scanned film vs digital

[bernardwest]

C Sharon.... I believe that this is a depth of field issue. The 40D will have greater depth of field than the 35mm film if distance and field of view are the same.

 

Todd.... There are definitely a couple of possible short comings of this test, but in the results posted it is clear that the film resolves more than the digi. But as stated, this difference would be very small in the real world. But I agree that if Mauro is up to it, he could retest using the same lens on both cameras. I'm not sure though if this would make that much difference, because to maintain the same field of view, the digi would need to be situated further from the subject, and therefore sacrifice resolution this way.

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>But I agree that if Mauro is up to it, he could retest using the same lens on both cameras. I'm not sure though if this would make that much difference, because to maintain the same field of view, the digi would need to be situated further from the subject, and therefore sacrifice resolution this way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bernie, Mauro's already done a variation of the test you suggest. Here's the thread: <a href="00RV7N">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00RV7N</a></p>

[bernardwest]

Rishi.... what I remember thinking from that thread was how crazy this resolution obsession is. In my mind there was no doubt as to what image was more desirable. The 40D. Any supposed resolution advantage to the TMX was lost in grain and blur. I have just had another look at the thread, and I reckon there is more detail in the 40D shot anyway. But to be fair to Mauro, he treated the 40D as a full-frame 26mp, which wouldn't be the case if the 40D was framed to have the same field of view as the 35mm. In that latter case, the 35mm would have probably outresolved the 40d.

[rishij]

<p>Right on Bernie, you're absolutely right. It's kinda insane, especially when cameras like the D3x and the 5D Mark II now make it a no brainer as to which format to choose (if you're getting started).</p>

<p>The higher resolution in the film is so hard to get at. Do you have the right scanner? Did you focus properly? Did you flatten your film across the entire frame? Some may say 'well then send it off to get scanned on a drum scanner', and to that I retort 'if I did that for every frame, I'd be penniless!' To which they'll retort 'just send the ones you really care about'. To which I retort 'but the 5D Mark II gives me that quality for <strong>every frame I shoot</strong> , not just the ones I <em>care about</em> more than the ones I <em>kinda sorta care about</em> !'</p>

<p>Now, if suddenly there existed an affordable scanner that doesn't make me about focus and holding the film flat across the entire frame without Newton rings, blah blah blah, and that could some how extract all of the almost HDR level of information that film contains... then there might be an argument for me to continue shooting film. I haven't seen a drum scan of any of my slides yet, but no Imacon, Nikon, or Minolta has ever been able to pull out the wealth of information I see under a light microscope in Dmax regions of my Velvia film.</p>

 

[bernardwest]

Wow. Just downloaded a the beta of rawtherapee and did a quick conversion with a bit of sharpening in the raw converter, and it is clearly better for this kind of detail. Almost no colour artifacting.<div></div>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>C Sharon, that is a depth of field issue. The 40D has more DOF becuase of the smaller sensor. Where you've pulled crops are not the focus point.....thus the film image will be out of focus in those areas. It has nothing to do with raw resolution. All the comparisons here are showing Ektar the winner...no matter who processes them.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Yes Rishi, DOF on of a 50mm focal length on full frame is much narrower than 30mm on a crop sensor.</p>

<p>Also, the "spice" are not against the back drop, they are away from it closer to the camera (to answer the relative focus section).<br>

It is strange why people would compare detail in the out of focus areas anyway...?</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, the "spice" are not against the back drop, they are away from it closer to the camera (to answer the relative focus section).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phew... I thought I was losing it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is strange why people would compare detail in the out of focus areas anyway...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anything to prove your own thesis & your own self-interest!</p>

<p>Mauro, sure I'd love to scan whatever you want to throw at me. Also, did you notice the Neat Image artifacts I mentioned?<br /> <br /> Cheers,<br>

Rishi</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Todd, "TMAX didn't resolve nearly as much fine detail as digital."<br /> Not sure how you draw your conclusions, or what test you have done you are referring to, but TMAX resolution is far superior than even what my Coolscan can capture (which is several time already of what my 40D can capture).</p>

<p>FYI, in order of resolving power:</p>

<p>TMAX outresolves Velvia, which outresolves Ektar, which outresolves my Coolscan, which outresolves my 40D by far.</p>

<p>My advice, would be, either test it yourself if you want to know, or shoot your DSLR and enjoy it without worrying too much about resolution.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>"Right on Bernie, you're absolutely right. It's kinda insane, especially when cameras like the D3x and the 5D Mark II now make it a no brainer as to which format to choose (if you're getting started)." --Rishi</p>

<p>There's nothing insane about it if you take these results as indicative of what you might get with medium format film, since, if there is virtual parity between digital and film at 35mm, then medium format film is going to give results that nothing digital can begin to match--except perhaps in the case of the latest Phase One P-65 digital backs (60 megapixels), and even there I am not so sure.</p>

