember this will print very well to 31"X47" at 240ppi.
    00YUzG-344511784.jpg
     
  290. I've also printed a 24"x36" on an Epson 9900 from a Canon 5D (12MP) file, and actually sold it. I myself wasn't too pleased without stepping a couple feet back from the print (which is ok given its size), but here's what the full-size print looks like:
    [​IMG]
    ... and here's what the 10.5x upsampled 1:1 crop looked like at 360ppi (so keep in mind, naturally it'll look worse than yours at 4x upsampled 240ppi... also I used Genuine Fractals): [hint: crop was made from somewhat above center of image]
    [​IMG]
    I was honestly much happier with my 16x24 135 Velvia 50 print, which I also sold. But for a fair comparison I should blow that up to 24x36 @360ppi and show it here for comparison... a little too tired to right now going on 3 am on a Friday night :)
    Scott -- do you agree with my 2400 lines/mm figure? And do you at least see response in the film at the 150 lines/mm mark (4.25)?
    Also, Scott, I agree that upsampled crop looks great... I'd be more than confident to send that data straight to the printer!
    Cheers,
    Rishi
     
  291. OK what the heck I went ahead & upscaled one of my 35mm Velvia 50 Imacon scans to 24x36 at 360ppi (same as the above example). But I'm choosing not to post the image visually here, because a comparison is so subjective. However, if you're really curious, you can find the 100% crop here. Obviously there's small scale detail that the 5D missed on this scale... but I don't think that's really surprising. For reference, here's the full image it came from:
    [​IMG]
    My biggest problem with this particular scan was the pepper grain. Which is why I don't like any Imacons below the latest ones, on which I haven't even run any tests to see how well they suppress pepper grain... just taking their word for it. Nothing like cloning out hundreds of little air bubbles from your scan [Enter Erik de G's Scanhancer]!
    -Rishi
     
  292. Rishi, I'm not sure about the resolution of the Mamiya lenses (7IIs and RZs) but it is very very high.
    In my regular workflow (7II or RZ67, lenses: 50-80-110-180, usually TMAX on Xtol, Coolscan 9000, Epson 7880 24x32), the bottleneck of detail work in this order:
    1- Printer. Cannot output the detail that gets to it.
    2- Scanner. Cannot retrieve all the detail from film.
    3- Film. Cannot retrieve all the detail the lens provides.
    4- Camera+lens.
    That said, it is great for the workflow to work like that because of the smooth extinction. e.g. the fact that the scan has more detail than the printer can output ensure natural vs abrupt extensions.
     
  293. Rishi,
    I don't understand your formula, or why you need it. The system resolution is lower than or equal to the lowest of the potential limiting factors. If the recording medium can register 100lpm but the lens 60lpm, system resolution is 60lpm. If the medium is still 100lpm but the lens is 150lpm then system is 100lpm.
    I see your Velvia issue. I had many Velvia 20x30 Cibachromes done pre digital as wet prints. They truly don't compare well to my 135 format digital capture prints. I find it hard to believe such well respected pro labs were that far off. I have only ever seen scanning as another potential limiting factor, and a huge time factor.
     
  294. "Most testers get 110-140"
    Scott, do mean lines or line pairs per millimeter?
     
  295. Rishi, I have a freezer heartily loaded with Techpan (120 and 135) and Technidol. To answer your question you can only buy it second hand today on ebay. If it interests you, you should stock up when it becomes available there.
     
  296. Mauro,
    The tests that I quickly looked at were lpmm, not lppmm. No doubling of the figures to wriggle out of this one. I actually ended up on the same site as Rishi did that first prompted his question.
    How did you get your 350lpm film resolution figure? And why do you believe your lenses are able to resolve much higher figures than anybody else?
    Everybody elses testing has come to the opinion that printers can print anything, just print bigger. Scanners can resolve film grain, there is a theoretical benefit to resolving further but it won't realise higher resolution figures. Film, well most of them, can out resolve any MF camera system. Lenses are the weak spot.
    That pretty much shows your opinions to be 100% in contradiction to many testers, wonder why that is?
     
  297. Ok. If it is line per mm then those test are vastly wrong. Here is an easy check: On the best axis my Coolscan 9000 resolves 160 lines per mm from my TMAX film, yet the film clearly resolves more than what the scanner can capture (at least 200 lines per milimiter).
    For 350 lines per mm I shot a resolution target with Techpan and the RZ67, developed on Technidol and evaluated on a 400x microscope with diffuser.
     
  298. Scott, I truly hope you maintain a good discussion so I will keep responding.
    First, resolving grain does not indicate resolution stops there. Not by a long margin. e.g. you can resolve TMAX 400 pushed grain at about 100-130 lines per mmm yet resolution clearly goes to 200 lines per mm.
    You are incorrect with your assumptions about lenses. You don't have to take my tests for it. e.g. Phase One's IQ180 resolves 190+ lines per millimeter - that implies that the lenses resolve comfortably above 200 lines per millimeters; thus the lenses comfortably out-resolve all your current films.
     
