Film vs Digital - Dynamic Range

[roger_smith4]

"Dave and I are referring to use it for the shadows."

 

Multisampling does nothing for the shadows of negative film. It can help with noise in the dark areas captured by a CCD which are the highlights of negative film. Is that really what you're talking about- that you see scanner noise in the lightest frame?

[rishij]

And the DR is dependent upon the maximal vs. minimal voltage that the amplifier can read, and the tonality determined by how small the steps between voltages that can be distinguished.

 

It's true that the smaller the pixel, typically the less maximal charge it can build-up before it 'clips' or 'spills over' so to speak. If you just up the megapixels and shrink the pixels, you get crappy results like the new high MP Canon digital ELPHs.

[bernardwest]

<i>If you just up the megapixels and shrink the pixels, you get crappy results like the new high MP Canon digital ELPHs.</i><p>

 

Agreed Rishi. But this is independent of 'full frame' that some people above are sprouting.

[mauro_franic]

Roger, correct. There is some noise in the darker parts of the image (thinner negative) when analogue gain is increased.

[vrankin]

Roger: In 1984 we didn't have the technology to scan the Ektar 25 negs. I examined them through a loupe, and saw about the same dynamic range as the Ektachrome 64 I was shooting then. But that was a subjective evaluation. The prints came out with somewhat blank deepest shadows and somewhat washed highlights in brightest sun, on Kodak commercial print papar. I can't remember which series the paper was. If I went down into the storage boxes and found those now almost 25 year old Ektar 25 negs it'd be very interesting to see how they'd scan. I remember the Ektar 25 being a short run. Amateur photographers had a hard time with it. Perhaps I should get out my old 35 camera and try the new, but it isn't available here.

[roger_smith4]

Hi Howard,

I was asking as what's possible with automated optical enlargements is very different from scanning.

 

I've just done a few scans from 1980s era negatives (B&W and color) and have made prints far superior to what we got at the time, for both dynamic range and color. As far as I can tell all color negative film has the ability to record a large range of brightnesses.

 

Good luck finding the negatives and hopefully they'll be in good condition.

 

Rishi, you might find this interesting regarding DR and noise:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights

[mauro_franic]

Rishi,

 

"Also, Mauro -- did you try, for the 40D image, to set 'contrast' to -4 in DPP? This typically brings out shadow detail. "

 

Here is the result of DPP Processing Contrast -4 on the highlight test for the 40D:

 

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6616619_YJEwK#424643294_NZu3f-O-LB

[mauro_franic]

Dave:

 

"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."

 

Here is the result of 16x sampling on the Ektar shadow test (I skipped ICE):

 

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6616619_YJEwK#424643305_CbA8c-O-LB

 

(I see reduced noise)

[mel_unruh]

I dunno, but I get the feeling you (OP) are setting everyone up for a sell job of some sort. I notice that if you click on the word 'Close' at the top of the window you are taken to Alex Franic's page where he just happens to be selling his film scanning services. The OP is also named Franic. Marketing???

 

Mel

[bernardwest]

Mauro, any chance of getting our hands on the 40D highlight raw? I'd like to develop it linearly and see how much of the blown highlights were captured by the sensor. Not expecting it to be a lot more, but DPP is pretty bad with handling highlights.

[rishij]

Interesting. Setting contrast to -4 brought back some highlight data. I bet, now, in Lightroom, if you were to add some 'Highlight Recovery' and some 'Fill Light', you'd get some formidable results with that digital image that would put slide film to shame (in terms of DR).

 

Indeed, it must be so, given that CCDs respond to light in a linear fashion (some argue that CMOS respond logarithmically, making it more like negative film, but I haven't heard a strong or sensible argument for that yet nor have I looked enough into the potential logarithmic buildup of charge on said sensors), while positive film responds in an exponential fashion if you look at Fuji's own response curves.

 

Mauro -- would you mind posting the RAW of the 40D image? I'd love to try processing it in LR using the new ACR profiles, and attempt some highlight recovery & fill light & whatnot.

 

Thanks,

Rishi

[roger_smith4]

I don't know why you chose the example where you fiddled with analog gain to do the 16x comparison with. That shot looks really underexposed. F8 seems a lot more appropriate for this scene.

