scanned film vs digital

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>... scanning it automatically on a modified Nikon LS-5000. i scan about 800 feet or 3200 frames a day ... i scan uncompressed, 4000dpi, no corrections and they are magnificent frames.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, <em>this </em> is interesting. Are you bypassing the AF and AE stages in order to get the scanning speed up?</p>

<p>God, it's got to be glorious to look at on 4k digital projection (or are you printing back to film?)</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>People seem to get stuck on small differences in resolution, but resolution is only a small part of what makes a photograph good. As for images shown in this thread, I have not seen one that I would call close to high resolution.<br>

In truth is resolution is all you want then it is pretty cheap and easy to get, see the photo in the link below. The photo was taken with a camera that cost less then $300.<br>

Note the image is somewhat large at around 135MP, so you will most likely need to download it to view it, i.e. it will view in most browsers.</p>

 

 

 

 

<a href="http://sewcon.com/frontloader/bw.jpg">http://sewcon.com/frontloader/bw.jpg</a>

<p>But the fact is you rarely need that kind of resolution, other factors in the photo count for far more.</p>

 

</p>

[todd_carson]

<p><em>Good for you Todd. Unfortunately, the other samples here prove your incorrect</em> <br /> <br /> The other samples are carefully manipulated illusions proven by the fact that high resolution scans of normal shots can't compare with digital. And further proven by the fact that people like you respond to this challenge with words and not scans.<br /> <br /> <em>.....just because you can't scan film correctly....</em> <br /> <br /> They're Les Sarile's scans. His scans look good to me. The scans aren't the problem. Amateurs like you who believe trolls and their tests are the problem. I notice you have no scans to contribute to the thread nor any digital files. Put up or shut up.<br /> <br /> Here's a comparison of a 5500x3600 film scan versus a 5616x3744 5D II file. Dave, if you think the scan is faulty post a crop from a 35mm film scan of a head and shoulders portrait which you have done.</p><div></div>

[todd_carson]

<p>Here's some foliage for you Dave. Which do you think would produce the better landscape print, the 4000 dpi Velvia scan (left) or the 5D II file (right)? Take your time there, don't want to rush judgment on this. LOL!</p><div></div>

[todd_carson]

<p><em>Todd, in addition, please notice these quotes from the long thread above:</em> <br /> <br /> You want me to notice quotes? In a thread about photographs? The OP asked about scanned film versus digital. Not about quotes about scanned film versus digital.<br /> <br /> I could quote Mauro that 10 MP cameras are really 6 MP cameras while 35mm film scans are really 20-30 MP. But that's so ignorant and absurd I don't know where to begin!<br /> <br /> Yes I do! Here's a crop from a 4000 dpi Ektar 100 scan versus a crop from my wife's digital camera which I shot this morning just for this thread. I resized the digital file to match the Ektar scan dimensions. Even with a smaller sensor, even at a severe size disadvantage, even after resizing, the digital file is still sharper. Plus it outresolves the Ektar scan! Guess which camera and how many MP. Go ahead. If you knew which camera and how many (few) MP I had to deal with for this comparison, the handicap I put on myself, you would swear off 35mm film and never believe a stupid test like Mauro's again. His claims are ridiculous in the face of reality. How many samples do you need to see before you realize that the tests aren't worth the electrons required to post them?</p><div></div>

[richard_p]

<p>Todd,<br>

It's just a waste of time and precious space to post these useless images unless you shoot the same scene (subject) both with digital and film camera. You are not going to convince anybody, period. </p>

<p>Richard</p>

[todd_carson]

<p>If you can look through the scans at Les Sarile's site (no offense Les, they're actually good scans) and look through your own files or the many samples available at digital camera review sites on the web, and still believe Mauro's manipulated test or Sarile's manipulated maps, then you are blind.</p>

<p>Keep shooting 35mm and telling yourself that you are out resolving digital while the rest of the world moves on.</p>

[todd_carson]

<p>Richard I looked for a film scan, both at Sarile's site and in my old archives, where the film would look better or even half as good as average digital shots. I can't find any. Do you know a web site which has some? Can any of the film guys here post any?</p>

<p>Digital files are so consistently better than film scans that producing crops for this thread is like shooting fish in a barrel. Ektar is supposed to be better than digital cameras with over 20 MP yet I am able to take a stroll with my wife's D40, shoot some leaves hand held, and embarrass a 5kx3k Ektar scan. You people need to get out in the real world. Which is what I'm going to do. It's a beautiful day for some hiking. Now that I know a little Nikon D40 has more true MP than a 20 MP Ektar scan I think I'll leave the D300 at home.</p>

[richard_p]

<p>Your methodology is even worse than that of MR. Reichman from LL. At least, he shot the same subject although he was biased. You will not do anything good to promoting digital because you compare apple to orange.</p>

<p>Richard</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I think it's obvious Todd is just a troll. If he thinks his wife's D40 can outdo a 5K scan from Ektar, I think we know how little experience this fellow really has. Any posts respnding to him are a smiple waste of time. Once he gains a little experience, and actually uses the gear he's talking about, then he'll be rather embarassed at how foolish his posts look to those of us who know better.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>If the 60mm macro outresolves the 40D at f/8 then photozone should not be able to detect a resolution difference on that lens between f/4, f/5.6/ and f/8, with a lesser 8 megapixel Canon camera. But they can: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/162-canon-ef-s-60mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review?start=1</p>

<p>Maybe it wouldn't make much difference but you should identify and use the very sharpest aperture in the future.</p>

<p>Your post processing caused a loss of resolution and detail in the 40D image. Why don't you acknowledge that and update the presentation? It doesn't change the end conclusion of that test but it is more accurate and honest.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Todd,</p>