  299. Scott, I also remind you that I conducted my tests myself. Pointing to a link of a person that can't resolve 40 lpmm with TMAX can be avoided. You are welcome to borrow the film from me or Rishi.
     
  300. Awesome Scott, thanks for that link. Haven't had a chance yet to give it a read but will shortly. The formula I quoted is
    in any basic optics book that covers resolving power.

    As to your comment about 'seeing my Velvia issue', I'm confused. I was saying my 135 Velvia print is much more
    pleasing than my 135 5D print. To be fair I'll try to print the Velvia at 24x36 shortly. But from the 100% crops I posted
    above of the formats upscaled to 24x36 @360 ppi, the 5D is devoid of fine detail the Velvia retains.

    If you're talking about a 5D MII, sure I'm willing to believe it may look nicer printed at 24x36 than 135 Velvia.
    Remember when comparing my Velvia print to a wet print though that I applied lots of selective, masked input &
    content sharpening, which I'd imagine would give it an advantage over traditional darkroom printing.

    Also, good point about printing larger. And l agree it's well accepted that lenses are the limiting factor when it comes to film. Possibly also with the 5D MII.

    Rishi
     
  301. Here you can see some of my test with the RZ67 using pushed TMAX 100, Provia, Velvia 50 and Velvia 100. This test shows the limitations of the Coolscan 9000 (not the film or the camera):

    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Resolution-and-Diffraction/6302153_PLzKe#407096809_FeZJ4-O-LB
     
  302. "Also, good point about printing larger. And l agree it's well accepted that lenses are the limiting factor when it comes to film. Possibly also with the 5D MII."
    Rishi, you are incorrect here. Simply look at the results of the 7D (pixel density of a 46MP 35mm camera) and you'd realize that 35mm lenses far outresolve the 5DII, the Coolscan, Imacons, Drumscans, and films.
     
  303. Rishi, since you are scientifically disposed, this is the easiest way to test lenses without even developing film:
    Rent an RZ67, set up your resolution chart, but instead of shooting film, install a 400x microscope on the fresnel (you can remove the glass). Enjoy.
     
  304. Rishi, you are incorrect here. Simply look at the results of the 7D (pixel density of a 46MP 35mm camera) and you'd realize that 35mm lenses far outresolve the 5DII, the Coolscan, Imacons, Drumscans, and films.​
    All of my lenses, cameras and films out-resolve my photographic skill so who cares?!
     
  305. They all certainly outresolve my printer and needs as well.
     
  306. Mauro,
    "Rishi, since you are scientifically disposed, this is the easiest way to test lenses without even developing film:
    Rent an RZ67, set up your resolution chart, but instead of shooting film, install a 400x microscope on the fresnel (you can remove the glass). Enjoy."

    Bob Atkins gives a perfect description of why testing like you suggest can be extremely misleading. Aerial image lens testing figures are not accurate and give wildly optimistic resolution numbers.
     
  307. He is right especially past the diffraction limit at f2.8 or f4. Still these come into effect at 400+ lpmm.
    All these limits are way pass the limitation of films and sensors. Look at resolutions obtained digitally today: the P180 (190+ lpmm) or the 7D (230+ lpmm). Lenses are not the bottleneck - film and sensors are.
    Film is the critical path: Ektar's limit is 150-160 lpmm, Velvia's limit is 160-180 lpmm, TMY2 is 200 lpmm, and TMAX is 200-220 lpmm.
     
  308. And down the chain:
    Coolscan 9000's limit: 160 lpmm in one direction and 145-150 lpmm in the other.
     
  309. Rishi - I absolutely love your cityscape, and I don't think I would care if I had to step back a few feet while viewing the print. That's what I call color rendition!
     
  310. Rishi - I'm curious about what RAW converter you used for that shot. The "painted" look you got at that magnification reminds me of Canon's DPP, and is one of the key reasons I use ACR. ACR yields significantly higher resolution and better fine detail from the same RAW file in my experience.
    Could be one of the differences between your experience and Scott's. (Of course there are also other very large differences. If I remember correctly he's using a 21 MP camera, and then there's distance to subject, lenses, the total lack of any possible air turbulence in Scott's shot, etc.)
     
