Poor scans - May explain why some switch to Digital

[apostolos_tournas]

<p>I've been following this thread since Mauro's first post with great interest. I have found Mauro's opening remark very original, almost scientific.<br>

I personally prefer the film because I dislike the unnecessary automations offered on the digital bodies and their lenses. I cannot deny the convenience in their use, and I don't see how an even larger number of megapixels won't eventually beat the 35mm and MF image quality.<br>

However, my Leica M6 Classic had been unchanged for nearly 18 years and most of the discussions in the photographic circles (an era before forums) were about shooting techniques and photography critique. Nothing much to say about equipment, except perhaps when a new lens came out. Today, most talk is about the camera body--no, it's about the sensor's resolution and the computerized post-processing. Not even the lenses are discussed as deserved.<br>

Digital photography will come out of all this as the undeniable victor. And the quality of its images won't be inferior to film, perhaps much better in most cases. Mauro's post aimed at something very interesting on its own right, though--I don't think he intended to initialize another thread on film / digital battle.<br>

On a personal level, we film lovers still resist. As I posted elsewhere, hating to buy my cameras from a department store, that sells washing machines on the same floor, I reacted the best I could: I bought a second MF system.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott,<br>

The yousendit link to the raw expired. I will upload for you again tonight.<br>

Grass and tree branches suffer even more on DSLR's resolution than target objects.</p>

<p>Trust me, if I thought a 10MP DSLR compared to 35mm film for landscape I would still use it since it is far more convenient - but I don't use the 40D for landscape at all. In my experience , 35mm has enough of a quality gap over a 10MP DSLR to justify the additional effort.<br>

Try printing this at 16x20 and you'll see grass and trees do worse than my target items:<br>

http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#279008132_rwc3m-O-LB</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Apostolos, thans for the praise.</p>

<p>Rishi, I agree 35mm Velvia should match/beat any DSLR I tested. Furthermore, pack 35mm Velvia in a pocket film and shoot and compare it to pocket digitals... You can have a 40 megapixel Velvia camera in your pocket for $50.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>All,<br>

Going back to the main point of the thread,</p>

<p>Many people believe a flatbed scanner does justice to their film and later decide to move to a DSLR for image quality. They do not realize it was the digital portion of their workflow that needed to be fixed.</p>

[swilson]

<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 19, 2009; 04:52 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Scott,<br />The yousendit link to the raw expired. I will upload for you again tonight.<br />Grass and tree branches suffer even more on DSLR's resolution than target objects.<br>

Trust me, if I thought a 10MP DSLR compared to 35mm film for landscape I would still use it since it is far more convenient - but I don't use the 40D for landscape at all. In my experience , 35mm has enough of a quality gap over a 10MP DSLR to justify the additional effort.<br />Try printing this at 16x20 and you'll see grass and trees do worse than my target items:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#279008132_rwc3m-O-LB" target="_blank">http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#279008132_rwc3m-O-LB</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So this is what I did, I scaled up the 40D image to match what the full scan size of the film shot was likely to be, I used a width of 5519 pixels.<br>

I set the PPI to 222 and added part of your shot from the 35mm film.</p>

<p>I have attached my the image I printed, it made a print 3.243 x 2.509 inches.</p>

<p>What I see is this, when viewed close both images are pretty soft, at 16x20 in print is really pushing it too far for either image. As I back off my viewing distance there is a point where the images no longer look soft, this distance is the same for the two images, as close as I can judge. On the print neither image is sharper looking then the other.</p>

<div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>If it looks soft, then sharpen it . And print again.<br>

Please use bigger sections so you can appreciate the problems with a 10MP DSLr vs 35 film.</p>

<p>You should see shortcomings on the DSLR.</p>

[swilson]

<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 19, 2009; 05:49 p.m.</p>

 

<p>If it looks soft, then sharpen it . And print again.<br />Please use bigger sections so you can appreciate the problems with a 10MP DSLr vs 35 film.<br>

You should see shortcomings on the DSLR.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am running out of ink, which is why the small prints.<br>

Tell you what, if you post a landscape photo taken with 35mm color film I will make 8x10 inch test prints, scaled to whatever size you wish. This is as soon as I get more ink.</p>

 

[swilson]

<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 19, 2009; 04:59 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Apostolos, thans for the praise.<br>

Rishi, I agree 35mm Velvia should match/beat any DSLR I tested. Furthermore, pack 35mm Velvia in a pocket film and shoot and compare it to pocket digitals... You can have a 40 megapixel Velvia camera in your pocket for $50.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Let's see, a frame of 35mm being the same as having a 40 MP camera? So you should be able to show some 5400 ppi scans that are as sharp as the pixels level as my DSLR?</p>

 

[marc_bergman1]

<p>By not using a test chart we cannot tell whether the cameras used were performing optimally.</p>

<p>These map or brick wall tests are too subject to interpretation.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I agree with Marc Scott.</p>

