scanned film vs digital

[rishij]

<p>Glen, that's not at all fair.</p>

<p>Look, I'm all for proving the high resolution of film along with Mauro et al. here, but in all honesty, you don't view 50ft screens from the distance at which you view photographs.</p>

<p>Take one of the pixels from your 4K projection onto a 50ft screen. It'll be huge compared to the individual dots of color (ok, well groups of dots of colors of a size that, by themselves, can represent any one of the thousands of tones representable by the print -- sorry for the rigorousness... Vijay N. & I dished it out for quite some time regarding 'what is the film or analog equivalent of a pixel' in the 'theory of film' thread, which is certainly one for the books) that make up a high quality 20"x30" ink-jet print of frame of film first scanned at high resolution (and I mean like 8000ppi).</p>

<p>Movies look so good on the screen for a reason. They've been downsampled using proper, good algorithms to the native resolution of the display device (hopefully 1080p). They're then thrown onto a screen that you stand 8, 10, 20, or 30 or more feet back from to view.</p>

<p>You don't view photographs from 8 ft. away. Especially not if you're a pixel peeper :)</p>

<p>20MP DSLRs will make stunning prints, no doubt. Of course, that doesn't mean that I'm gonna stop shooting Velvia and tryina get 20MP (true!) scans out of 'em for now anyhow!</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

[emraphoto]

<p>"how come a simple question has stirred such a debate, so that this thread is in the top 5 on photo.net, one week long, in 2009? Are the digital users somehow frustrated?"<br>

on the contrary, trying to get the fuji press 800 into cyberduck... now THAT"S frustrating.</p>

[alan_goldhammer]

<p>I wish we could channel Ansell Adams and get his take on the technological debate here. He clearly did a lot of what we might call "post-production" manipulation in the dark room after the original image was created. Each technology has both good and bad points as has been noted above. However, what is frustrating from the above posts is that sometimes apples and oranges are being compared. DSLR images (whether from a cropped sensor or full frame) are sometimes compared to scans of medium format transparencies and negatives. I don't think this is the real test; rather as I noted early on let's focus on a 35mm film frame versus a DSLR image.<br>

Another key thing to remember is that scanning is also dependent on the grain in the negative. Tri-X at 200 ASA was always my B&W film of choice. It was reliable when developed with HC-110 and gives very nice prints with good contrast and tonal gradation. However, it doesn't scan especially well relative to T-Max and even the newer color films. As a result it's difficult to get big enlargments in the same way one can with a DSLR image. That's OK in my mind as the technologies are as different as the results.<br>

Almost all of Adams prints were from 4x5 negatives and above. Lots of information can be stored on one of those negatives relative to 35mm (duh!!). I have one of Adams Yosemite prints hanging at home (Meced River) and it's wonderful to behold (8x10 print from an 8x10 negative).</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Alan, no one argues the medium format film captures more detail thand a DSLR. (Other than the Luminous Landscape ha ha).</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>LOL. True Mauro. What I find funny though...are how many people still quote a few of those articles that have been laughed at for years.</p>

[the journey]

<p>Rishi,<br>

Unless the film was shot in Vistavision scanned at 4k (78LP/mm) or 65mm at 8/11k (57/78 LP/mm) chances are you've never seen the true resolution film that is digitally projected. There just isn't content available, Baraka is one of the exceptions. Most digital cameras don't come close to even getting to resolution of RGB film. Instead of sampled color subspace.<br>

Kodak Vision 3, starts to separate around 20/30 LP/mm at the reds, try getting any decent red in digital camera. I need to look up Fujichrome or Ektachrome specs.<br>

Most good lenses, Leica 50mm/f0.95 are only good in the center sweet spot at 40 LP/mm. I shot with Rollei stock which can resolve up to 160 LP/mm. My film is basically limited by the optics, which I had the best fast Nikons around.<br>

The newer theaters installing 4k projectors, should be changing their seating at a steeper angle so everyone sits closer.<br>

A few films using high res downsampling, primarily for SFX and matte shots, Spiderman, etc.<br>