  311. One other comment on the lens resolution sub-debate: you guys are speaking as if resolution is a fixed number. It's not. It varies with detail contrast. If you have a high contrast target and are looking for any additional detail (i.e. MTF10) then lenses comfortably out resolve films and sensors. If you have a normal or low contrast target and are looking for detail that will make an impact in print (MTF50) then the lens in question may not out resolve the sensor or film.
    Also, final image resolution is going to be less than the weakest component, not equal to. But at the same time if the strongest component is made stronger, final resolution will increase but will never reach the limit of the weakest component. That's a lot different from the way most people think about resolution and the imaging chain. (If I can dig up the links to the web pages which explain all of this in detail, with the relevant formulas, I will.)
    For all of these reasons the difference between excellent, good, and mediocre lenses is noticeable even when using an old 6 MP sensor. The differences can be night and day with modern sensors, more so than with even the best films because digital sensors have a higher and flatter MTF curve than film. They pick up differences in MTF/contrast between lenses more than even Velvia 50.
     
  312. DLT -- good to have you back on board. And, shucks, thanks for your compliments!
    I exclusively use Adobe Lightroom & Photoshop, so, yeah I've been using ACR ever since they got their Canon-emulating DNG profiles (b/c previously Canon's color rendering was much better than ACR 3, but that's another story).
    I typically begin by performing some content-aware input sharpening using limited masking (built into LR, of course), and then will selectively apply more sharpening using masks in PS if necessary.
    This image was actually 6 different exposures (taken over the span of ~45 minutes... it was a ridiculous sunset, & that final image actually understates what I remember seeing) merged largely by hand-painted masks in PS; each of those was input sharpened, then the final image was content-sharpened, and then finally up-res'd & print-sharpened for whatever specific printer/size combo.
    What you see there as the 'painted' look is Genuine Fractals upscaled & then print sharpened by LR for 360ppi. That's why it looks so, er, weird. Less visible in the actual print (print sharpened files look much worse on monitors than they do on the actual print).
    The 5D did pretty well... 24x36 was cutting it; would definitely feel more comfortable selling it as a 20x30 print. Would feel even better upping the resolution of my shooting format :)
    Responding to resolution stuff in a bit...
    -Rishi
     
  313. Bob Atkins gives a perfect description of why testing like you suggest can be extremely misleading. Aerial image lens testing figures are not accurate and give wildly optimistic resolution numbers.
    I'm not saying Bob Atkins is wrong; however, he did pick an MTF level of 1%. At 10% or higher the conclusion would be exactly the opposite. I guess I'll just have to wrinkle my film plane to match the wavefronts, but that belongs to the flatness thread.
     
  314. I think Mauro & Scott/I are disagreeing b/c of what you mention Daniel. Also, Mauro, I didn't say *I* personally believed that lenses were the limiting factor; I was simply repeating what I see rehashed over & over on the web. Personally, I haven't done the tests so I'm not qualified enough to know.

    Even if the lenses have higher resolving powers (read: higher response at any given spatial frequency) than the medium (e.g. film), that doesn't mean that it won't limit the highest perceived resolving power of that medium. If one believes the 1/Rsystem = 1/Rlens + 1/Rsensor equation, then a 320 l/mm resolving lens & a 160 l/mm film will only resolve ~107 lines/mm. That's all I was trying to say. Mauro, are you saying that your lenses resolve well in excess of 320 lines/mm? Do you agree with my theoretical calculation that your lens would've had to resolve 2400 lines/mm to get our figure of 150 lines/mm for Velvia 50?

    Is that equation right? DLT -- any thoughts?
    Just to clarify: MTF10 is the spatial frequency where the medium shows 10% response, correct? Norman Koren's site says that the old definition of 'resolution' is the frequency where MTF is 10% or less (sometimes 2%-5%). So I guess all the variability we're seeing could just be based on different takes on 'resolution'. There's a lot of subjectivity here.
    DLT, or anyone -- how do I measure the 'response' of that Imacon scan? I need an equation... (if you go back to page 30, the image is there along with some Photoshop measurements of the black & white lines at what I think is the limiting resolution of the film+lens)
    I'm just getting some 1:2 & 1:20 contrast resolution charts printed to test along-side my 1:1000 chart. I'll be curious what the actual contrast of those charts are under indoor lighting... then will test some 35mm & MF formats shortly.
    -Rishi
     
  315. Even if lenses do 'outresolve' film or sensors b/c their MTF10 is a significantly higher spatial frequency than the medium, that still doesn't mean a lens with an even higher yet MTF10 won't yield better results. Because of the 1/R equation (if you believe it!).
    Else, how do you explain this:
    [​IMG]
    Full-Resolution Image
    Or this:
    [​IMG]
    Full-Resolution Image
    View 'em at full res to appreciate the differences.
    There's nothing really special here; the-digital-picture.com routinely does more objective tests like this & the fact that they see large differences between lenses means lenses are a limiting factor (even if they may technically 'outresolve' film), and along with the medium, contribute to a system resolution via some relationship like that 1/R (perhaps with an exponent now that I've read Bob Atkins' description) equation...
    Mauro, are we in agreement? Just wanted to make sure we're understanding one another.
    -Rishi
     
  316. Rishi: Is that equation right?​
    Yes the equation is right. And to get 150 l/mm from 160 l/mm film you need a lens that can give you 2400 l/mm. Of course such a lens does not exist.
    Google for "Fujifilm Dataguide" and download the pdf. On page 128 of the pdf document you can read how Fuji determines the resolving power of film, or the combination of film+lens.
     
