scanned film vs digital

[mwr]

<p>OK, here's a 157% upsize (with more cropping).<img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714c2_157p.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[mwr]

<p>And another 100%, cropped as above so it fits on the page.<img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714c2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thank you. I think your workflow was like mine with more subtle sharpening.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I run print test of all on Epson Ultrasmooth last night. Up to 8x10s bothe the 40D and Ektar looks good. At 11x14 Ektar looks good but the 40D resolution limitation is visible at close inspection. </p>

<p>At 16x20 and 24x30 the Ektar shot still looks very good, and good. The 40D does not. (If the 40D shot were to be hung up were you could only look at it from 6 feet away, Bernie's 40D file would be the most viable - a tad soft but not intrusive).</p>

 

[mwr]

<p>>Thank you. I think your workflow was like mine with more subtle sharpening.<<br>

Yes, but I did all sharpening in Photoshop, setting DPP to 0 sharpening. I find for "problem" images that it works best that way. Also, I don't agree at all with Bernie West's low opinion of DPP RAW conversion. I like the fine detail it produces (with noise reduction set to zero), the great Canon colors, and the ability to try Canon's styles to see which one you prefer.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Mitch, I agree with both you and Bernie.<br>

DPP processing may not be the best at sharpening but it definitely brings out the best colors and corrects artifacts an other subtelties. You can compare the left side of the siluoette of the Bailey's bottle (looks better when sharppend on DPP).</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Ektar's dynamic range also has added bonuses. e.g. the reflection on the gold rim under the Bailey's cap looks very natural.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The sad thing about the new Ektar in 120 is that I can't afford a 44" printer. At 24"x30" (uder the loupe) a test print from using a scan from Ektar 6x7 ( 360+ native dpi, using the 35mm as the source at this point), shows that there is more detail on the file that the printer can render on Ultrasmooth Fine Art.</p>

[johan_niels_kuiper]

<p>@ Clayton Tullos:</p>

<p>I could not resist and took a swing at the shot you uploaded in Photoshop CS3. Here's what I did:<br /> Despeckle<br /> change to Lab color<br /> despeckle again<br /> clone layer<br /> revert to RGB (no flattening)<br /> Sharpen edges on background<br /> switch new layer to Multiply mode<br /> reduce opacity on new layer to 60%<br /> sharpen edges on the new layer<br /> flatten image<br /> save as copy JPEG</p>

<p>Whole process, including figuring out is a 6 minute job. I started over three times. Result is attached with the post. Hope the upload will be full size, so you can have the cleaned up shot on your wall. Thanks for the opportunity to practise on a shot that really seems to matter, great picture!</p>

<p>Cheers, Johan</p>

[don_e]

<p>"In essence there is a difference in scanned film and dgital, though in fact both scanned film files and digital camera image files are both digital image files, simply derived from different sources."</p>

<p>And very different processes --- scanner != digital camera</p>

<p>"But, I digress. This ludicrousy longwinded bickerfest has taken me at least eight precious minutes (which I will never get back) to sort through to come to the conclusion that you are all a bunch of idiots for sitting at..."</p>

<p>There's always something new to learn.</p>

 

[mwr]

<p>I also like that hiking shot. I did a bit of Noiseware on it then darkened the light parts with PS Shadow/Highlight.<img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/negative_filtered_700w.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Link to full-size image:<br>

http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/negative_filtered.jpg</p>

[don_e]

<p>I decided to do a conversion of Mauro's 40D "spice" raw.</p>

<p>Method:<br /> Conversion settings in Breezebrowser Pro:<br /> Conversion Method: linear<br /> Smart NR: off<br /> White Balance: as shot<br /> Color Space: as shot -- greyed-out saturation, contrast, sharpness, style, and mode.<br /> Exposure comp: 0<br /> Post-processing was enabled to get to the lens choice menu,. Choosing the lens from the list did not seem to alter the image. but every other tick was left unchecked<br /> I made the crop in the conversion.<br /> Output settings:<br /> Profile: sRGB<br /> Format: Jpeg<br /> Quality: 100</p>

<p>Then in Koren's favorite editor, Picture Window Pro, I set a gamma factor of .40 with the Gamma Adjust tool</p>

