Film vs Digital - Dynamic Range

[daniele_chiesa]

Why did you only adjust the digital image? What is the point? Adjust both.

[nakiaphotos]

Lets not for the DR of the Fujifilm S5/S3 Pro cameras.

[StuartMoxham]

Heres both adjusted.This is one with both adjusted. Now they really look bad and there is nothing between them in terms of shadow detail.<div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

One thing we can learn from these is that it is better to expose correctly. I don't think anyone would welcome images of this quality. Heres is one more adjusted to the extreme. Not much use for anything but here it is.<div></div>

[pedro_esteves]

Full Frame

 

You should redo this tests with a full frame digital. If you are comparing 35mm film you should compare it to a 35mm sensor. Because the sensor on this full frames is bigger, the DR is wider. New comers to this market like the sony A900 are pushing the DR on digital cameras to new limits .

[duncanholmes]

isn't this the old slide/vs negative issue in an alternate form?

 

Negative always allowed a more leeway than slide film for errors in exposure. Digital is now forcing folk to be a little more disciplined than they might have been on negative film.

 

I'd be more interested to see slide film vs digital at comparable ISO/settings. You'd have to test on a full frame DSLR so that lens ratios are not a consideration in the test.

[mauro_franic]

SHADOWS:

 

I experimented with DPP exposure adjustments to the raw and curves last night on the digital shot, I also scanned the film with different analog gains. I'd say they are very comparable - with film probably having one stop advantage in the shadows for similar amounts of noise.

 

HIGHLIGHTS:

 

Here the film shot has at least a four to five stop advantage, before highlight detail is affected. I actually agree with the previous poster, it almost impossible to blow the highlights with properly exposed negative film.

[kevin_surfane]

That would be an interesting test: slide vs. digital.<p/>I liked this thread. I learned quite a bit about both

Ektar and Digital. These types of threads are why I come to PN. <p/>I don't think it's a Digital vs Film

argument. I look at it as a comparison of the medium; like comparing water colors to oils. Folks prefer one to

the other and they each have their own limitations and strengths. (That's the best analogy I can come up

with.)<p/>I also like to see what the limitations are of digital in a "film language" that I can see. The numbers

and whatnot that the marketers throw out there don't mean much to me and I haven't gotten around to learning all

the technical terminology and what they actually mean when it comes to the image rendition. Anyone can throw out

dynamic range claims and numbers to "back them up", but show to me how exactly it affects the image with a

comparison of something I'm familiar with. I want to <i>see</i> what the numbers are and I don't mean a graph or

chart. Which is exactly what has been done here.

[mauro_franic]

Thanks Kevin. It was challenging to arrange the strobes to get exactly one stop difference with figurines similarly spaced. As far as know, it has never been done and the results were better worth it for me than looking at a strip with shades of gray.

[steve_mareno]

Digital cheap, but bad.

 

Film expensive, but good.

 

If I can be of further help, just let me know.

[kevin_surfane]

LOL, Steve! I don't need to come here anymore! :-)<p/>On another note: I think when the megapixel race fizzles out, the next sensor race will be dynamic range.

[nakiaphotos]

Using Full Frame to do the test will be a hard one being that higher MP can lead to highlight clipping.

I think the best thing is to use a sensor that was built for DR on the physical level i.e. the SuperCCD which was made by a

film producing company.

[matt_needham]

As usual, the limitations are more with the photographer, not the gear or materials. There are plenty of fancy tests that come to the opposite conclusion as the OP here.

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/index.html

 

http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

[Dave Luttmann]

Thanks for this test Mauro. When a dynamic range issue came up at DPReview, I did a test somewhat like this. You'd think I gored their sacred cow or something. I used Fuji NPS and Ilford HP5. I was able to maintain around 12 stops with NPS.....trying the same with my old 1Ds Mk2 was an exercise in futility.

 

Where it got interesting is when the B&W results showed around 14 stops. Instead of trying themselves, the personal attacks and insults started flying by a number of them.....the people who have never used film it appears.

 

Mauro, those of us who figured out how to expose film and digital properly found early on that film maintains highlights better and digital can hold shadows better.....but the range captured by film is larger than ANY, and I mean ANY DSLR available on the market today.

[manuel barrera houston,]

After many, many years of not using film, I bought and old T50 to experiment. I figured for $50, two lens a canon 50mm f/1.8 and a zoom. I could compare so your test is pertinent to me. Thanks.

[vrankin]

Mauro: I shot all of the Ektars since the eighties, and they didn't have that much dynamic range, really. They were almost like shooting slide film - especially the Ektar 25. Well, you asked for an example from my digital with fourteen stops of range. I'm sending a shot with a very broad range, not sure if it's fourteen. But it was taken on a bright, cloudy day using RAW. After the RAW was processed in Aperture 2 it was necessary to copy it as a reduced jpeg for this upload. But if you look carefully, there is detail in the brightest cloud cover overhead, and in the studs under the bridge in the deepest shadows. That is good enough for me.<div></div>

[vrankin]

I guess the clouds blocked up a bit in the upload here. But in the original jpeg conversion from RAW it's all there.

[don_e]

So, how do the prints compare?

[jamespjones]

This is an exceedingly interesting approach to the challenge. Sure, no test is perfect, but I really like what you did. Good

job Mauro on giving us a different way of looking at the question.

 

If Kevin is correct then Fujifilm has already won with the S5 Pro. Being an S5 user myself, I am of the belief that the S5

exceeds any film in dynamic range. But I have no evidence. I only hope there will be an S6.

 

James

[Dave Luttmann]

James - I believe the S5 was rated at about 12 stops. That's a good match for films like Reala and Pro 160S. However, it is still 2 to 3 stops below what some B&W films can deliver. That said, I find 10-12 stops sufficient for virtually any work.

 

Mauro - Did you use multisampling on the 9000 to reduce noise. When I used to scan Astia with a 9000, I used 16X multisampling and it did wonders to reduce noise further in the shadows. In my opinion, it was like gaining an extra stop in noise.

[luisarguelles]

Mauro, thanks a lot for your test. A simple test that shows, at just one view, how film is still a better medium for recording

images than digital. Forget about curves and noisy words from others. The truth is the truth.

</p>

I use a dslr from time to ime, but when I plan to take pictures seriously, I always use my film cameras. By the way, a film

scanner is not usually able to extract all the info stored on film, so just imagine. Cheers.

[steve_swinehart]

The middle grey is not reproduced same between the digital and film images. This could be scanning or exposure - either way there is no control point in the "data." For photography and what you're attempting to do, that would be a 10-step grey scale with the middle grey reproduced to the same level for each system being tested.

 

The means you cannot draw conclusions from what you've done as you have no control point that can be compared as equal in each test.

[gsaphoto]

If you know well film processing and master on this field, than do it!

If you well know digital post processing, than use it.

If you master in dark room and in digital processing, than enjoy your best work!

[roger_smith4]

What I don't get is why you'd use analog gain to dig out shadows in negative film. Are you *reducing* hardware exposure to preserve detail in the clear parts of film?

 

Matt, the clarkvision site isn't maximizing the dynamic range of negative film as it under rather than overexposes it. I wouldn't rely on it for the purposes of comparison.

[kelly_flanigan1]

All this stuff is really old stuff; like debating a cordless drill versus a AC powered one; or whether folks will accept color TV versus B&W; whether power steering is better than manual; whether slrs will catch on; whether color film will be accepted; whether film will displace glass plates.