The film, Che, was filmed with a Red camera, it looks like video from what i've seen, not close to film.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>"Alan, no one argues the medium format film captures more detail thand a DSLR. (Other than the Luminous Landscape ha ha)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Earlier you posted that a 40D can't capture as much detail as 35mm film, and now you're saying that medium format DOESN'T capture more detail than a DSLR. Like so many of the posts on this topic (including many of the rather suspicious-looking images), this doesn't do much to help further either side of the debate. Some clear-headed posts and high-definition crops would be welcome at this point.</p>

<p>I'm having some Pentax 67 chromes scanned at the moment. Perhaps I'll be able to post some samples a week or two.</p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Dan, you are confused. By no one argues, I mean that MF obviously captures more detail than a DSLR.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>It's not "obvious" to me, and I've made lots of large prints from chromes that I shot with my Pentax 67 II. I've seen prints from 16MP Canons (shot by other people) that exhibit similar detail and greater sharpness than my film prints.</p>

<p>I've had both digital and chemical prints (Ilfochrome classic) made from my Pentax chromes. I'm very concerned with sharpness and in order to minimize vibration, I've always attached the Pentax to a heavy Gitzo tripod with a large ballhead and a custom QR plate. Perhaps the difference in sharpness lies in the area of lens quality; modern Canon lenses are going to resolve better than old Pentax MF lenses. In summary, I would never make a blanket statement about film "obviously" outperforming digital. My observations over the years indicate that that's not always the case.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Tripod, system, lens, technique and anything else you do that becomes the bottle neck is not the film's fault.</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Tripod, system, lens, technique and anything else you do that becomes the bottle neck is not the film's fault.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Kodak film: <em>"Mauro, have my babies!"</em><br>

Fuji film: <em>"No Mauro, have MY babies!"</em><br>

Mauro: <em>"Kids, kids, no need to fight. There's enough of me to go around!"</em></p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Sleep deprived & slightly insane,<br>

Rishi</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Tripod, system, lens, technique and anything else you do that becomes the bottle neck is not the film's fault.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed! Perhaps this explains your apparent lack of success with the 40D.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Ha ha. Dan, I with "anything else you" I meant the generic "you" (not directed at you). I apologize if it came across that way.</p>

<p>Rishi, back to the thesis. You are on lock down. I want to see those grades.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Rishi, in defending your thesis, remember to rephrase the questions to match your answers.</p>

<p>Sleep!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>Rishi, in defending your thesis, remember to rephrase the questions to match your answers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ahhh... don't you love academia? :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rishi, back to the thesis. You are on lock down. I want to see those grades.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes sir. Anything to get your DR tests on film for some dynamic range tests of my Minolta with it's now modified uber-amplified light source :)</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Bernie, as promised I run a test for you. No resolution charts. Just objects, identical composition, lighting and all.</p>

<p>I even used just Ektar as I was finishing a roll instead of Velvia.</p>

<p>(I will be out for dinner but I will answer questions, provide raws, etc later or in the morning)</p>

<p>Results:</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Close Ups:</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Link to 100% Crop:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7469988_hodC5#481944852_7SQ5U-O-LB</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Compositions for both fill the frames identically.</p>

<p>Ektar was shot with 50mm 1.4 f8.</p>

<p>40D was shot with 17-40mm (at 30mm) f8. (Yes this far outresolves the 40D).</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is the RAW file for the 40D:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://download.yousendit.com/Y2o4SU5HSytEa1ZMWEE9PQ" target="_blank">http://download.yousendit.com/Y2o4SU5HSytEa1ZMWEE9PQ </a></p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is the full 40D shot in JPEG:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7469988_hodC5#481975979_ufMVq-X3-LB</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is the full scan of Ektar in JPG (with minor cropping):</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/7469988_hodC5#481976939_rdQHv-X3-LB</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>And a few fun shots from the same roll:</p>

<div></div>

[mjferron]

<p>Mauro Thanks for all your hard work on these. I started a thread a while back on how convienient it was to shoot print film and get back some nice prints (Kodak processing) and a photo CD for web display. Beats the hell out of downloading and printing myself for some situations. (Not serious art) I'll have to give Ektar a try. Having said that I see a bit ore detail in a few of the film samples above but this is not earth shattering to my eyes.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thank you Michael.<br>

The edge for film widens once you shoot landscape (because of the random patterns), even more when you shoot slides, and obviously a lot more when you move up in format.</p>

<p>I hope you like Ektar. It is a super nice all-rounder.</p>