scanned film vs digital

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks to Bill and Robert for the comments on perspective problems in stitching. I have never read of such problems, but it seemed to me that there might be some. </p>

<p>Does anyone know some of the best sites for reading about the subject of stitching?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know some of the best sites for reading about the subject of stitching?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A little green guy once said, "Do, or do not. There is no 'try'." :-)</p>

<p>Go to <a href="http://hugin.sourceforge.net/">http://hugin.sourceforge.net/</a> Download the software. Start having fun.<br /> </p>

[swilson]

<p>For Landrum Kelly,<br>

Some sites to look at<br>

This is the program I use, you can view the Tutorials on line<br>

<a href="http://www.ptgui.com/">http://www.ptgui.com/</a><br>

This is old but worth looking at<br>

<a href="http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm">http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm</a><br>

And here<br>

<a href="http://www.maxlyons.net/gallery.htm">http://www.maxlyons.net/gallery.htm</a><br>

For very high resolution look here<br>

<a href="http://gigapan.org/index.php">http://gigapan.org/index.php</a><br>

This is on of mine, a 1710MP image, or 1.71 GP<br>

<a href="http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=9021">http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=9021</a><br>

You might want to check this group out, a lot of activity on it<br>

<a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/</a><br>

 

<p>Perspective is not a problem with stitching, a good program makes it easy to do the same corrections that a LF camera does.<br>

As far as resolution, stitched photos can have far more detail then a 4x5 LF photo. If you scan 4x5 at 4000 ppi you end up with 320 MP. However most 4x5 photos are taken at a large enough f/stop that 2000 ppi is more then enough to capture all the detail, which then something like 80MP.<br>

For stitching 80MP is a small photo and really does not take much take to take the photos or stitch them.<br>

Stitching is not for everyone, and it someone would rather shoot LF that is a fine choice as well. But stitching can give you the same and better resolution as LF with simple cameras.</p>

</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks for the info, guys. I want to see if this would work with (1) scanned film files (i.e., huge!) and (2) Canon 1Ds II files (16.7 MP). I hope I don't have to upgrade my computer system to run files the sizes I am likely to get--and that is if the software can handle such huge files to begin with.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[swilson]

<p>I use Photoshop Elements, for files that are 100MP it is very fast, going past 200MP it starts to get a bit slower.<br>

Keep in mind you only need 54MP to print a 20x30 inch print at 300ppi.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks, Scott. I am a relative novice to scanning, and a total novice to stitching, although I have now downloaded some things from the sites that you and Robert have mentioned above. After I get off from work today, I will try to proceed from there--in baby steps.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Ken Papai - Marin County, Calif. wrote:<br /> <br /> " (Leo:) "film is its own best archival medium..."<br /> <br /> Not even CLOSE. I can make 1,000 identical copies of a Camera Raw file and scatter thosw image files across the globe perfectly -- with film? Zero. You have one physical chance at it, no more.<br /> What to do mean Mr.... Leo?"<br /> <br /> <br /> Lets take a look at archiving in extreme way. How about surviving in 9/11 attack in WTC in New-York in 2001? Is it tought enough event? I doubt any compact disk or magnetic tape or any other computer media survived there. How about photos? Yes, those pieces of silver-paper with depictured light? They survived A LOT.<br /> <br /> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> "January 7th - January 13th, 2005<br /> <br /> Port Authority Launches Website of Photographs from WTC Debris<br /> <br /> Friday, January 7: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced that it will launch a restricted-access website on January 18 containing an estimated 8,000 photographs recovered from the World Trade Center debris during clean-up efforts at Ground Zero, the New York Times reported.<br /> <br /> "This is an excellent way for us to do something that could -- and I emphasize could -- help the families who lost a loved one that day, and the survivors," Port Authority Executive Director Kenneth J. Ringler, Jr. told the Times.<br /> <br /> The photos, which were restored at no charge by the Eastman Kodak Company, will be placed on a password-protected website for family members of victims to examine and claim...."<br /> <br /> http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/downtown/week_in_review_94240.aspx<br /> <br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> "Victims' Relatives May Claim Photographs From 9/11 Ruins By DAVID W. DUNLAP<br /> <br /> Published: January 8, 2005<br /> <br /> They could scarcely be more prosaic. They could hardly be more precious.<br /> <br /> In one picture, someone is being presented with an enlarged check, maybe a jumbo paycheck. In another, someone holds a fishing pole with a good-sized fish dangling at the end. People are seen toasting one another in conference rooms. Or sunning themselves under palm trees. Or playing volleyball. Or gazing out over the world 110 stories below from the observation deck of the World Trade Center.<br /> <br /> <br /> These are among 8,000 personal photographs that once adorned desk tops, office walls and cubicle partitions in the twin towers. They were recovered from the ruins, scanned and digitally restored in 2002 by the Eastman Kodak Company. Now, officials hope to reunite them with the victims' relatives and the survivors of the Sept. 11 attack.<br /> <br /> The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced yesterday that it will open a limited-access Web site this month on which family members of victims can examine the images. If they find ones they recognize, they can make a claim to the New York Police Department, which has custody of the pictures. Last month, the police announced a database to aid in the return of jewelry found in the wreckage."<br /> <br /> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/08/nyregion/08restore.html<br /> <br /> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> Seems, God_Creator_of_LIGHT likes that **photographic ART**, not "recording tool". The photo-paper AND FILM are *flexible*, CD-Rs are solid-state. In extreme situation paper and film are better than CD-R. <br /> <br /> Anyway, You could not present electronic computer with stacked CD-Rs before CREATOR when You ..... say *report Him* about Your life. But silver paper photography with funny visible images - Ok.<br /> <br /> Think about it. I am serious, .... probably.</p>