  317. Looking at the resolution charts above I wonder why you guys are not using the slanted edge method and imatest to determine the resolution. Doesn't it work well with scanned film?
    With digital I found that I get very repeatable results.
     
  318. Yeah I've been doing some more reading & I think most of our disagreements stem from what Norman Koren calls the 'old definition' for resolution vs. more modern methods of reporting MTF10, MTF50, etc. values.
    Pete would you suggest 'Imatest Studio'? Some of those versions are ridiculously expensive ($2500!).
    Thanks,
    Rishi
     
  319. Richi, I have an old version that is somewhere between Studio and Master but I think the $99 Studio version will do just about everything you need it to. You can download it and try 20 times before you need to buy it.
     
  320. Also, thanks C. Sharon for the reference to the Fujifilm Dataguide.
    For those still interested:
    • Fuji's 'resolving power' rating is determined by looking at film under a microscope & determining the smallest spacing of lines still discernible
    • The above technique is what Mauro & I were doing to determine the 'resolution' of Velvia when we quoted ~24 megapixels
    • The above technique is rather outdated, according to Norman Koren, b/c there's a lot of subjectivity in determining what spacing is still resolved in the medium. Typically, the MTF in these limiting regions is somewhere between 2-5% (probably 2% if you're Mauro :), and generally the term 'resolution' was reserved for MTF < 10% (since that's what was considered near the limit of the system's capability)
    • MTF50 (the spatial frequency that yields 50% contrast in the final medium) is more closely related to perceived sharpness (according to Norman Koren). For Velvia, MTF50 is around 50 lp/mm, which'd give it approx 8.6MP (not the limiting resolution!). Of course, this does not suddenly make it comparable to a 8.6MP digital camera; it makes it more or less equivalent to a digital camera to shows 50% contrast to a 50 lp/mm chart. I'm still confused as to what the contrast of the original chart was when determining this MTF50... b/c it should change based on the contrast of the chart being photographed.
    • Using Norman Koren's formula for calculating MTF (here), I get a MTF of 8% for that Imacon scan of Velvia 50 at 4.25 (corresponding to 150 lines/mm or 75 lp/mm). Hope I did that calculation right... it seems a bit optimistic.
    • The 1/Rsystem = 1/Rlens + 1/Rsensor + 1/Rscanner equation IS correct... so I'm not even sure how we're getting 75 lp/mm... unless Mauro's lens really does have a limiting resolution of 2400 lines/mm or Fuji underrates their Velvia film (i.e. 160 lines/mm actually yields a formidable contrast in the film). I'm more inclined to believe the latter, though I just don't know anymore. I have to do the test myself.
    Fully ready for someone to now shout out 'Who cares?' :)
    -Rishi
     
  321. C. Sharon , Apr 03, 2011; 12:13 a.m.
    Rishi: Is that equation right?
    Yes the equation is right. And to get 150 l/mm from 160 l/mm film you need a lens that can give you 2400 l/mm. Of course such a lens does not exist.
    Google for "Fujifilm Dataguide" and download the pdf. On page 128 of the pdf document you can read how Fuji determines the resolving power of film, or the combination of film+lens.​
    Did you mean to type 2400 or 240? As I've seen resolution on film tests upwards of 125 to 150 show up, I know you don't need 2400 at the lens level.
     
  322. Did you mean to type 2400 or 240?​
    I meant 2400. It was in response to one of Rishi's previous posts in which he wanted to know if the number 2400 that he had derived was correct and in my post I confirmed that he was right.
     
  323. Well since 2400 lines/mm seems insane, it's possible we're seeing 150 lines/mm b/c at that point the MTF is something really low (like 2-5%) & perhaps Velvia, processed the way Mauro processed it, actually has something like 240 lines/mm at its 'limiting resolution' (MTF 2%-5%). Then, the lens would only have to have a resolving power of 400 lines/mm to result in a final resolution of 150 lines/mm.
    I'm just making up numbers at this point, but it's probably some combination like that & the fact that we're allowing really low MTF percentages to pass as 'acceptable' in determining the resolving power of the film.
     
  324. We don't need 2400 lines at the lens level to get 150 on film.
     
  325. Dave, care to back that up with any evidence or speculation as to how we're getting 150 lines/mm on film? I hypothesize something in my last post -- does that sound reasonable to you?
    This is purely for academic interest at this point...
    Cheers,
    Rishi
     
  326. Rishi: I believe the inconsistency you think you are seeing in your numbers is due to confusion between lines/mm and line pairs/mm. You say you could see 150 lines/mm on the test shot. That is 75 line pairs/mm. Fuji mentions Velvia's resolving power as 160 lines/mm but I have always taken it to mean 160 line pairs/mm. So you if you get 75 lp/mm in your image then you would need a lens that can resolve approx 140 line pairs/mm which is entirely reasonable.
     