<p>Try the 40D landscape first. Upsize to 16x20 - and your printers native resolution. Sharpen. Print.<br>

http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#279008132_rwc3m-O-LB</p>

<p>Try the 35mm color negative next. Upsize to 16x20 - and your printers native resolution. Sharpen. Print.<br>

http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412832226_BhGTs-O-LB</p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, then share you impressions based on prints.</p>

<p>In my experience day in day out, "and specially for landscape - more so than target objects", 35mm film has a significant quality advantage over a 10MP DSLR (or 12MP for the same case). A 5DII - waiting to do side by side landscape test- should come closer to my 35mm results.</p>

<p>But I'm interested in your conclusion since you are taking the effort to run prints and comparisons.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>6x7 film is obviously a quantum leap in quality over 35mm film/5DII.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Mauro,<em> et al</em> ., thanks for another fun and educational thread.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[swilson]

<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 19, 2009; 05:02 p.m.</p>

 

<p>All,<br />Going back to the main point of the thread,<br>

Many people believe a flatbed scanner does justice to their film and later decide to move to a DSLR for image quality. They do not realize it was the digital portion of their workflow that needed to be fixed.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>This may be true for people trying to scan MF on a flatbed, I have tried this and it is not good. But the number of people shooting MF is very small and has always been very small. At one point any good wedding photography would use MF, DLSR are now good enough that they can use them for shooting weddings. Keep in mind that for many people MF and LF for not so much about resolution but tonality. And like it or not what limits tonality in 35mm film is grain. So when DSLR came by and gave great tonality the need to shoot in MF was pretty much gone in the wedding business.</p>

</p>

<p>For 35mm film there are decent film scanners that don't cost and arm and a leg. Anyone trying to scan 35mm film on a flatbed is likely shooting with iso 800 print film and so all is lost anyway. Anyone I know who was the least bit into photography was scanning with a film scanner. Nothing will move you over to digital faster then spending hours scanning film, well there are also the times that the mini-lab messes up your negatives.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>1/5000th, really?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I meant 1/500th.</p>

<p>80k JPEG / 40M TIFF = 1/500</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I think scanned 35mm film (at least the ones I use) have better tonality than a 10MP DSLR. Roughly 20 million full RGB samples vs 10 million with just a 1/3 of a full RGB sample.</p>

<p>Grain can always be removed and if you even downsample a 20MP 35mm scan to just 10MP no print would be able to show grain.</p>

<p>Let me know what you whink of the results printing the links above at 16x20. The danger of knowing though.... is that once you know..... side by side.... you may go back to film (not your quick workflow work but the things you may consider placing on the wall at some point).</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I meant 1/500th.<br>

80k JPEG / 40M TIFF = 1/500</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan South, you're missing the point... I provided links to >12MB 10/12MP JPEGs.<br>

-Rishi</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=426229">Marc Bergman</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 19, 2009; 06:16 p.m.</p>

 

<p>By not using a test chart we cannot tell whether the cameras used were performing optimally.<br>

These map or brick wall tests are too subject to interpretation.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am really not into test charts as a way to tell how good a camera is going to produce photographs. I am going to share a very ugly photo of mine (not my fault, I think the lab was using about month old cemicals.</p>

<p>The photo is a scan of a slide, when I first saw this scan I thought the photo looked way out of focus, but looking at the name on the side of the tent trailer you can see that the detail is not bad, not great but not bad.</p>

<p>So here is the thing, that fact that I can read the text in teh photo means very little to me, the photo looks soft. What is more to get the photo to look sharp at the pixel level I have to down sample so much it won't even film my screen. Even my old 3MP digital makes prints sharper then that image. </p>

<p>The point is not that this is typical of 35mm film, thank god it is not, the point is that if this was a photo of a test chart it would have come out looking like it should have smashed a 3MP digital, which at the time I was scanning these photos was the whole point.</p>

<p>

<p>If anyone wants a real challenge try and make that photo look good and still have Sequoia legible.</p>

<p>Again this is not a bitch about how the film looks, I know something got screwed up big time on this slide, it is to point out that detail does not equal a sharp print.</p>

</p>

<div></div>

[rishij]

<p>For the record, I <strong>do not</strong> agree with Mauro's statement of a 40MP Velvia in your pocket... Mauro you must have been using hyperbole :)</p>

<p>Under a light microscope, Mauro's own resolution test charts shot on Velvia give ~25MP resolution for a 35mm frame. Scanned on an Imacon 848, I get ~24-25 of those megapixels. On a Minolta DSE 5400 when film flatness is perfect & focus is nailed, I get ~18-19MP... more near the 19MP end. With a Nikon LS-4000/5000 I get ~11MP.</p>

<p>So your 'pocket camera' would give you more 'round 20MP, using a scanner that doesn't cost as much as a new car.</p>