[swilson]

<p>For <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=643213">Sergiy Podolyak</a><br>

<a href="http://www.beststuff.com/fromthewire/sandisk-compactflash-memory-card-survives-blast.html">http://www.beststuff.com/fromthewire/sandisk-compactflash-memory-card-survives-blast.html</a><br>

"<br>

AUGUST 2004 – When a demolition crew set off an explosion to bring down an old highway bridge on the Mississippi River, newspaper photographer Don Frazier was so close that his hair stood on end. His <a id="KonaLink0" onclick="adlinkMouseClick(event,this,0);" onmouseover="adlinkMouseOver(event,this,0);" onmouseout="adlinkMouseOut(event,this,0);" href="http://www.beststuff.com/fromthewire/sandisk-compactflash-memory-card-survives-blast.html#" target="_new">digital camera</a>, positioned on a tripod at an even closer point to remotely capture the event, fared much worse. It was blown to bits.<br>

But to Frazier’s amazement, there on the ground, inches from the shattered remnants of his new pro-level <a id="KonaLink1" onclick="adlinkMouseClick(event,this,1);" onmouseover="adlinkMouseOver(event,this,1);" onmouseout="adlinkMouseOut(event,this,1);" href="http://www.beststuff.com/fromthewire/sandisk-compactflash-memory-card-survives-blast.html#" target="_new">camera</a>, was his SanDisk 256MB CompactFlash card, which he had owned since 1999. Surprisingly, except for a few nicks, it was unscathed, even though it had been blasted from the camera chamber. And when he inserted the card into a PC reader, up popped an image that has astonished everyone who’s seen it. "<br>

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3939333.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3939333.stm</a><br>

<a href="http://news.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029672,39190664,00.htm">http://news.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029672,39190664,00.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/17/submerged-camera-holds-functional-memory-card-two-years-after-ac/">http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/17/submerged-camera-holds-functional-memory-card-two-years-after-ac/</a></p>

 

[bill a.]