  327. Wait, C. Sharon, you're saying that Velvia resolves 320 lines/mm with a 1:1000 chart? Doubtful... Seriously there's so
    much misinformation out there, as I'm starting to realize. Really the best way to quantify this is via MTF curves that
    map the output contrast of the medium based on spatial frequency. As I understand it, these curves don't depend on
    input contrast (though I imagine you use charts of varying contrast to fit a global set of data to derive the MTF curves).

    Rishi
     
  328. Rishi,
    When Roger Hicks tested the Voigtlander Bessa R3a in Shutterbug mag, he tested his setup between 125 and 150 with Ilford Delta 100. The lens does not need to 2400 before you can obtain 150 on film.
    If you're trying to tell everyone that 2400 is needed at the lens level, then the misinformation is your. The math is readily available.....just google it. I'm not wasting any more time with this.
     
  329. Dave that is all fine and good but Rihi was talking about Velvia 50 not Ilford Delta 100.
    The point is pretty simple, if Velvia has a resolution of 160 then you need a really great lens if you are going to get 150 line pairs/mm.
    In looking at the MTF curves Fuji only plots out to around 75 cycles/mm so it is hard to know what it would be at 150 cycles/mm. But it sounds like there is more data other places so maybe that is where the 160 cycles/mm number has come from.
     
  330. Rishi: Resolving power of 160 lines/mm means the number of lines that can be distinguished from one another per mm. For every black line to be distinguished from the next black line there needs to be a white line between the two. That is why resolving power of 160 lines/mm is interpreted to mean 160 line pairs/mm.
    The test targets used by dpreview or imaging resource give the resolution in line widths/mm which can be converted to line pairs/mm by dividing by two. That is why the 150 lines/mm you saw is 75 lp/mm. Actually I find 75 lp/mm a bit high. I would have expected it be around 65-70 lp/mm but there is no need to quibble over that.
     
  331. That's why I prefer Fuji's nomenclature of cycles/mm. No chance of ambiguity here.
    Practically, a film is useful out to about 50% response on the MTF curve - particularly so for landscapes where both image detail and tonal subtlety are important. Differentiating between two leafs on an oak at 100m and 1/3 EV apart means preferably working at the 70% MTF of the film regime. Good luck digging details out at the other end of the MTF curve.
    For Velvia MTF 50 is about 50 cycles/mm. Of course there's more detail beyond this. If using film is important, however, it's generally easier to just shift up in format when the media itself runs out of steam.
     
  332. That may be so Scott....but it also means that we don't need a lens to resolve 2400 in order to acheive those figures. And this was my point.
     
  333. Scott: The 160 lines/mm figure comes from Fuji's own data sheet for Velvia 50. You can download it here.

    C. Sharon: Wow, thanks for that clarification. So basically Mauro & I are resolving something like half of what Fuji rates as the limiting resolution of the film for very high contrast stuff? I can believe that. Actually, that's much more believable to me than Mauro actually achieving 94% of Fuji's rated resolution of the film with high contrast subjects... So in a nutshell, our calculation of the resolution of the 35mm frame of Velvia film was fine, but my calculation for the lens required for that resolution was off b/c my number for Rmedium was off by a factor of 2 (I shoulda been using 320 instead of 160)... Actually, as long as we're being thorough, we should be using the cycles/mm figure for the 1:20 or so contrast ratio Mauro's chart actually had under his lighting, right? But anyway, like I suggested earlier, say Velvia's resolution is 120 cycles/mm for a 1:20 contrast subject (not unreasonable I don't think given that it's 80 cycles/mm for 1:1.6 contrast subjects). Then:
    1/75 cycles/mm = 1/120 cycles/mm + 1/Rlens; Rlens = 200 cycles/mm
    Then you'd only need a lens with a resolving power of 200 cycles/mm (400 lines/mm or 400 line widths/mm) to get the 75 lp/mm Mauro & I see. Not a lens with 2400 lines/mm (1200 cycles/mm) resolution... Dave, perhaps you shoulda read my earlier post that said exactly this.
    Still, I feel queasy about these numbers. Is this final interpretation correct? Anyone else want to chime in?

