scanned film vs digital

[todd_carson]

<p>Set 4</p>

<div></div>

[todd_carson]

<p>These are what film scans typically look like. And this is how they typically compare to digital camera files. I'm sorry, but all these tests and all this talk about film being proven better than any digital camera is bunk. It's nothing but sleight of hand and misdirection by people purposely manipulating tests to get the results they want. 35mm film cannot live up to the claims being thrown around here. And anyone who believes otherwise will be very disappointed when they get their first rolls back.</p>

<p>Oh, in case you're wondering, I dumped my 35mm scanner and all my film gear for Nikon digital because this is what I saw shooting in the real world. Film apparently performs much better in fantasy test land. So if one of my assignments ever takes me there, I'll be sure to stock up.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Good for you Todd. Unfortunately, the other samples here prove your incorrect.....just because you can't scan film correctly....don't blame us.</p>

<p>And where are YOUR tests? I thought so.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Todd, at this point 35mm film does well to hold up to high end digital, which has reached a state of maturity of sorts by giving us sensors now in the 20+ mega-pixel range. On the other hand, without your identifying what was shot with what, you have given us nothing that we can use to make a valid comparison.</p>

<p>If you go beyond 35mm to medium format, on the other hand, it is still absolutely no contest.</p>

<p>I've been shooting digital seriously now for seven years, starting with the Olympus E-20, then going on to the Kodak 14n (14MP, Nikon lenses), and finally on to the Canon 5D and 1Ds Mark II. I could sell some stuff and go to the next step in digital, but it is pretty clear that it has taken this long for digital to get to the level of virtual parity with 35mm, and it is equally clear that, if I want to keep fiddling with digital until it achieves parity with medium format, I might well be waiting many more years. The future is today for me. I don't have the luxury of youth. I can't wait for digital to catch up, as your generation can. I want the best that I can get now without having to pay for huge digital backs. Since I don't like to fool with large format (though I am in awe of it and have the equipment), Ihave chosen medium format.</p>

<p>Trot out something from Nikon or Canon that comes remotely close to medium format film. We'll give it an honest look. We're not deliberately manipulating anything. We don't have to. We may be getting older, but we've still got eyes.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Todd, in addition, please notice these quotes from the long thread above:</p>

<p>"Many tests even here have shown <strong>35mm resolves way beyond the 3, 6, 10, or 12mp a lot of people claimed</strong> ." --Dave Luttmann</p>

<p>"Ektar 35mm should resolve <strong>somewhere in between the D2X [12MP] and the A900 [24 MP]</strong> ." --Mauro Franic</p>

<p>"If one reads to the end [of Clark's analysis], the results indicate that <strong>a match in resolution occurs more nearly around 15MP</strong> --and again that is only with regard to resolution." --Lannie Kelly</p>

<p>Dave and Mauro give quite a range of possible values because there is some uncertainty, and this is spite of their extensive testing and attention to the tests of others. I was addressing claims made on the site of Roger N. Clark, but I was also eyeballing it based on my own work with both 35mm film and the Canon 1Ds Mark II at 16.7 MP.</p>

<p>So, I hope that you can see that none of us is the dogmatist or reactionary that you think that we are. We give digital its due (for it has come a long way), and we all use both film and digital. In all of the above, we were talking about the resolution (and only the resolution) of 35mm film, and the reason for our not nailing it down a bit tighter is that it depends on the film. Test results are also sometimes quite difficult to interpret. People who simply eye-ball things, such as myself, often miss the mark by quite a bit.</p>

<p>I hope that this helps you put our claims in perspective. Digital is fast and convenient and really quite remarkable. It simply does not always give us the results that we want and are willing to work to achieve, and that is why we often (or at least sometime, in my case) shoot film, in spite of the time and trouble that it can take. We think that it is worth it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Why does film have to be scanned, anyway? Maybe there are people who would use the wet darkroom, if they knew that it was still an option? At, least for B&W. And, there are always a slide projector for chromes. I know this is a scanned film vs digital thread. But, surprising as it may seem. the wet darkroom is still possible this days.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Todd those samples seem to reflect my own experience somewhat. The only shot there where I don't like the digital is the last shot of a face where it looks oversharpened but film shot is too soft also. Those shots are a good example as to why many prefere digital to film not everyone thinks that photography is all about max resolution not everyone wants to shoot velvia on a tripod or Tmax100. Those cleaner looking images from the digital files are as just as important for many photographers as the resolution of velvia is for landscape photographers. It's just comes down to personal choice as to which one you prefere. For me it does not really matter what I use the results will be somewhat the same at the images sizes I print.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>I agree with Jack, yes I make scans of my slides, mainly for internet and e-mail purposes, but this is a secondary use to me, I look at my slides either on the light box with a 8X loupe or on the wall projected with my Leica slide projector. This is the way I enjoy them, the other one is that I enjoy the fact that film is physical, inherently archival and slides do not require post-processing in front of a computer. I have always been told that a chain is as strong as its weakest ring, hence if we compare scanned film with digital, we need to ask ourselves if the weak ring is the film or the scanning process.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>"Todd those samples seem to reflect my own experience somewhat. The only shot there where I don't like the digital is the last shot of a face where it looks oversharpened but film shot is too soft also."</p>