<p>For me, at least, the question is thus not whether 35mm film can out-resolve full-frame digital (much less the cropped sensor 40D), but what is the future of <em>medium format film</em> . If these tests were being run with medium format film (and not 35mm film), does anyone have any serious doubts as to what the results would imply about how far digital has to go to achieve parity--at an affordable cost?</p>

<p>As for the 35mm comparisons, these are also useful for establishing exactly where the level of pariity would be, and that is going to depend on the specific film used (and the scanning method employed), as well as the particular digital sensor that one is using to make the comparison.</p>

<p>The issue is thus not whether "Film rules!" or "Digital rules!" but where doe each rule, for each has its domain in which it is likely to remain superior for the forseeable future.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[rishij]

<p>Good points, Landrum. I should've clarified that I was referring to a no-brainier between >20MP digital SLRs and 35mm, in terms of resolution anyway.</p>

<p>Now if only we could get an affordable 6000ppi medium format scanner! I know Mauro's been dreaming of one :)</p>

[don_e]

<p>"What's going on here?"</p>

<p>Well, there is a good bit of confusing accutance and resolution. There's also the comparison of images each with just a little bit of usm here a bit of NR there...and so on. That's most of what's going on.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>That is right Lannie,</p>

<p>On full frame DSLRs: Although 35mm film may outresolve and have more DR than current DSLRs, that gap can, for practical purposes, be closed with time (at least for resolution). Here it becomes a matter of personal preference. B&W film probably will still be a big leap over DSLRs.</p>

<p>On crop sensor DSLRs: If you shoot landscapes and you have the option between a crop sensor DSLR or 35mm, (and have a good scanner), for me 35mm film is far superior. Especially in DR if you use film like Ektar.</p>

<p>On medium format: Coming to medium format, the Coolscan scans an area almost 5 times larger on 6x7 than on 35mm. It is a different order of magnitude when compared to a DSLR. Not sure there is even a clear path on how DSLRs will get in this range in the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding the lenses too, the amount of information even captured by my mamiya lenses is also vastly superior than my DSLR primes.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 02, 2009; 09:09 a.m.<br>

Todd, "TMAX didn't resolve nearly as much fine detail as digital."<br />Not sure how you draw your conclusions, or what test you have done you are referring to, but TMAX resolution is far superior than even what my Coolscan can capture (which is several time already of what my 40D can capture).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Roger Hicks (if I recall correctly) tested TMax 100 with the Bessa R3a and either a 75 or 90 Sumicron. With that lens/camera/film combo, he obtained 125lp/mm. </p>

<p>I think we can agree that the 40D comes NOWHERE near that figure.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1501968">Bernie West</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 02, 2009; 06:29 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Wow. Just downloaded a the beta of rawtherapee and did a quick conversion with a bit of sharpening in the raw converter, and it is clearly better for this kind of detail. Almost no colour artifacting.</p>

<p>Bernie, that looks much better. Could you please apply to the full image and post at upsampled the the Ektar scan.</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Raw Therapee is awesome. I've been using it to process landscape shots from my Pentax K20D with superb results. The only problem I find is with pure color transitions....ie, red against blue.....you get weird artifacts along the transition line.</p>

[c._sharon]

<blockquote>

<p>I believe that this is a depth of field issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rishi, Bernie, Dave - DOF, and the fact that Mauro used different lenses crossed my mind as possible reasons for the more detailed crops from 40D. However here is my take on it. The sofa, and the bottles and cans, are equidistant from the camera so the DOF should be more or less the same for both the sofa and the bottles/cans. I see better texture in the sofa crop from 40D than from Ektar. The latter crop is too smooth, as if the details have been smoothed away. So if DOF is an issue with the crop from the sofa then it should be an issue with the crop Mauro has shown as well, IMO. In addition, look at the word "STAND" on the metal tripod in both shots. I did not show it in my crop so you will have to look at the full images. It looks well focused in the Ektar shot.<br>

Rishi - Regardless of the DOF issue, as far detail in my first crop is concerned, look at the small star between the two larger stars. It is much better defined in the 40D crop than in the Ektar crop. Similarly, the carpet in the 40D crop looks like a carpet - the fibres are visible. In the crop from Ektar, the carpet looks almost like a plastic sheet. The 40D crop overall looks better. My take on the detail in the sofa crop is mentioned above.</p>

[rishij]

<p>C Sharon,</p>

<p>No way man. The extra 'detail' you're seeing on the sofa in the 40D crop is unresolved detail enlarged by upsampling using a bicubic algorithm. It exhibits the classic softness associated with bicubic upsampling. Some of it is actually unresolved detail + noise upsampled, it looks like to me.</p>

<p>The Ektar sample has hoards more detail in that sofa crop than the 40D. I'm really surprised you'd conclude otherwise.</p>