    Robert: Actually, in Fuji's data sheet above they say '160 lines/mm'. Am I to take it that they actually mean 160 cycles/mm (i.e. 160 line pairs/mm)? I guess I'm willing to buy this b/c if you extrapolate the MTF curve past the highest spatial frequency Fuji reports MTF for, a ~5% MTF corresponds to about 160 cycles/mm (assuming the falloff continues with the same slope as the right-most part of that MTF curve... which of course is a big assumption).
    That would make Fuji's 'resolving power' for high contrast subjects (1:1000) 320 lines/mm (160 cycles per mm), which then if you apply the philosophy of 1 line resolved = 1 pixel, gives you:
    320pixels * 24mm = 7680
    320pixels * 36mm = 11,520
    Effective resolution of a 35mm frame of Velvia for 1:1000 subject contrast: 88,473,600 (~88MP).
    Kinda crazy, but I guess irrelevant in the real world since, like you say, MTF50 is much more important in evaluating the relative sharpness of the film format (I'm assuming the useful MTF, MTF50 or MTF30 or MTF20, for any medium depends upon its rolloff at higher spatial frequencies... so digital may be useful past MTF50?). For Velvia, MTF50 of 50 cycles/mm equates to ~8.6MP for a 35mm frame of film. Interestingly, that's exactly the MP resolution of a full-frame digital sensor that Norman Koren suggested back in like 2005 would be needed to rival 35mm film.

    Dave: My math isn't wrong (1/Rsystem = 1/Rlens + 1/Rmedium is well established). And I'm not trying to tell anyone anything. I'm just pointing out that if you use this formula, you get a ridiculous resolution requirement for the lens. Hence what I was trying to say was that something was wrong with our calculations or our interpretation. I.e. at the onset I agreed with you that it seemed ridiculous to require a lens capable of resolving 2400 lines/mm to get the resolving power of Velvia we calculated from Mauro's experiments. You're not contributing to the discussion by just repeating 'you don't need a 2400 lines/mm resolving lens to get 150 lines/mm on Velvia film'. The other guys here who posted after you are actually helping by offering a reason for why my calculation might be off...
    Cheers,
    Rishi
     
  334. Wait a minute, but if we take Fuji's rating of:
    1:1.6 contrast : 80 lines/mm
    To mean 80 line pairs/mm... then... does that mean that with our observed resolving power of 75 lp/mm for something like a ~20:1 contrast ratio subject (the printed chart) we're getting the resolving power that Fuji gets with a 1.6:1 contrast ratio subject?
    I guess this could make sense, since Fuji doesn't use a lens when calculating these numbers, right?
    -Rishi
     
  335. Let us not go overboard with cycles/mm and confuse it with lines/mm. Cycles/mm is used with MTF charts because MTF of a film is determined by contact printing a sinusoidal wave pattern on a film, without using a lens. The sinusoidal wave, being a wave, does not have lines but cycles so cycles/mm is used in this case. The sine wave can be approximated with a square wave so line pairs/mm is used interchangeably with cycles/mm.
    In the case of resolving power of a film or lens, a resolution test target is used that has lines hence it is more appropriate to use lines/mm or line pairs/mm in this case, instead of cycles/mm. It is useful to maintain the distinction.
     
  336. Wow the discussion went on quite a bit.
    What is the question? Velvia's resolution with different lens combinations?
    I can answer this. Both my MF and 35mm lenses resolve 160 lines per milliliter with Velvia 50. 220 lines per milliliter with TMAX. (on a b&W resolution chart).
     
  337. Effective resolution of a 35mm frame of Velvia for 1:1000 subject contrast: 88,473,600 (~88MP).​
    Sure. Why not.
    It's also not practically useful. I mean think about what 5% MTF response for a 1:1000 test target says. You've got a source test pattern that's super contrasty; it's also just barely visible when duplicated onto the film.
    Since we're on this track. There was a color film that was both much higher resolving and much sharper than Velvia. The following is the MTF curve for the previous generation (GA6) Kodak Gold 100. Man, it was my favorite for landscape-ish scenes with a small format camera.
    [​IMG]
    Notice two things. First, it is a honest 50% MTF at 100 cycles/mm. Second, it was 150% MTF at 20 cycles/mm: this emulsion had extremely high acutance, i.e., it was super-sharp. This film gave some scenes an almost etched quality.
    This Gold 100 Gen6 is gone unfortunately. The current generation Gold (GA7) trades the above qualities that made it truly interesting for "me too" lower grain.
    I'm assuming the useful MTF, MTF50 or MTF30 or MTF20, for any medium depends upon its rolloff at higher spatial frequencies... so digital may be useful past MTF50?​
    It's not that, but rather digital capture maintains high MTF fidelity much deeper into the high spatial frequencies. Of course, the downside is also that digital has a hard stop; it falls off the cliff right past the particular high spatial frequency limit
    For Velvia, MTF50 of 50 cycles/mm equates to ~8.6MP for a 35mm frame of film. Interestingly, that's exactly the MP resolution of a full-frame digital sensor that Norman Koren suggested back in like 2005 would be needed to rival 35mm film.​
    That's pretty consistent with my experience.
    Just until recently, I shot with an 8MP Canon XT. At 8x10 print sizes, it was mostly better than 135 film and indistinguishable from 6x7 really. Past 8x10, the digitally originated image fell apart quickly and without recourse. The 135, however, generally had more to give. It was just that each successively larger print sizes required more and more heroic efforts in post.
     
