Graphical Quality of Digital Camera Pictures

[beau 1664876222]

"the difference is im not trying to emulate something else like you are....perhaps thats why u failed"

 

I am? you're not? matter of opinion I guess.

 

In the story above, I was trying to emulate something else because it was for a client who was paying a ton and had a specific sound they wanted. Sometimes you gotta shuck and jive for the Man. I'm sure commercial photographers run into the same issues. Glad I'm not one.

[beau 1664876222]

""digital cannot yet accurately emulate how film records light" -why should it?"

 

go read what I wrote again.

[grant_.]

it makes no difference in the end.....bye

[k2]

i think a solution to this dilema could be a hi-dynamic range digital camera, able to catch with appropriate speed the full range of light

from one extreme to another, simply no need for bracketing.

k

[bacsa]

Beau, sorry - the little word "yet" made me think that you mean, it's trying hard to emulate it...

[travis1]

I always wanna be like my dad, gentle and generous, but I never could/will because I am me. My dad said it's ok too. He wanted to be like me also, a little rougher and unkempt..

life.

[dzeanah]

*** Ignoring the standard film vs. digital thing ***

 

My interest in primarily in black and white, so my comments will be limited to that aspect of your question.

 

About a year ago I was considering scanning film --> inkjet/Piezotones and wanted to look at the results other people were getting. I asked on the Yahoo group devoted to digital B&W output, and had a kind soul send me the prints from the latest print exchange. There were about 20 in total.

 

I could *always* identify the images that were captured digitally versus those that were scanned. This isn't a _bad_ thing, but there are visual differences, even on 8x10" prints. I don't have enough experience with digital to be able to tell you what the difference was, just that it was there.

 

This isn't a bad thing -- it's just a "thing." Arguing which is better is like comparing Tri-X to Tmax, or 400UC to Astia -- they're different, and everyone needs to make the choice themselves.

[beau 1664876222]

Funny how those who are always browbeating others with anti-gearhead sentiments tend to use the latest high-tech digital cameras -- a case of "protesteth too much" I guess.

[gerry_szarek]

Unfortunately the one digital camera with a descent dynamic range got axed, the Contax full frame 6Mp. I still like film better than digital however my wallet has me shoot digital and printing the good stuff thru ofoto. Color printers are still too expensive and finicky for my tastes and I am a geek by training.

 

Gerry

[mallik]

It's funny that while my question was more on the color gamut, most replies

addressed grain (which I knew could be handled in software). Also I have to admit

that I am disappointed at the personal confrontations in a public forum such as LEICA

forum. Anyway thanks for the effort by contributors. I guess I will try and shoot same

images with digital camera and film camera, and check how much I am illusioning

myself.

 

Mallik.

[travis1]

Mallik, sure there is a colour gamut difference(?). My darkroom b/w prints never look like my digital lab prints however I try to 'emulate' among them. There are many differences in fact and different people will experience these at different levels. But the thing is, is it important to you? How do you make the best use of each differences to suit your needs. That's the key I think.....ok maybe not..

[aricmayer]

A quick review of the history of video will shed some light on this discussion.

 

When video was introduced it virtually wiped out the recreational use of 8mm and 16mm

film. All those home movies became obselete in no time. There was a whole lot of hoohaa

about how video will eventually replace film and so on.

 

However...it has not for any kind of high end applications. The problems with video are the

same problems that face digital photography. Video shot in NTSC produces close to 30

frames a second at a fairly low resolution that does not require a lot of throughput to

process the image. While digital photography has been plagued with the question of how

to get a larger file from the chip(s) or point of capture into the storage in a rapid manner,

which is the main technological holdup, video has been spending the past 20 years or so

trying to figure out how to emulate film. It can't.

 

If it were a matter of simply dialing in the curves as most digital-philes will tell you, then

for the realtively easy to handle image sizes of high end digital video it should be a snap

to emulate film. Yet vitually all television dramas are shot on 35mm film and transferred to

video from the negative because it simply looks better. This is in spite of the existence of

incredibly expensive high end video cameras with amazing lenses.