<p>The writing 'stand' on the stand is actually better resolved in the Ektar scan; the reason you think it's more well defined in the 40D is simply contrast enhancement between the white lettering of 'stand' and the black of the stand. Look more closely, it's entirely blurry/out of focus.</p>

<p>You really have to be careful about post-processing results that, in this case, enhance contrast and lead you to believe that one has higher resolution when in fact that is untrue. Hence the debate of accutance vs. sharpness vs. resolution, etc.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In the crop from Ektar, the carpet looks almost like a plastic sheet.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is most likely due to Neat Image processing, which tends to get rid of low contrast detail. Mauro, you should post unprocessed Ektar scans. Also, Mauro, no offense, but the Neat Image artifacts are hideous in the carpet and in the umbrella shade. I see diagonal crystal-like artifacts all over the place... this is exactly what I see when I am not careful with the sharpening/noise settings in Neat Image. It was so bad at one point that I was wondering if it was AN glass etching patterns on to my film! But no... it's just Neat Image doing a piss poor job.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[c._sharon]

<blockquote>

<p>The extra 'detail' you're seeing on the sofa in the 40D crop is unresolved detail enlarged by upsampling using a bicubic algorithm. It exhibits the classic softness associated with bicubic upsampling. Some of it is actually unresolved detail + noise upsampled, it looks like to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rishi<br>

The original 40D image without upsampling looks similar. Plus I used Lanzcos interpolation for upsampling, not bicubic. The softness you see is due to the fact that it is fabric and naturally soft, unless Mauro can testify otherwise, After all it is his sofa. To my eye, the sofa in the 40D image looks better.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The writing 'stand' on the stand is actually better resolved in the Ektar scan; the reason you think it's more well defined in the 40D is simply contrast enhancement between the white lettering of 'stand' and the black of the stand. Look more closely, it's entirely blurry/out of focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, the word STAND looks better in the Ektar image and that was my point - since it looks good in the Ektar image DOF is probably not an issue? May be, may be not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You really have to be careful about post-processing results that, in this case, enhance contrast and lead you to believe that one has higher resolution when in fact that is untrue. Hence the debate of accutance vs. sharpness vs. resolution, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My post processing was very simple. I only converted the raw image, applied auto levels, upsized and sharpened it. Not applying auto levels did not make much difference to the converted image.</p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>So to add to the world's longest thread, here's my question..<br>

Given that there seems to be comparable quality between high end 35mm and a decent digital SLR, does this mean I can finally relax and shoot landscapes in 35mm, and not be constantly worried that I should be doing it in medium format??? I really like the idea of shooting some slides next road trip and projecting them when I get back, 35mm is really the only feasable way for me to project. Oh, and my enlarger only holds 35mm so there's another plus for shooting b&w in 35mm. Yes I do (meterless) MF sometimes but I prefer my F5 with it's wonderful metering.. So far my photos don't actually contain much worth looking at, and I'd rather spend my money on going and shooting more rather than duplicating my system in MF...<br>

Any thoughts chaps?</p>

[bernardwest]

Mauro, here's the full scene processed by RawTherapee upsized to match the ektar scan. The only adjustment I did was to sharpen slightly in the raw converter. Note the letters "URY" at the top of the can. While the letters at the bottom are better in RT than in DCRAW, the URY seems cleaner in the dcraw conversion. Interesting how one algorithm handles some parts of the scene better than another algorithm but it's the opposite in a different part of the scene. Cheers.<div></div>

[ole_hjalmar_kristensen]

<p>Chris, unless you have an extremely good digital projector, I think you will be more satisfied with projecting your slides than using a DSLR. But it is the projector that is the weak link, not the DSLR.<br>

For B&W and landscapes, you can get as little grain as you want, and your lens will limit the resolution if you choose the right film. Download the full resolution image I posted earlier and have a look at it. It is shot handheld in the afternoon, so it could be sharper, but there is no grain, even at 5000 dpi.<br>

That said, when I leave for Iceland later this summer (not primarily a photo trip), I will likely take my old Olympus E-300 and a handful of memory cards, and not the Pentax 645N. Yes, the Pentax gives me technically better pictures, but the Olympus is good enough for me. And just maybe I'll bring an old Minolta X-700 and some slow B&W film.</p>

<div></div>

[ole_hjalmar_kristensen]

<p>And a crop from the above image</p>

<div></div>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>Thanks for that..</p>

<p>I've done a little with Delta 100 in 135 and was very pleased with the results but was always worried about what you always hear about 35mm being 'unsuitable' for landscapes. I know my max enlargements aren't that large, so I suppose I should just use my Rolleicord if I plan to go big</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>So far my photos don't actually contain much worth looking at, and I'd rather spend my money on going and shooting more rather than duplicating my system in MF...<br /> Any thoughts chaps?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like you have the right idea.</p>