  338. C. Sharon: thanks for the clarification. I'd forgotten about cycles/mm being derived from a sinusoidal pattern... makes sense now. In that case, one full cycle can be approximated by a black + a white line.
    Robert:
    It's not that, but rather digital capture maintains high MTF fidelity much deeper into the high spatial frequencies. Of course, the downside is also that digital has a hard stop; it falls off the cliff right past the particular high spatial frequency limit​
    Right, that's exactly what I was trying to say -- thanks for wording it much more elegantly :) I believe this is also what Daniel Lee Taylor was trying to bring up earlier.
    I'm glad we finally seem to be in agreement! Thanks to all for humoring my often academic exercises. I still think they're useful b/c sometimes they help (me, anyway) push more out of a medium than may have been thought possible... which can certainly have its advantages given the convenience & portability of, e.g., 35mm systems. I have to admit I may have never bothered to try a 16x24 print from my 135 Velvia shots had I not been dragged into the film vs. digital debate years ago by Mauro. And I'm extremely glad I did. But perhaps I enjoy pushing more out of mediums than others might :)
    FWIW, just today I made the jump & invested in a MF system (it was at the right $$), that's easily upgradeable w/ a digital back in the future. It's the Phase One 645AF (Mamiya AFD III) so it's comparable to my EOS system (sort of, for MF anyway). I'm looking forward to having some fun shooting film in it until I can afford a digital back. Of course this now means that my modified 35mm scanner won't be enough... we'll have to see what I can do about that ;)
    Cheers,
    Rishi
    P.S. Mauro my question that led to all this discussion was over what the resolving power numbers Fuji reports actually means & why simple math demanded that we have some ridiculously high resolving power lens to get 150 lines/mm. Turns out our 75 lp/mm measurement was just below Fuji's 80 lines/mm (actually cycles/mm or ~lp/mm) rating for 1:1.6 contrast subjects. This lower number makes sense, even though your resolution chart was considerably higher than 1:1.6 contrast, because our measurement is also affected by the lens.
     
  339. I see. Well out of all people you know since you have scanned the film yourself (even though the test chart was a printed version lower contrast generated at home) and measure 160 lines per mm.
    Resolution is just a small part of the equation. Acutance from digital cameras plays in your favor while you are within the limits of its resolution, but it is a big enemy once once the print breaks down in resoluton making it very obvious. When it comes to real life applications, (in general I shoot TMAX) film looks great even at 24x36. My 40D (10 MP) maxes out at 11x14. This is by my subjective threshold of quality.
     
  340. Something that might be of interest:
    It seems that sharpening with film is important for maximum high frequency detail while with digital sharpening has only minimal effect on high frequency detail.
    Norman Koren (author of imatest) measured 103 lp/mm @ MTF10 using Velvia with a 8000 dpi scanner and sharpening. And only 64 lp/mm without sharpening.
    http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Scan8000.html
    Erwin Puts made some tests using Leica M9 and Nikon D3X and with the D3X he got 1750 lp/ph @ MTF10 both without and with sharpening. 1750 lp/ph is 73 lp/mm.
    http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page155/m9part2.html
     
  341. I like those numbers much more. Why?
    Because MTF50 of 56.5 lp/mm for Velvia yields an effective resolution of 11MP for 35mm Velvia at MTF50. Which'd explain why I see more detail in my 35mm Velvia scan (scanned @8000 dpi on an Imacon & aggressively sharpened) than my 5D images (also aggressively sharpened) when both are upscaled for a 360dpi 24x36 print (i.e. such that the final pixel x pixel count is the same between the two).
    The MTF10 figure a resolution of 36.7MP for 35mm Velvia... maybe... but I guess it's not that useful b/c 10% response for lower contrast stuff probably would be hardly discernible.
    Isn't Norman Koren's stuff all simulated & not actual scans/data?
    -Rishi
     
  342. Norman Koren (author of imatest) measured 103 lp/mm @ MTF10 using Velvia with a 8000 dpi scanner and sharpening. And only 64 lp/mm without sharpening.​
    He didn't measure it. He got it by simulating it - i.e., by plotting it on a chart. He also got around 68 lp/m for Velvia+lens, before scanning, using the same method. I don't understand how that can increase to 103 lp/mm after scanning.
     
  343. The 103 lp/mm figure is after sharpening.
     
  344. The 103 lp/mm figure is after sharpening.​
    It is after scanning and sharpening.
     
  345. "It is after scanning and sharpening."

