scanned film vs digital

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Daniel, you really need to learn to read. I have NEVER said I went to Reichman's gallery. What I said was with the original D30 test prints vs Provia he made, I viewed the prints at a photolab where he had them displayed. On his website, he made out like everyone was ooing and ahhing over the digital being better.....well guess what, they weren't. And neither was I. The digital print was soft and artificial looking...but with good color and no grain. Some people preferred it....many did not.</p>

<p>As to posting tests, comparisons, and samples, I've done so probably 2 dozen times at DPReview when people requested it. This includes scans of 35mm Velvia vs the Nikon D200 (the film won), shots showing how film maintains highlight details better than DSLRs, MF 6x7 vs 17mp DSLR, samples showing film images interpolating up in large prints in a more natural manner....the list goes on.</p>

<p>The fact is, all you can do is post links to refuted sites. I burst out laughing when you defend MR @ the LL site by saying he updated his test opinions. LOL. He was wrong, doesn't change his findings, and posts new tests that contradict his old. Does the D30 outresolve Provia on an Imacon? No. Does the 1Ds outresolve 6x7 Provia? No. I won't even bother going into the problems with the other sites you've mentioned as they've been hashed out to death many times over the years.</p>

<p>You see Daniel, many photographers over the years have posted samples that show that the sites you've mentioned have incorrect information. Digital users ignore those. Many tests even here have shown 35mm resolves way beyond the 3, 6, 10, or 12mp a lot of people claimed. Because comparisons now show it....posting those links like you have simply makes those of us who know better laugh. Sorry, you didn't make any point at all. Now to avoid having to explain the same things over and over when they've been said a hundred tmes, I'll avoid the grief ann simply ignore your future posts.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p>The perceived "sharpness" you point out is because the D2X reaches extinction much sooner. I believe you digiheads claim the lack of fine detail characteristic as <em><strong>clean</strong> </em> . Notice the blue river veins going to Port Harcourt? The forming of all the letters? That you would question the difference in how the word Libreville and the star symbols are more fully formed - clearly indicating considerable resolution advantage of Fuji Velvia, fits the the aforementioned term scotoma as used in the movie.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Les, maybe you should do some USM on the filmscan to bring up the acutance. I know you wanted to keep post processing to a minimum, but when I do USM on the film image, the detail difference becomes even more staggering. The D2X version doesn't benefit much at all from any USM. After I ran USm on the film shot, it's pretty amazing how the details pop out that only appear as jagged mush on the digital shot.<br /> Of course, because you haven't posted a bunch of charts, graphs, and test sheets, nor do you hold a PhD, even though we can see with our eyes that 35mm beats a 12mp DSLR (hmmm, what happened to 3 or 6mp that was just being paraded as fact a moment ago? ;-).....then I guess we can't trust what we see and have to have blind faith that the charts are correct and that we cannot use our eyes to evaluate samples. ;-)</p>

<p>As always Les, thanks for posting your samples. Like Mauro (who didn't post a chart or graph and does not hold a PhD) it becomes clear that some web-experts refuse to believe what thy see, and continue to post silly links.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>D2X up - 35mm film down:</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>40D left - 35mm film right</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Daniel, you really need to learn to read. I have NEVER said I went to Reichman's gallery. What I said was with the original D30 test prints vs Provia he made, I viewed the prints at a photolab where he had them displayed.</em> <br /> <br /> Distinction without difference, but it gave you a chance to shout and act important so I guess it's all good.<br /> <br /> <em>As to posting tests, comparisons, and samples, I've done so probably 2 dozen times at DPReview when people requested it.</em> <br /> <br /> I can't recall you doing it once, and I'm not about to back track through your many posts on multiple forums. Open a flickr account and post the files. I'll gladly look them over.<br /> <br /> <em>The fact is, all you can do is post links to refuted sites.</em> <br /> <br /> To this point you have not posted one link to any site, nor one sample of anything, nor one valid rebuttal to anything said on the sites linked. Do you realize how silly you look attempting these digs given that fact?<br /> <br /> <em>I burst out laughing when you defend MR @ the LL site by saying he updated his test opinions.</em> <br /> <br /> I burst out laughing at the chip you have on your shoulder. Reichmann obviously snubbed you at some point. I'm convinced of that. Whatever personal issue you have with him, be a man and take it to him and resolve it. Or get over it and move on.<br /> <br /> <em>LOL. He was wrong, doesn't change his findings, and posts new tests that contradict his old.</em> <br /> <br /> Posting something new is changing his finding. What do you want the man to do, find you and kiss your butt every time he refines his position?<br /> <br /> <em>You see Daniel, many photographers over the years have posted samples that show that the sites you've mentioned have incorrect information.</em> <br /> <br /> Ah, the mythical many photographers again.<br /> <br /> <em>I'll avoid the grief ann simply ignore your future posts.</em> <br /> <br /> Oh...promise?!? Thanks man! I really appreciate that! :-)</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>40D</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>6x7 scan</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>40D b</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>6x7 scan b</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel, based on my examples (since you don't have your own), what conclusions do you reach?</p>