<p>So, you guys grandly declare that digital is sharp and film is soft, even though YOU HAVE NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE FILES IN QUESTION? Even worse, you give an opinion BEFORE YOU EVEN ASK ANYTHING ABOUT THE FILES. I get the sense that we are trying to talk to people who have never thought seriously about the relation of file size to final outcome, whether viewed on the screen or in print, what was the ISO, how strong was the AA filter in front of the sensor, etc.--and there are a lot of questions that one ought to be asking before making any judgment of any kind, much less any sweeping pronouncement about one medium versus another.</p>

<p>In addition, resolution is not sharpness. The reason this kind of thread can become pointless is that some of these guys have never actually tried to carry both kinds of shots of the same subject all the way to print. If you would subject yourself to that kind of self-disciplined activity just once, you would begin to have an inkling as to what is being discussed here. At present you have no clue. You see one file sharp and the other soft, and you don't even bother to ask anything else about the file, one of which is size. You just offer the great (but utterly worthless) generalization that digital is sharp and film is soft, and you have no idea what you just said, or even which files you are talking about except that someone has sized them to appear beside each other on the screen.</p>

<p>In a case like this, I really don't think that it much matters what you shoot. You won't see the difference until someone like Todd juxtaposes two completely unrelated files, and then you will not ask even one question about the files or shooting conditions before pronouncing which is better--which you will always interpret as "sharper."</p>

<p>Get a P&S and just start snapping. Set it on "P" and then just sit back and admire the "quality" that pops up on your screen. If you don't understand the questions, then you surely will not begin to understand the highly nuanced answers that will be forthcoming from those who are experienced in both realms.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jay_moynihan]

<p>My limited experience with scans.<br>

I am interested in buying a scanner. But i have alot of 35mm slides and some negatives (b&w), and 120 and 4x5 in b&w and color (transparency). For me it is a hard pick, since i cannot currently afford the Cool Scan route (which appears best for the 35mm), and comparisons I have seen re the better flatbeds are not encouraging.<br>

I have had mail-order scanning done, specifically the place Ken Rockwell likes (cannot remember name (35mm Velvia, and 120 b&w), and Cooper's Imaging (120 B&W) . Neither were drum, but both offer different file size options, and (i think) both offer scans in JPEG and TIFF.<br>

The files i have recieved back are in the 15-20 mb range (if jpeg). My experiece is to get 'em back in TIFF. I was not impressed by the Rockwell favored place, exspecially the Velvia scans.<br>

The 120 B&W, exspecially the ones from Cooper's are very nice. As far as detail and tonality, they are noticably better than my B&W from my DX cameras. In a 8x10ish print of the same scene by the two cameras (D200 & Yashica-mat 124g), the quality difference is noticable to a "non-photographer" viewing them (at least in my experience with other people). Higher accutance, higher detail, smoother tonality, etc.<br>

I regularily carry one of my TLR's (the Yashicamat or a Rolleiflex) with me for formalist B&W landscape, along with a D200 (mostly for color), if out to "do" landscape.<br>

One caveat re scans. When i get it into Lightroom, the first thing i do is review the entire image at 100% to check/remove dust, micro threads, etc. I have yet to pick am image to work on, then print, that did not need some spotting, to use the old term.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Todd, welcome. I see you have 1 day of experience in the forum.</p>

<p>Please use only DSLRs or pocket digicams. They resolve more than film (both 35mm and 6x7). Take them along once-in-a-life-time trips and shoot many pictures. We have known that even a 2 or 3MP digicam outresolves slide film for years. Good luck.</p>

 

[phyllis_ollari]

<p>Todd, did you ever think it might be a user issue? With film cameras don't forget the body, was just a metal box and lenses were what mainly counted for clarity. On a day to day level I deal with people who never shot a roll of film in their lives. They do tend to be students, and when they do have to deal with film they get huffy because most of them aren't photographers as such but more digital artists. Its all so funny. I'm glad I use both.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Todd, I was just kidding. You have a journey of discovery ahead.</p>

<p>Not one post in the web (this covers the world) shows a single example of a digital camera (as of 2009) outresolving even my 35mm scans posted showing around 4000 lpph. </p>

<p>Michael R. and the Luminous Landscape can't even resolve 1100 lpph (resolution of the Canon D30) using slide film and an Imacon scanner. But that is not my problem. And you should pursue your own test if you are to question things. He doesn't seem to be competent. I can double the resolution of his Imacon scans using just my flatbed scanner.</p>

<p> </p>

[mjferron]