<p>Then did a Save As:</p>

<p>Quality 100%<br /> Color Sampling: 4.1.1</p>

<p>Just for variety</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[don_e]

<p>Taking to heart Occam's Razor, in BBPro's post processing tab, I input 2.2 under gamma settngs. Everything else before the PWP section in the previous post remains the same. The PWP part does not apply to this image.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>DPP processing may not be the best at sharpening but it definitely brings out the best colors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not anymore... you guys <em>have</em> tried the new Adobe DNG profiles for ACR, available <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles">here</a> , yes? Scroll down and you should see the link. Alternatively, here's a <a href="http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs_cameraprofiles">direct link</a> to the download.</p>

<p>This adds profiles to ACR that emulate the Canon DPP settings, such as Landscape, Portrait, Neutral, etc. These colors are much better than the original ACR colors (which IMHO never renders reds/warm tones correctly).</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Rishi</p>

[bernardwest]

Mick.... I might have been a bit rough on DPP. I agree that it's colours and detail are very good. It's just that when you need to start adjusting things with its sliders, all sorts of weird things start to happen, and there is no explanation of what is really going on behind the scenes.

 

On the detail point, I did a quick conversion last night with DPP with no sharpening, and it's detail is just slightly more accurate than the dcraw conversion. When I get a chance, I might try some trial versions of other raw software and see what can be done. I'm most interested in this "Precaucion" word on the spray can. These artifacts look like they are probably some sort of demosaicing algorithm problem. i.e., better demosaicing (say 5 years time??) could see this problem fixed. The only other thing it could be is some sort of sensor blooming around the white letters, but from memory, this file was not clipped in the highlights anywhere (at least not in these letters), so I can't see how it could be a sensor issue.

[mikal_grass]

<p> I shoot with a Leica and scan on a Coolscan 9000. I need to learn how to use the scanner properly. I don't understand all of the technical stuff, but I like my film camera and the results that I get from it. I would buy a digital SLR or digital rangefinder, if I could afford one, but for the time being, and a long while, I will stick with my gear. <br>

Serge, great shot.<br>

Mauro, my brain is ready for any scanning wisdom that you can impart.<br>

By the way, do you guys have families.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Mikal, I use the same scanner so feel free to ask away. Though scanning at full resolution, adobe RGB, ICE normal, and all other adjustmends turned off is what I do 99% of the time.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Bernie,<br>

I believe the problem could be somewhat addressed by better demosaicing algorithms, but the true problem comes from the limitations of rhe camera overall and also only 25% of the sensor being sensitive to red.</p>

<p>Remember a 10MP dslr captures rougly 2.5MP of red information, whereas the coolscan captures 21MP of red info. The scanner has a full RGB sample per pixel (more like a 63MP foveon sensor on 35mm).</p>

[mwr]

<p>>When I get a chance, I might try some trial versions of other raw software and see what can be done.<<br>

I'll definitely be interested in what you find. I just remembered that I have DxO converter so I'll have a go with that and see what I get.</p>

[mwr]

<p>OK, here's the result of a DxO RAW conversion with no adjustment or sharpening (to the best of my ability; I'm new using DxO), plus USM in Photoshop. I tried one using the DxO defaults and didn't like the result as well.<br>

100%<br /> <img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714_DxO_noadjust.jpg" alt="" width="426" height="372" /><br>

157%<br /> <img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714_DxO_noadjust_157p.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[c._sharon]

<p>Everyone has been busy looking at the sections of the images from Ektar and 40D that Mauro showed and prematurely jumped to the conclusion that Ektar showed more detail. Not so fast. Here are crops from other parts of the image which tell the opposite story.<br>

<img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn189/pbucket2009/IMG_571440DCrop1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

40D<br>

<img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn189/pbucket2009/IMG_5714Ektar100Crop1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[c._sharon]

<p>In my previous the second image is from Ektar, the first one from 40D. This is my first post on Phote.net so I didn't quite get it right. The crop from 40D clearly has more detail.<br>

Here is another crop of the umbrella in the image from 40D followed by crop from Ektar<br>