    LOL how else do you sharpen?
    -Cheeky New Generation
    ;)
     
  346. It seems that sharpening with film is important for maximum high frequency detail while with digital sharpening has only minimal effect on high frequency detail.​
    No, that's not the case. Sharpening is equally important for digitally originated images. Most current digital imagers are fronted with a Bayer filter. As with all physical devices it is necessarily imperfect.
    In this case, the filter starts to suppress lower frequency image detail well before the designed cutoff frequency. The manifestation on print is lowered contrast for high frequency image detail - exactly like film, just postponed.
    Sharpening a digital image compensates for the Bayer filter losses. It noticeably extends the regime through which contrast would would have started to droop. In principle, aim for 100% MTF response all the way to the Nyquist limit. You can't get there of course, but it's possible to come quite close.
    By the way, it seems that digital camera users often pine for less dense imagers. There is some merit to this in terms of potentially better noise performance. However, the flip side is that a dense enough imager can probably forgo the anti-aliasing filter altogether. Go dense enough, and imperfections in the lens itself inherently serves as the AA filter.
     
  347. how else do you sharpen?​
    My point was that before scanning the resolution was 68 lp/mm. After scanning it came down to 64 lp/mm, which is understandable. Then sharpening raised it to 103 lp/mm! Some contrast that has been attenuated on film can be recovered by sharpening but I have a hard time wrapping my head around an increase from 64 lp/mm to 103 lp/mm.
     
  348. I have a hard time wrapping my head around an increase from 64 lp/mm to 103 lp/mm.​
    I don't know if it makes any difference but a 8000 dpi scanner have a theoretical maximum resolution of 166 lp/mm. So maybe a lot of low contrast high frequency detail has been captured and with some aggressive sharpening that's enough to bump it up to MTF10.
    BTW, I didn't get that all values on Norman Karens site was simulated. Sorry about that.
     
  349. No, that's not the case. Sharpening is equally important for digitally originated images. Most current digital imagers are fronted with a Bayer filter. As with all physical devices it is necessarily imperfect.
    In this case, the filter starts to suppress lower frequency image detail well before the designed cutoff frequency. The manifestation on print is lowered contrast for high frequency image detail - exactly like film, just postponed.​
    I'm not sure. I was just looking at the MTF charts from Erwin Puts' and high frequency detail with a low MTF didn't respond to sharpening. I guess it also depends on how the sharpening was applied.
     
  350. Dave: My math isn't wrong (1/Rsystem = 1/Rlens + 1/Rmedium is well established). And I'm not trying to tell anyone anything. I'm just pointing out that if you use this formula, you get a ridiculous resolution requirement for the lens. Hence what I was trying to say was that something was wrong with our calculations or our interpretation. I.e. at the onset I agreed with you that it seemed ridiculous to require a lens capable of resolving 2400 lines/mm to get the resolving power of Velvia we calculated from Mauro's experiments. You're not contributing to the discussion by just repeating 'you don't need a 2400 lines/mm resolving lens to get 150 lines/mm on Velvia film'. The other guys here who posted after you are actually helping by offering a reason for why my calculation might be off...
    Cheers,
    Rishi​
    Actually Rishi, the topic is film vs digital - Color rendition. Your bringing up resolution targets is off topic and thus it YOU who really isn't contributing. And unless I'm mistaken, you're not a moderator here nor the OP, so keep your opinions of who should be posting and who shouldn't to yourself....I don't need to follow your instructions thank you very much! And if you had a basic understanding of how the formula works and what you feed it, you wouldn't require a ridiculous figure for the lens.
     
  351. Dave, once again you appear to over-interpret what I write. I expressed no such opinion on whether or not you should be posting; instead, I pointed out to you that you simply repeating one line or making statements without proffering any further explanation doesn't help this discussion, & that if you wanted to actually contribute, you could follow the examples of the guys after you who hashed out exactly what was going on. It was an encouragement for you to further explain your stance. Perhaps you should take things a little less personally.
    Your bringing up resolution targets is off topic and thus it YOU who really isn't contributing.​
    ... And if that's how the world worked, knowledge would be stagnant.
    And if you had a basic understanding of how the formula works and what you feed it, you wouldn't require a ridiculous figure for the lens.​
    That's what I've been saying from the very beginning. And yet the math spoke for itself. Your response "Did you mean to type 2400 or 240?" indicates to me that you weren't even attempting the math; just quoting numbers from other people's tests. So I'm not sure why you call out my understanding of a simple formula. My formula & math were fine; it was our interpretation of Fuji's reported numbers that was off.
    Did you even bother to read my post that you quoted (where I pointed out I've been agreeing with you all along that you shouldn't need a lens of such ridiculous resolving power) or all of the subsequent discussion? Should I start repeating myself in order for you to actually read what I write?
     
  352. It's arrived.....
     

Share This Page