[wentbackward]

<p>I think we should take all our film and burn it, it burns quite well. Then we should take little wire brushes and rub our sensors with them. Then we should all log off photo.net and disable our accounts.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Thanks Mauro....but without a PhD, I'm not able to notice any difference.....LOL!</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Mauro,<em></em></p>

<p><em>Daniel, based on my examples (since you don't have your own), what conclusions do you reach?</em></p>

<p>The clips you selected from the Velvia/D2X shots show exactly what I said: blur on one hand, aliasing (what I referred to as roughness) on the other. I wouldn't have posted the full resize if I had felt otherwise. With this comparison blurred letters look better at 200% in Photoshop, aliased but sharp letters look better at 50%, it's personal preference at 100%. Note that at this scale we're talking about prints larger than the original map in all cases. We are severely nitpicking. These side by side crops clearly show that for all practical purposes one is as good as the other.</p>

<p>If you disagree, fine, but I'm not going to sit here zooming back and forth in Photoshop all day long. I call it as I see it, your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>As to your personal tests I don't see any point in comparing a 40D to 6x7 film. Unless you're stitching shots from the 40D to compare the workflow and results between a panoramic tripod head and a medium format outfit, it's just silly. Why don't we compare 35mm film to a 60 megapixel PhaseOne P65+ back? The only possible purpose of the comparison is to make one look much worse than it actually is when used appropriately. Which for 35mm anything means a certain print size range.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,<br>

10MP DSLR compared to 6x7 film:<br>

I'm, glad the comparison of medium format film vs 10MP DSLR seems absurd to you. Because it is. That is the point.</p>

<p>10MP DSLR compared to 35mm film:<br>

The difference 40D against 35mm is massive. I can't even read "Favorite Receipies" on the can shot with the 40D.</p>

<p>If you don't mind me asking, what cameras do you have (DSLR and film)?</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Mauro, with the 40D having only 4% less horizontal resolution than the original 1Ds, isn't it odd how well the 6x7 scan you did does compared with what the DSLR got....despite what some popular, often quoted websites have spouted in the past. Odd how so many of us get far different results than the oft quoted experts.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Also keep in mind the Luminous Landscape states:</p>

<p>- the 40D is better than the 5D, <br>

- the 5D is better than the 1Ds<br>

- 1Ds is better than 6x7.<br>

Hence: they state the 40D is better than 6x7.</p>

<p>ha ha (you gotta love it. Do you still feel ok posting links to the luminous landscape?):</p>

<p>LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE:<br>

" I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D, which up until now has been my benchmark for DSLR image quality both at low and at high ISO"<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-40D-handson.shtml</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Mauro, you almost had coffee coming out my nose. Thanks for the great laugh!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Mauro, is there any way you can compare the 1Ds II at 16.7 mp to 35mm film? My own very subjective sense is that digital achieves parity at about that level, if not slightly below--say, about fifteen megapixels. </p>

<p>This is also one of the figures that Roger N. Clark also trots out, if properly read (and I have to admit that he invites misreading, at best, and at worst cannot quite seem to see the implications of his own data).</p>

<p>I am assuming low sensitivity film here, about ISO 50.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[timages]