 

It's not a question of how big the file is or how big the chip is or whatever. The film world

has had to live with the reality that digital hasn't been able to replace film in 20 years. The

sound

recording industry has the same problem with not being able to emulate an analog sound

in a digital environment. I suspect the photo world will have to make the same

concessions.

[Spearhead]

Movies are a bad analogy. This has been pointed out numerous times before on these forums. The reason that movies stay with film is that there is no way to do large scale projection without film.

 

In sound recording, the analogy is even worse. Virtually all sound recording is done in a pure digital environment these days.

[aricmayer]

I don't think you read what I am saying. I'm not talking about movies. I am talking about

television, something easily projected. If projection was the only problem facing video,

why would the producers of high end dramas waste tons of cash shooting on film?

[aricmayer]

That should read "producers of high end television dramas"

[beau 1664876222]

Aric and Jeff both have a point. Film and analog recording still have abilities that are unique and many people who can afford anything still buy and use them.

 

But digital technology keeps getting better, and the advantages of digital are multiplying so fast, that the number of people recording on tape, and shooting film, is getting to be a very narrow subcategory. At some point the tradeoff will be hugely in favor of digital for all but very specific uses.

 

That being said, the film subcategory is not THAT small yet because the advantages of digital are not THAT overwhelming yet. I think music is ahead of photography in this respect; The price/performance and cost/benefit analysis between ProTools and analog 24-track are WAY more in favor of digital than than if you do the same analysis for film / digital. For instance, they've solved the dynamic range problems with digital music, not yet with digital photography.

[aricmayer]

Well put.

[boris_chan1]

Aric: "The problems with video are the same problems that face

digital photography."

 

Digital has different characteristics, but it doesn't follow that it's

problematical. The relatively low cost of digital video means that

a lot of films which would never receive mainstream backing can

now be made - that has to be a good thing.

 

".......virtually all television dramas are shot on 35mm

film........because it looks better."

 

Just because Baywatch Hawaii is shot on film it doesn't mean

it's going to be more interesting than a Soderbergh movie shot

on digital video. Serious filmmakers, like serious photographers,

tend not to be conservative, in France even Eric Rohmer has

worked with digital video in the last couple of years - when an 84

year old founder of the Nouvelle Vague is open to a new

technology you know that things are changing. One of the most

interesting films to have come out of Hong Kong in the last five

years is The Map of Sex and Love by Evans Chan, again shot on

digital video - it might not be showing at the multiplex in your

local mall but it's still been influential in Asian filmmaking circles.

 

"The film world has had to live with the reality that digital hasn't

been able to replace film in 20 years...........I suspect the photo

world will have to make the same concessions."

 

In the photo world affordable digital cameras have only been

around for five or so years, but their position is already mighty

strong in relation to film. After twenty years you'll barely

remember what a film camera was.

[MTC Photography]

Digital picture lookS very much like picture on Sony HDTV

[dean_g]

There are more and more feature films being shot on digital, and then transferred to film. That's not because of the film's quality but because the old projection equipment in the vast majority of theaters demands it. Also 24P format looks a lot like film. When the projection equipment becomes digital you'll see very little film. There are more and more movies I watch, and only find out later were shot on digital.

 

Music is not a good analogy because the wave forms are extremely complex, it's a completely different thing. Just look at the size of a 44.1khz .wav file compared to a still image file.

 

It all seems to me like a bunch of hair splitting, but to each their own. I've got a simple setup with my Canon 10D, and a Ricoh GX for pocket use, a laptop and a Canon i9100 printer. And some old film cameras gathering dust. That's all I need. I'm able to get images that please me, that look like what I had in my mind's eye when I took the shot. Doesn't matter what it does or doesn't "look like". It looks like it looks. What _I_ want. Use whatever works for you and that you enjoy.