<p>Mauro if you want to make a point it would be best to not insult others by criticizing the length of time they've spent on the forum. And quite frankly your credibility went out the window when you claimed 35mm Tmax to be worth about 40 MP in true resolution. That statement is absurd and I would love to see your scan of 35mm Tmax compared to a Hassy H2 and the latest 40mp medium format back.</p>

[steve_king5]

<p>Heck, I'll scan 35mm film again.</p>

<p>I mean you'll have to pay me, but I will! :)</p>

<p>It's like someone insisting on bringing his turntable and collection of remastered vinyl to a party, and boring everyone to tears with long discussions of the superiority of this media over CD-ROM's, and MP3's, when everyone just wants to dance.</p>

<p>Can you extract more detail out of <em>certain</em> 35mm film types with <em>painstaking technique</em> and very <em>expensive</em> film scanners, than you could obtain with modern dSLR's? Probably. I'm sure a very few people can. But why? For all that pain, why not medium format, where the quantifiable difference is much more apparent and useful? And s anyone going to notice? Probably not. It's a different question, but go back to those crops of the map of the East coast of Africa -- show those two images to 10 people off the street, with no comments, and 9 out of 10 will like the D2X shot better, and the 10th person is just lying 'cause he's contentious pr*ck.</p>

<p> </p>

[the journey]

<p>digital camera do NOT sample each color at the same spatial frequency. they are limited by the Bayer effect. RGB are sampled differently. <br /> only a true 3-chip full frame camera would come close to scanning film then digitally you would have to process ~135MB@16-bit for each frame, yeah right.<br /> i shot 30,000 feet for my VistaVision short film on high-res, Rollei stock and am scanning it automatically on a modified Nikon LS-5000. i scan about 800 feet or 3200 frames a day. i got the SDK and modified it for my own use.<br /> digital doesn't come close to scanning film. i scan uncompressed, 4000dpi, no corrections and they are magnificent frames. my film frame is actually bigger than SLR frame. SLR frame is 24.1mm x 35mm, the VistaVision frame is 24.7 x 38mm. <br /> my files are 45MB each, of course i script photoshop to grind through any processing on a super quad cpu, 1GB video card, 4GB ram monster computer.<br /> my suggestion, SHOOT FILM -> scan... unbeatable.</p>

[the journey]

<p>plustek 7200 is NOT a true 7200dpi scanner, that's crap. i had it and tried, complete garbage scanner. true resolution is around 3600dpi. it pads the files to make you think it is giving you 7200dpi files, that's BS. so far the only fast, true 4000dpi 16-bit scanner is Nikon.<br>

these guys did tests on plustek as well<br>

<cite>www.<strong>filmscanner</strong> .info</cite></p>

[the journey]

<p>if you have a decent amount of 35mm a couple of hundred feet in big rolls, not curled, not spliced, i''ll scan it for $2/foot.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Michael, it's not absurd. In fact, Sandy King, a well known and respected photographer and writer has posted samples at the Large Format forum as well as written articles shows what the true rez limits for film with good glass is. TMax is indeed capable of achieving between 30 and 40mp equivalency in the 35mm format. In fact, films like Adox 20 achieve even more with decent glass. No offense, but whether or not you believe it is not relevant. The comparisons have beenposted and published in the past....all you need to do is read them. The fact that you haven't doesn't make your opinion correct. </p>

<p>I don't mean to be harsh, but quite frankly I'm sick and tired of people who haven't tested, compared, view samples, or seen the work of others....just to come to threads like this posting an uninformed opinion. If I see another troll post the LL Provia vs the D30 garbage, I'm gonna chunder.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Glen, last time I checked, Mauro, Dave, and the others <em>are</em> shooting and scanning medium format film. In other words, they are showing us that the best DSLRs are just now getting into a real contest with 35mm film. At medium format and above, it remains no contest.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Sorry, Glen. My remark was directed to Steve King.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[don_e]

<p>Landrum: "People who simply eye-ball things, such as myself, often miss the mark by quite a bit."</p>

<p>In a thread here awhile back clips from two files -- not part of any test -- of cats were compared by the posters, one from a digital camera, the other from a film camera. I think Les might have contributed the film exposure. It was not quite unanimous, but the posters expressed their preference for the digtal capture as "better". Looking closely at the images, I saw the digital file had green aberration along the whiskers thicker than a whisker. I posted to that damning bit of evidence, without any response. Those who thought the digital file was "better" continued to post that opinion. Maybe they all own cats with green whiskers.</p>

<p>Last time we went through this there were hundreds of posts arguing whether silver grains are binary. How did that come out?</p>

 

[the journey]

<p>Lannie,<br>

No worries, I'm going to check what's up with Velvia vs. Kodachrome</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Last time we went through this there were hundreds of posts arguing whether silver grains are binary. How did that come out?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Someone found a 2.</p>

[don_e]

<p>I see Les has posted the cat pics. The green isn't as thick as I recall, but it is there. What Landrum wrote is important to remember: Eyeballing resolution or detail (and recalling it, it seems) is not proof. Refusing to see, is another matter, though.</p>