<p>Forgive the morbid metaphor, but this will be like arguing mandatory seatbelt compliance.... for every one saved in an accident by wearing one, someone will point out the person who lost their life in a burning or sinking car that couldn't get out of theirs. A fool's errand...</p>

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>For Scott Wilson:<br /> "Paper":<br /> "The earliest recorded forms of paper were in use in Egypt in around 3500 BC, made from the papyrus plant. True paper is believed to have originated in China in approximately the 2nd century AD, although there is some evidence for it being used before this date."<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll_(parchment)<br /> Scott, can You please show SanDisk of comparable age and comparable RETRIEVE-ABLE FORMAT?<br /> Can You retrieve documents from 5" floppy disk now ? How do you gonna find 5" floppy drive now? Could you use or retrieve photo images from SanDisk in its 32-bit FAT system, if Micro$oft will ban it by the court or something else this "way"? How can You be sure to retrieve photo - of the wedding of your daughter once in a life - from media, that requires legal permission to use it from 3-rd party or requires another whole complex of *compatible* equipment?<br /> Instead, the only "tool" You need to see the priceless photoimage from paper or film - THE LIGHT ITSELF. It is so easy ....</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Sergiy,</p>

<p>Your comparison is not a valid one. Talking about storage media like the 5" floppy and asking what access people have to one now is not relevant. The 5" floppy was a computer software standard. The CD and DVD are consumer media standards for entertainment and dwarf the acceptance ratio of 5" floppies by a billion to one. CD reading media will be around for the forseeable future....beyond our lifetimes. A more reasonable comparison would be to that of the cassette tape or LP.....both which are readily playable and have been around for the better part of 75 years for LP and 50 years for cassette. </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Don't you think the discussion here has got a bit technical. Here's something for a lot of us who want to keep using great film cameras as well as our quickly redundant digital cameras, but don't want to get stung with mediocre and expensive scanning from the lab. We also don't want to spend yet more megabucks on incredibly complicated workflow software. Read on...<br>

In our business we have a number of multifunction printers...mainly so we can give everyone a personal printer/scanner/fax capability at the desk. We usually go for ones that sell for $400 or so. You can see where I'm going with this, can't you?...<br>

Mine is a Canon MP810, and guess what? It has a film scanner function that scans mounted slides and film strips at up to 4800dpi to three different formats. So I thought I would give it a go. Absa-bloody brilliant! here is a sample which I sucked into and cropped in Microsoft Picture Manager....no editing or sharpening etc etc. Its straight Provia (400 iso), taken with an FM2n with a 100/2.5 at f2.5 shot at 1/400th. Again, who needs to spend megabucks on workflow?<br>

My message...all this is good enough for me.</p><div></div>

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Click-ability of your digital camera is not adequate compensation for the creativity and freedom of control of regular SLR 35 mm film camera; easiness of modern computer printing is not adequate compensation for the certainty of reproducing of your memories anywhen and anywere now and in the future. The non-visible "better resolution" of expensive digital camera is not adequate compensation for the contrast, dynamic range and proper color balance of the film.</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>and proper color balance of the film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What? White balance of color film is only set to one temperature; so if you're talking about how color balance tends to vary widely from shot to shot in a digital camera, just take your digital camera off AWB (auto-white balance) and keep it set at 5000K or 6500K.</p>

<p>Else, the digital RAW workflow provides tremendous advantage to film in that you can set the white balance in post processing. More easily done if you've shot a a grey or color card in advance in that lighting. With Adobe DNG profile editor, you can shoot color cards and make profiles for your camera so that you accurately record the colors of the scene. This is incredibly advantageous!</p>

<p>You can do the same with film & color cards, etc., but it's a much more difficult process that has to take into account scanner profile, then film profile, etc.</p>

<p>The 'color balance' of Velvia film, for example, is locked in to whatever Fuji decided the optimal color response to 'real-world' colors would be. Fortunate for us Velvia shooters, for the most part, it's a very pleasing color rendition.</p>

<p>And let's not talk about 'proper color balance' for negative film... there's no such thing. Given the variability in orange masks and inversion algorithms, it's a nightmare.</p>

<p>Now, if you're talking about the color range recorded in film, yes I believe slide film to capture a wider gamut of color given the broad spectrum of wavelengths over which the dye couplers respond. Digital cameras broaden the spectrum of colors captured using interpolation.</p>

[c._sharon]

<p>I have read about an alternative to stitching multiple photographs called super-resolution. This is a technique to actually increase the resolution of an image after it has been taken. It combines multiple images which are only slightly different from one another using software to create a higher resolution image. I haven't tried it myself yet.<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution<br>