<img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn189/pbucket2009/IMG_571440DCrop3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

40 D<br>

<img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn189/pbucket2009/IMG_5714Ektar100Crop3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Ektar</p>

<p>Final crop of sofa from 40D followed by crop from Ektar<br>

<img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn189/pbucket2009/IMG_571440DCrop2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

40 D<br>

<img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn189/pbucket2009/IMG_5714Ektar100Crop2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Ektar</p>

<p>I converted the raw image from 40D in Rawtherapee, applied auto level and resized 10 160% using Lanczos3 in GIMP, followed by deconvolution sharpening. I have not processed the Ektar image.</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>In my previous the second image is from Ektar, the first one from 40D. This is my first post on Phote.net so I didn't quite get it right. The crop from 40D clearly has more detail.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Welcome to photo.net. I have to disagree with your conclusion here. Look at the marking (scratch) on the right side of the tripod. The Ektar is sharper. The reason the writing on the background stand is sharper in the 40D is surely a depth of field and/or focus issue.</p>

<p>Although, Mauro pitch in, the tripod should be more out of focus if you focused on the spices/bottles, shouldn't it? Hmm... now I'm confused.</p>

<p>Remember that at f/8 the 40D will have a higher depth of field than the full frame Ektar at f/8.</p>

<p>Also, C Sharon, the sofa looks sharper in the Ektar scan... so I'm not sure how that helps your point.</p>

<p>Finally, looking at that close-up of the umbrella texture in the Ektar scan -- Mauro do you use NeatImage? You do if I remember correctly. You have to be careful with Neat Image's sharpening algorithm. If you lower the 'Noise Levels' slide for mid-frequencies, and/or apply a lot of high frequency NR but not as much mid-frequency NR, and/or if you use any of the sharpening sliders at the bottom, Neat Image starts creating detail that looks like little crystals oriented in all random directions. I think this is just a result of noise that already exists, was masked by high-frequency noise, but becomes unmasked as mid-frequency noise when you get rid of the high-frequency noise and then sharpen mid-frequency detail. Do you see it?</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[todd_carson]

<p>My God, this thread is still going?</p>

<p>C Sharon shoots and scores! What's going on here? Front focus? Back focus? Who knows. But don't you all feel pretty silly spending hours and hours arguing over a tiny crop from a single test performed by a single guy?</p>

<p>I could have told everyone here that in general real 35mm film scans don't compare well to real digital files. And that a single test, especially a test where the tester admits to flawed methods such as sub optimal raw processing and lens mis matching, doesn't count for beans.</p>

<p>I could have even posted numerous film scan versus digital file comparisons to make the point.</p>

<p>Oh wait...I did all of that!</p>

<p>Everyone should have paused and thought carefully about the fact that no film fan here could match the series I posted. If film is so much better it should have taken all of 15 or 20 minutes to post a half dozen comparisons of real shots proving it. No one did. Know why? Because if they even bothered to check they found the same types of comparisons I posted. And film didn't look too good in those, did it?</p>

<p>Mauro posted one link to one TMAX portrait. Nice shot, but if he had bothered to compare it against the digital portrait crops I posted and their source images he would have found that TMAX didn't resolve nearly as much fine detail as digital.</p>

<p>So much for the looney theory that a 10 MP digital camera only resolves 2.5 MP of detail while a 21 MP 35mm film scan is like a 63 MP digital sensor because red is R and RGB needs GB and blah blah blah.</p>

<p>People can talk themselves into believing anything. There are people who seriously believe that NASA never landed men on the moon. They have tests to.</p>

<p>Go home people, nothing to see here, photograph your kids or pets or favorite test charts. Leave digital versus film studies to the real pros on the web.</p>

[ole_hjalmar_kristensen]

<p>I don't have a comparison with digital, but here is a 5000 dpi B&W scan which shows that film scans do not need to be grainy and have plenty of resolution. No grain reduction applied, slight sharpening in the scanner software. A better scanner would possibly have extracted more information, but it's enough for my purpose.<br>

Link to full size jpg:<br>

https://www.yousendit.com/download/U0d4WWV1ZDVEa1YzZUE9PQ</p><div></div>