<p><strong>WOW.</strong> ... So many <strong>NERDS</strong> in one place, its better then watching 'the Big Bang Theory'<strong> LOL.</strong></p>

[don_e]

<p>This is an entertaining thread. I want to see Michael Reichmann and Ken Rockwell debate this issue. I'm all for more entertainment in thses hard times.</p>

<p>As Shemp said in Sing A Song of Six Pants "I'm too young to worry and get wrinkles on my pretty little face. What we need is some music to cheer us up!"</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>"Mauro, is there any way you can compare the 1Ds II at 16.7 mp to 35mm film? My own very subjective sense is that digital achieves parity at about that level, if not slightly below--say, about fifteen megapixels".<br>

I don't have a 1DsII to test. I can tell you that detail of 35mm film (Ektar, TMX, Velvia) is superior to the 5DII so is dynamic range. Those are the facts.<br>

Is that what you are asking?</p>

[apdx]

<p>If anybody cares, watch 'Antonio Gaudi' by Teshigahara Hiroshi and 'Annie Hall' by Woody Allen to see how crafty masters utilise the advantages as well as limitations of the media. Part of the creative process. Impossible to replicate in digital. At least for now.</p>

<p>Happy shooting, Y</p>

[petr_tyll]

<p>One can not take these "tests" that state that digital is better then film much serious. It is obviously about money. There is a czech saying "whose bread you eat, his song you will sing". In Czech Republic there is a company which is an exclusive sale representative of Sinar. He stated on his website (picture that was suppose to prove his point: <a href="http://www.profifoto.cz/okno_por19_8.html">http://www.profifoto.cz/okno_por19_8.html</a>) in 2004 that according tests made in 2000 the Sinar back with resolution 4.2 MPx is better then film 4x5. Can you trump this?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>10MP DSLR compared to 35mm film:<br /> The difference 40D against 35mm is massive. I can't even read "Favorite Receipies" on the can shot with the 40D.</em> <br /> <br /> I didn't notice that you had labeled that as a 35mm comparison. There's something wrong with that shot. A 40D is not substantially different from a D2X in IQ (look at dpreview's test shots), yet the D2X map crop compares favorably on that test while the 40D did horribly in your test. What settings and post processing did you use? Specifically if you resized, how did you resize?<br /> <br /> <em>If you don't mind me asking, what cameras do you have (DSLR and film)?</em> <br /> <br /> Email me off list.<br /> <br /> <em>I can tell you that detail of 35mm film (Ektar, TMX, Velvia) is superior to the 5DII so is dynamic range. Those are the facts.</em> <br /> <br /> Velvia is most certainly not superior to the 5D mkII in dynamic range. And you better define detail because a 5D mkII will out perform any of those films at the MTF50 point. At the MTF10 point it will arguably be a wash, with just a hair more detail on the film. This is assuming perfect shots and drum scanning. BTW, if you understand MTF curves and what is most important in terms of viewer perception, you will understand why someone like Norman Koren will say 35mm film has more resolution but his 20D prints are sharper than anything he ever printed in the darkroom. Some of what other people would call contradictions are not contradictions, they're evaluations of different aspects of image quality. Image quality is not just a MTF10 lpmm measurement.<br /> <br /> I'm getting pretty exhausted with this, but I am curious to know the details of your 40D shot. It is an outlier.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>"I don't have a 1DsII to test. I can tell you that detail of 35mm film (Ektar, TMX, Velvia) is superior to the 5DII so is dynamic range. Those are the facts." --Mauro Franic</p>

<p>That is interesting, Mauro. When I first asked this question about the digital equivalence of 35mm film back in 2002, someone (I know not who, nor the methodology employed) said that it was about 22 MP.</p>

<p>For some reason that number has stuck with me, although it probably means absolutely nothing. I can't believe that it would be too far off, though. I can't tell a whole lot of difference between the comparison shots of the 1Ds III and the 1Ds II. (The forrmer is, of course, virtually the same as the 5D II in terms of its "guts.")</p>

<p>So, who really knows? I think that it safe to say that high end DSLRs have caught up to film in resolution. As for medium format? My guess is that that will never happen with the 24 x 36 digital sensor, unless there is some kind of unforeseeable breakthrough over the horizon somewhere.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>