Photo Acute is a software that can be used to implement super resolution</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Photacute works well. You take four or eight images, and the software puts the images together. Different than stacking. It seems to boost horizontal rez by 20% or so based upon what I obtained.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>The thread that just won't die!</p>

[James G. Dainis]

At least we got the definitive answer to is there a difference between scanned film and digital. If you don't see it, go back and re-read the entire thread and this time pay closer attention.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>There will be a test on this thread on Friday.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[sergiy_podolyak1]

<p>Rishi Sanyal wrote: <br /> " (Me:)"...and proper color balance of the film."<br /> <br /> What?..."<br /> <br /> You are talking about *white balance of color* - this is narrow concept; it is also called "grey balance" or "neutral balance". <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_balance<br /> I am talking about more wider concept of color reproducing, including *color rendition*. Digital colors are of plastic, un-natural, caramel.<br /> Please take a look at comparison of VERY GOOD digital and good scanned film on very expensive pro equipment here: <br /> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison.htm<br /> You will see that film is MORE SHARP (call this "resolution"), MORE CONTRAST (this gives you VOLUME AND PERSPECTIVE on your photos,) and finally, has more natural-looking colors (digital colors are foggy and gray, if you will try to simply add color by over-saturate digital colors they become too caramelic).<br /> <br /> (Warning: do not trust *everything* on Ken Rockwell's web site. While technical side of his descriptions and explanations is good, some photographic-art points are missed. For example see his "Zeiss vs. Nikon" test, where he simply missed contrast consideration. If you have good monitor you will notice high contrast of Zeiss lens and proper color rendition, adored by Hollywood studios. Zeiss lens gives studios NEEDED VOLUME and accuracy of color REPRESENTATION in very different situations in movies. <br /> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/bokeh.htm ).<br /> <br /> Rishi Sanyal wrote: "Now, if you're talking about the color range recorded in film, yes I believe slide film to capture a wider gamut of color given the broad spectrum of wavelengths over which the dye couplers respond. Digital cameras broaden the spectrum of colors captured using interpolation."<br /> <br /> In both film and digital photography there are color distortions you can NOT reverse. It is an issue not only for sensor or film, but for LENS too:<br /> -Zeiss ZF Lenses - High Performance For Nikon and Canon-<br /> "The ZF line offers a color balance which is generally warmer (more yellow and a touch of magenta) than most Canon and Nikon and Leica lenses. The ZF line is warmer than even the Leica 90/2 APO-Summicron-R and 180/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R and the Voigtlander 180/2.8 APO. However, it's more complicated than that-after working with the ZF lens line for over a year, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the color of the ZF lens line is the most pleasing ever encountered by this reviewer. The ZF lenses consistently produce images which are gorgeous. Adjusting color temperature in RAW-file processing for the other brands (even Leica) does not produce the same pleasing result as the ZF lenses; it's about an entire tonal rendition, not a simple white balance issue. Color is quite simply the most natural and pleasing this author has ever seen."<br /> http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/zeiss-zf-lenses-%E2%80%94-high-performance-for-nikon-and-canon/<br /> <br /> Again, digital cameras having narrow dynamic range, optimized first (read "trick-ed") for reproducing colors of human's skin. That is why digital colors of green and blue are plastic and caramelic if directly compared to film:<br /> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/film-digital.htm<br /> <br /> What else should we discuss additionally to all these tests and direct comparisons? Maybe, stupidity of "digital controls" of almost all digital cameras? Should we?<br /> To be short, here the verdict on "controls":<br /> "-Drastically Improve Your AF SLR Images!-<br /> OK Photogs, ready? Take notes, and repeat after me:<br /> Switch the camera from automatic to manual exposure and from Autofocus to manual focus.<br /> Shh....don't tell anyone. The more people who know, the harder it will be for you to win those photo contests.<br /> You probably think I'm kidding. I'm not.<br /> The sad truth is, the more decisions your camera makes, the less you think, and the more out of touch you are with your images. <br /> Try it and you'll may be surprised by the marked improvement in your photography. Hmm. Maybe you are smarter than your camera after all. "<br /> http://www.cameraquest.com/improve.htm</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>You know, its comments like this that have made Reuters confine their photographers to zero image manipulation, 300dpi Jpegs:<br>

