Tmax 400 vs G10

<p>I was challenged to do my own test and so I did. On the left is the 100% crop from a jpeg shot with my Canon G10 at ISO 400. I was pleased to see 400 on that little camera was not all that ugly compared to ISO 80. Sure a bit more noise and a slight loss of detail as is expected. On the right The new Tmax 400 developed in D76 1-1 for 10 minutes shot with a Nikon N80 and 50 1.8 at F8. Both cameras were tripod mounted and the self timers were used to assure sharp images. I also used mid range apertures to provide a decent depth of field to help balance any possible focusing errors. It's tough to keep image size exact. One camera you are framing on a 4/3 screen and the other a 2/3 viewfinder but managed to keep them pretty close. Both images were give the benefit of levels adjustments and sharpening. BTW the film was scanned on a K/M scan dual 4 @ 3200 dpi. I know there will be a bunch of folks telling me this is flawed or an Imacon scan would have blown the doors off my scanner but when you enlarge the images up to 200% it's quite clear there is really not much left to extract on the film image and the results are pretty much as I expected. Judge as you will. Critics please post your own honest comparisons.</p><div></div>

<p>Enlarging a scanned image to 200% doesn't tell you if there is any more detail to extract from the film. Slap the film under a microscope to find out how detail is actually on it.</p>

<p>Detail level looks pretty similar. You might want to run noise reduction on the film scan before any sharpening; it really exaggerates the grain a lot otherwise. The camera does it too, after all.</p>

 

<p>Neil I'll send you the digital file and you can look at that under a microscope. Real world dude. Real world. As I said elsewhere scanned 35mm Tmax is worth about 10mp tops. Do keep in mind the advertisement I pinned to the garage wall filled about 15-20 percent of the viewfinder/screen. Then a 100% crop was taken from that. This is a tiny crop of an image that would look great as an 8x10 from either camera.</p>

<p>Janne the detail is not far off. The film though is not going to show 5x the detail of the digital file as claimed elswhere no matter how you treat it.</p>

<p>"the self timers were used to assure sharp images"<br>

Hello Michael: Did you have the mirror locked up on the Nikon?</p>

<p>Hello Lous the N80 doesn't have a mirror lock up but I can assure that camera's mirror is the lightest hitting thing around. Plus my shutter speeds were up around 125. Also I used my best tripod with an expensive Novoflex head that was sitting on concrete.</p>

<p>Not a "try", just a question. You will get many. And I think you mean to say your shutter speeds were ONLY around 1/125. That's not very fast at all.</p>

<p>And the lenses are different.</p>

<p>Yeah but on that camera using the scenario above the mirror is not a factor. Plus mirror vibrations are mostly a problem at 1/30 and under. It's plain to see that the grain is becoming the limiting factor on the film image. You hit that point where grain starts blurring detail and it's over. I don't have an ax to grind as I will continue to shoot both digital and B&W film. Maybe someone else can show an example with the 35mm film showing a slight advantage. That's fine. Just don't show me a pixilated digital image that's obviously been handicapped.</p>

<p>Larry I would have to give the 50 1.8 the edge here unless someone is sure the g10's is as good. Both lenses were shot at mid aps hoping to keep things equalized.</p>

<p>It is just that a camera with a non interchangeable lens is mated for the perfect... I am not disputing just pointing out another factor. Developing film scanning it the choice of developer... all factors....</p>

<p> I say it just can't be done properly..</p>

<p>Larry</p>

<p>Larry you are right and I'm sure the results would vary a bit on another test. (I'm done though) My whole point here is to show folks 35mm film is not going to blow away good digital when it comes to detail. Those days are gone. Hey this was just a point and shoot. The comparison would looks worse if I had an A900 to shoot with.</p>

<p>Film is my friend. I am not going to get into this... Have fun enjoy see your stuff in the years to follow. To each his/her own but since I am shooting mostly MF these days I want you to know that Casual shooting is getting better with Digital and some day a few of those new photographers will move up...</p>

<p> You are also my friend.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

<p>I'm not disputing your results or the quality of one medium over the other. Your results are certainly valid for the equipment and technique you used. The point I am making is that the playing field is not entirely level and to assign any global relationships beyond your personal set up would not be accurate. Not grinding any axes here, I shoot both as well.</p>

<p>" the mirror is not a factor. Plus mirror vibrations are mostly a problem at 1/30 and under"<br>

This may hold true for normal magnification general photography but not high resolution imaging of high contrast targets. It doesn't take much to lose maximum edge definition. Combined with the slightly smaller size of the film image, variables can multiply quickly. I won't even go to scanning variables.</p>

<p>You've make a good test that has given you great information about <strong>your</strong> equipment, imaging chain and working technique. Use that information to your advantage. Making larger, more global attributions, would not be completely accurate. </p>

 

<p>Yes Louis there are many variables but I'm not sure any would make the film image a lot better than we see here. Maybe a little better. I'm afraid Mauro stated on the other thread that 35mm film has 5x the actual resolution of his Canon D40. My whole point is this just isn't so.</p>

<p>What's up with that scan? It looks like the capture was smeared.</p>

<p>Nah that's just the end of the resolution Dave. Hit the wall so to speak. Again this is a very tiny crop. you would not see the difference in an 8x10 image. If it were smeared the grain would be smeared. The grain is sharp. This test pretty much sums up what I've seen in the past in other such comparisons.</p>

<p>Your outcome is EXACTLY what I would have expected and what I see in my scans on a Nikon ED9000 with 35mm film. Your test is valid. Last year I compared 120film in a 645 Mamiya with the output of my 5D - same ISO, same focal length, etc. and the result was pretty much the same - the 5D file had more detail (albeit not as obvious as your comparison here). I love film and will not give it up, but we have to realize that digital has come a long way and has surpassed 35mm film quite awhile ago.</p>

<p>Thank you Juergen. I like film because I like the looks of the highlights better and i can print in the darkroom. .</p>

<p>Digital is better for low light work as it is inherently faster. Try doing a comparison with microfilm and/or a larger film format like 4x5; 400 speed for film is very fast for film.</p>

<p>Michael, I have a scan Dual IV. I've never had a scan look so smeared, with TMX, FP4, HP5, Tech Pan, Fortepan 400....none of them. I'm not questioning your comparison, it's just that I've seen better from the Scan Dual so I'm not sure what's up. As I've been meaning to try a roll of the new TMY, I do a scan of something and compare it to my 40D or K20D.</p>

<p>Michael, there is definitely a problem in your workflow. I understand your disapontment but it is not the film - the problem must be somewhere else.<br>

This is what TMAX 400 looks like from my Coolscan:<br>

<a href="http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7431324_CJohQ#479056402_r5kS4-X3-LB">http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7431324_CJohQ#479056402_r5kS4-X3-LB</a><br>

Select the different magnifications to inspect. This is a 21 megapixel scan.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Michael, look at your film with a microscope, if it looks like your scan, throw away all the chemicals and start over. If it looks good, service the scanner.</p>

<p>At 3200 dpi (this is only 65 line pairs per mm) you shouldn't see much grain and have well excess resolution in the film to fill every pixel of the scan with information.</p>

<p>Mauro did your even read the part about this being a tiny little crop?? The chems are fresh. This what 35mm 400 B%W film looks like @100%. Other folks know this to be true as well. I might suggest you return your 40D as there is something wrong with it looking so pixelated.</p>

<p>Dave the grain is not smeared. If the image was smeared the grain would be smeared.</p>