<p>Remember, just b/c a scanner advertises 20-22MP resolution, doesn't mean it has a 100% MTF at that resolution... most likely it does not. Hence my 44MP Minolta DSE 5400, in my eyes, does not extract even all the 25MP worth of information on Velvia... only 19MP of it. The Nikons much worse... 11MP. Seems like they actually perform at 50% their rated optical value.</p>

<p>Or, my judgement criteria for what is acceptable is just much higher. Regardless, in side-by-side comparisons the Minolta clearly outdoes the Nikon... by a lot. The Imacon outdoes both considerably.</p>

<p>Anyway, just rambling at this point.<br>

-Rishi</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>

 

 

<blockquote >

<p >One also wonders how many persons are inclined to buy a <em >new</em> Nikon F5 or Canon 1V. I wonder if there are any numbers being published about how many are being sold new.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >--Lannie</p>

Hello Lannie, Not exactly sure what you mean... I would think that sales of these top-of-the-line models to people who need to actually use the cameras would be hard to draw conclusions from, just because so few film cameras are being made, so any Canon or Nikon user that needs a new body has few choices... But most people do not need the many features they offer.... Sure, personally, I'd like to have an F6 because of its superior metering capability and for its quietness, but I don't need it for my purposes. My F3, F2, or one of my automatic bodies from the '90s are always up to the task. This is a big part of why the camera manufacturers have adopted the model I mentioned, imho.

<br />

And because of the herd going so largely to digital for serious amateurs and for many professionals, too, this has of course flooded the used market in recent years, making 35mm film equipment very affordable. It seems this phenomenon is showing signs of leveling off, at least for the high quality gear, which I suppose is to be expected.

 

 

</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Rishi,<br>

I had meant 35mm equivalent to a 40MP DSLR. Remember a 10MP DSLR only resolves 6MP of detail. A 40MP DSLR would resolve 24MP of detail (just shy of Velvia 35mm)</p>

<p>On a separate note, how many megapixels of actual resolution my TMX 100 measured?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, what scanner did you use for the slide you posted?</p>

[rishij]

<p>Fine, Mauro...<strong> TMX 100: 35MP</strong> , as assayed under a light microscope. Show-off :)</p>

<p>My problem with your statement, though, is that someone scanning with a reasonably priced scanner would only get 18MP out of that Velvia frame, using a Minolta DSE 5400 with perfect film flatness. And even then, as much as I love my Minolta, the signal (MTF) at that 'extinction resolution' is quite low... i.e. the test chart lines are barely distinguishable. Somewhere between the 10MP-14MP range the signal is quite good from my Minolta (not so good with the Nikon, save for along the stepping motor axis), but really after 10MP the response starts dropping... dropping... dropping... as we hit the 18-19MP mark.</p>

<p>This probably explains why, in terms of 'pixel sharpness', 35mm scans scaled down to a 5D file size (12MP) look about on par with a 9.3MP measured-resolution (e.g. 5D) digital capture, with the 35mm having more real detail. The 5D Mark II's measured resolution of 12.6MP (I just checked with my own eyes with a 5D Mark II resolution test chart shot on dpreview.com, then did the calculation) probably comes pretty darn close to what 35mm Velvia <em>+ scanner</em> can resolve <strong>with a decent MTF response value</strong> . But given the cleanliness of the signal, I bet more aggressive sharpening will be applied even in the RAW converter or in-camera, thereby most likely resulting in an image that'll look better & sharper than a 35mm scan.</p>

<p>That's my prediction. Mauro, I'm pretty sure you'll disagree with me, but, that being said, you or I still need to a run a side-by-side test :)<br>

-Rishi</p>

[graybrick]

<p>"Poor scans"</p>

<p>No kidding. Are we still debating whether film outresolves modern digital cameras? Still debating whether drum scans or scans from a dedicated film scanner which costs about as much as a new digital camera body can give better detail than the digital camera? Seriously? Do you people ever do anything fun or interesting?</p>

<p>I think what's probably missing from the argument (no, I haven't even bothered reading this posting) is that there's a cost to film, processing, and a scanner, not to mention the time involved scanning all those expensive little frames. I'd say people mayrealize that they're trading ultra resolution which they never really took much advantage of (as the vast majority of people don't print huge, ever) for the convenience and comparable quality (at normal pint sizes) of digital imaging. Some would still evenargue that at realistic sizes, digital makes better looking images. But that's another silly, poorly crafted argument for another inane, pointless and ridiculousy long-winded thread. </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Rishi, there is no disagreeing, just sharing results.</p>

<p>I wish I had a scanner that could scan my TMX 35mm not bad (3 times the resolution of the 5DII in just 35mm). </p>

<p>I'm just dreaming now but maybe 20 years from now -if a new 8000 dpi desktop scanner comes along - I will be able to re-scan all the pictures I'm taking today with 6x7 and still get nicer results than a with a digital camera of that time.</p>