<p>I'm not sure what to make of your posts. Ideally a comparison should be done using the same subject, lens, etc. Could you at least provide links to the images used so that we can review the full files?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Les,</p>

<p>Mauro should change it because otherwise it looks like he purposely manipulated the test to make things look worse. If he cares about the integrity of his test, he should care about the post processing differences.</p>

<p>Could you try to act like an adult and not turn every post into an opportunity to throw insults around and irritate people? Thank you.</p>

[jay_moynihan]

<p>I marked this thread for posts to be sent to me email. But it is beginning to read like the film vs digital junk at DPReview. Does anyone know how to "unmark" a thread? Thanks</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Les, I don't think you'll be seeing any samples from Daniel. He's never posted anything here or at DPReview. Typical web-expert.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Les,</p>

<p>It does change it because the gap is not so large when properly post processed. And my post was addressed to Mauro, not you.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Todd, as I understand your methodology, it goes something like this:</p>

<p>"Here are some pairs of pictures having absolutely nothing to do with each other, since the subjects are not the same and the shooting conditions are not the same. Nonetheless, I have chosen pairs in which the digital file is sharper than the scanned film file."</p>

<p>Todd, what on earth are we supposed to do with such an approach?</p>

<p>Some thiink that you are a troll. My own view is that you have no earthly idea what you are doing.</p>

<p>Please give us some pairs of photos of the same subjects made under the same conditions, and then we will have some basis for evaluating your claims. At present your claims are neither true nor false, simply meaningless. No one quite knows what to do with them in any kind of systematic or scientific manner.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[trevor_fiedelleck]

<p>All this scanning stuff is new to me. Do not know anything about it at all, so if you guys could refrain from any rock throwing my way, it would be appreciated.<br>

I have a few decades of old negatives stored away in boxes. My woman bought me a CanoScan 4400F for x-mas. Some of these negatives hold dear sentimental value to me. Do I bother with this new scanner, or go to a lab? I have no fancy photo software and limited computer knowledge.<br>

P.S. I joined this site to learn, not start any fights. Input is appreciated.<br>

Trev.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Les....with people like that it goes like this:</p>

<p>Whatever sample test you post, you've done it wrong, you're biased, you're not telling the truth....even if you show the other Holy sites to be incorrect.....even when they agree it's incorrect. No matter what you do.....you're wrong.</p>

<p>Now, let's get back to the 3mp vs Provia or the 1Ds vs 6x7.....both which must be correct because they are constantly quoted....but have been proven wrong.....by the sites authors themselves. Hmmm.....when it's put that way.....sounds like the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.</p>

<p>How could we ever dount them.....one whos just joined the forum , and both, who can't seem to post a single image of their own. Yes, it must be all of us who are crazy ;-)</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Trev, take them to a lab. The learning curve for scanning film is large. You be better of spending your time enjoying your images than having to spend the time figuring out what works best. If you're not really a film user now, I wouldn't both.</p>

<p>That said, the Canon scanner is fine. With some basic compter skills, you can still obtain your scans....but a lab will do a much better job!</p>

[trevor_fiedelleck]

<p>Thank you, Dave.<br>

I do shoot film, as my first choice. That is just what I understand, right now. My digital expierience is just progressing slower than most. After 30 plus years of shooting film, I just get a bit confused with all the technical jargon with my digital stuff. I'll get there. Thank you again.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Ok I have a suggestion. Since I only have a 3200 dpi scanner I'll take identical photos with digital and 35mm Tmax 100 and post the 100% crops from each. I'll use my little Canon G10 for the digital shot and a Nikon slr body with a 50 1.8 for film. I'll use mid range aperture (f8) for the film. Both cameras will be tripod mounted and every effort will be made to assure the sharpest shot possible. Then I'll mail the negative off to anyone here that has a scanner that can improve the film scan and is willing to put the little sensor to shame. This should be easy considering above film has 10 times more resolution than 10mp digital as Mauro claims. Now this is coming from someone who shoots both film and digital and does not have an ax to grind either way. Takers please sign up below.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Lannie why do you chose to insult people when they don't agree with you. I said I did not like the last digital shot because it was over sharpened I did not care for the last film shot because it too was soft. I never said film is soft or digital is sharp. For the other shots Todd posted I prefere the digital version due to the cleaner look I said that these are good examples as to why some prefere the cleaner digital files over scaned film I assume we are looking at 100% crops.<br>

I spent 6 years thats 5 days a week 8 hours a day working making wide format prints, prints ranging from a couple of feet wide to several feet wide some work for artists some were work was comercial advertising. I had to deal with both excelent and crappy input files both film and digtal and I am well aware of file sizes and viewing distances for larger print sizes. In all these stupid film digital arguments both parties pick the subject matter to show their chosen mediums strong points. Film user tend to show subject that have fine details and like to show how well film will capture a resolutions chart. Digital user like to show how clean digital is and like to concentrate on clean areas of color. None of it really matters if the images are not worth printing in the first place. And nobdy cares about film or digital if the images are great. Use what you want and be happy.</p>

[hakon_soreide]

<p>I've been away from photo.net for some time, but obviously not long enough. People still insist on beating dead horses and discuss things having nothing to do with getting good and interesting pictures. It has everything to do with artistic vision and hardly anything to do with technical nitpicking, film or digital, density ranges, or - dare I speak the word: resolution charts.<br>

I'll be back in a few years, perhaps.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Stuart, the shots were not comparable. You seem to have walked in during the middle of the conversation and failed to understand what Todd was trying to do. No disrespect was intended.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>