<em>Rishi Sanyal wrote: "Now, if you're talking about the color range recorded in film, yes I believe slide film to capture a wider gamut of color given the broad spectrum of wavelengths over which the dye couplers respond. Digital cameras broaden the spectrum of colors captured using interpolation."</em><br>

Surely this just confirms the view that digital is just too hard for Joe Bloggs to make good natural images. And to quote the image editor from one of our best selling fashion magazines:<br>

"<em>Its only network bandwidth that stops us requesting RAW files from our shooters. We'll do the fixing in our office, thanks. We think that submitted images have too much correction and the trend is producing good photoshop technicians, not good photographers. We see twenty or more images submitted per pose in the hope that one is good. That's no good for us. It wastes our time.<br /> </em><br>

<em>We are starting to use direct, real time image file transfer via Idruna software via PDAs, and this is allowing us to tame down the machine gun shooter. We want more art and less tech in our publications."</em><br>

They still take many shots from freelancers using slide film...especially medium format. The light box still gets lots of use for the most important images.<br>

Film is not dead by any stretch....</p>

 

[lovcom_photo]

<blockquote>

<p>Sergiy wrote:</p>

<p>Lets take a look at archiving in extreme way. How about surviving in 9/11 attack in WTC in New-York in 2001? Is it tought enough event? I doubt any compact disk or magnetic tape or any other computer media survived there. How about photos? Yes, those pieces of silver-paper with depictured light? They survived A LOT.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Digital is better for your "WTC scendario" then film.</p>

<p>Why? Easy! With digital you can store 100% fidelity copies of each image file in MANY places. So if you have a copy in the Twin Towers, no worries because you also have copies in LA, Miami, and Tijuana too.</p>

<p>PS Are you really quoting Ken Rockwell?!? Don't do that, as it lowers your credability... ;-)</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<blockquote>

<p>Sergiy wrote:<br />Click-ability of your digital camera is not adequate compensation for the creativity and freedom of control of regular SLR 35 mm film camera; easiness of modern computer printing is not adequate compensation for the certainty of reproducing of your memories anywhen and anywere now and in the future. The non-visible "better resolution" of expensive digital camera is not adequate compensation for the contrast, dynamic range and proper color balance of the film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true on planet earth. What you wrote is completely false, and is the type of mistake that film-only shooters say out of intimidation, lack of digital knowledge, fear, ignorance, and bigotry.</p>

<p><br />I shoot film 99% of the time these days and love film but this does not cause me to become a film bigot, or a digital hater.</p>

<p>There is a place for film and digital, and they BOTH provide sky high image quality, and "compesation" in ALL areas, to use your own term.</p>

[rishij]

<p>Yeah, I must say I don't understand any of Sergiy's arguments as they appear to all be emotional ones rather than objective ones. However, I <strong>am </strong> glad he pointed us to that <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison.htm">Ken Rockwell comparison</a> that I hadn't seen earlier... it's pretty interesting.</p>

<p>The fact that a minilab scan of 35mm film is stacking up against the 5D Mark II & the D3x... also, I never realized how poor the color resolution of these Bayer sensors can be... I mean, it was sort of obvious in these color resolution chart comparisons <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page20.asp">here</a> , where a 4.6MP Foveon sensor is beating much higher resolution Bayer sensors...</p>

<p>But still, pretty cool to see film beating and/or rivaling high-end DSLR sensors in real-world images.<br>

-Rishi</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Rishi.....that is why many of us burst out laughing at the nonsense written in the LL article about the 3mp Canon D30 beating an Imacon scan of 35mm Provia. The fact that some people still quote the LL boggles my mind.</p>

<p>Now to be fair, in order to see all the extra rez, 35mm has to be enlarged so much that grain can become an issue. Of course, that is what MF is for. And the LL had an article for that as well......which is respected about as much as the D30 vs Provia article......in other words.....only quoted by uninformed trolls.</p>