 

I put it into photoshop and compared new against old- both look terrible but I don't see a noise difference (maybe there's more of a difference in the full resolution original- this one is a rather small file).

 

If you email me the original raw file and scan (analog gain done so as not to blow out shadow detail and without any white or black point clipping) and I'll show you how I would compare the two using Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw.<div></div>

[eric_guel]

Ellis said:

 

"You shot Jpegs didn't you? -- proving nothing more than your ignorance."

 

Then Mauro responded:

 

"Ellis, for the second time, they were shot in RAW. You can take your derogatory tone elsewhere. Are

your results any different than this? Would you post them?"

 

Then Ellis goes catatonic.

 

Ellis, grow up; or at least be a man and respond to Mauro's response.

 

Ridiculous.

 

And, yes, everyone -- I know Ellis lives on photo.net. I know he's taught everyone here (including myself)

tons of stuff. But he shouldn't get a pass for being a drive by jerk and then going silent when he's proven

wrong.

[mauro_franic]

If you guys tell me how/where to post the RAW file I can do it now.

[mauro_franic]

It is 11.7MBs.

[mauro_franic]

Eric, I believe Ellis took personal offense. Not sure why because when I looked at his portfolio, the main picture has the highlights blown on the forehead. He should understand this issue with digital first hand.

[bernardwest]

Do you have any server space with your internet service provider? If so, upload it there, and then post a link to it in here. Or maybe you can even upload it straight to here?

[mauro_franic]

I don't have server space that I know of. If you send me instructions I'll upload it anywhere you tell me.

[mt4x4]

Mauro, thanks for doing these tests. I don't understand why people are so angry at you for trying to share information.

 

I'd really like to see this test repeated, but with a few differences...

 

Film vs. either a 1DS or D700/D3 so that we are comparing versus a full frame DSLR.

Using the SAME EXACT Lens on Both the Film camera and Digital.

Having the Film and Digital Cameras on seperate tripods and taking the exposures at the same time.

 

I'm sure there is someone here generous enough to donate all the equipment =)

 

My only point is that because you are using different lenses, not making the exposures at the same time, and comparing 35MM film to a smaller sensor, that the results might be skewed a bit. Of course, this was a great experiment, and you did a great job with what you had available.

 

I'd just be curious to the results of the test comparing the film to a full-sized sensor... that's all.

[mauro_franic]

That is a good point Keith. Some lenses may differ in a fraction of a stop in their speed (although not five stops).

 

I live in the Atlanta area so if anyone is interested this weekend we can repeat as a joint effort.

[mauro_franic]

I meant someone with a 1DsIII or D700/D3.

[bernardwest]

Mauro.... try uploading it directly into a forum post. I think I have seen this before. After you make a post, there will be an option to attach an image to your post. Try uploading the raw there, and see if it accepts it. Otherwise, try this site: www.yousendit.com. From memory, I think it allows you to upload it there, and then sends an email with a link in it to you and whoever else you want. Cheers.

[jautey]

Cannon vs. Nikon

Film vs. Digital

Negatives vs. Slides

Medium vs. 35mm

 

Do some damn research right here on Pnet before posting such stupid posts. These comparisons have been discussed to death. Not only are you beating a dead horse, you've dug the corpse up just to beat it some more. Get over yourself.

 

Move on to some other discussion that has real relevance to your ability as a photographer.

 

And Mauro Franic you should apologies to Ellis. He's been a contributor to Pnet a whole lot longer than a year and has forgotten more about photography than you'll probably ever know.

[mauro_franic]

Nice!

 

I attempted yousendit.com... let me know if it works.

 

http://www.yousendit.com/download/TTZtZEV3YTJ0d0ZFQlE9PQ

[mark_knollenberg]

What's the point of posting anything other than mundane questions/comments on these forums if the best response you can expect is a string of insults, personal assaults and rude behavior?!

 

I read these to gather information. If you have nothing to contribute, please stand aside (Eric A and others). I intended to do so myself, but I am tired of unsubscribing to threads that interest me but have degraded to the point they're not worth reading anymore.

 

You don't find this behavior in archived threads. Is this a recent phenomenon? Are there any other sources of up-to-date, relevant information out there?