Film versus digital

[paul_ong1]

<p>Has digital SLR and MF caught up with LF film? I have read many posts that LF still holds an edge, but a recent post at another forum provides an intriguing comparison. I don't think the choice of lens for each is equivalent across format (150mm on a 4x5 not equivalent to 60mm on 35mm), but nonetheless, the results are useful. Do the results seem valid to you?<br>

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=33463991</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Those don't look like a properly focused properly scanned 4x5 piece of film should. Yes, the D700 and MFDB are good, but the comparison does not appear to be properly done.</p>

<p>A well done comparison can be found at the Luminous Landscape, done by folks who know MFDB and 4x5 film very well. The results indicate that 45 megapixel MFDB is getting close to 4x5 for most purposes (inherent film vs digital differences aside). However, I think that 4x5 still had the resolution edge. I don't have the link handy, but I seem to recall you could obtain a DVD that had all the comparison RAW files and scans on on it and look for yourself.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Not quite sure what the different samples are meant to be, but the one labelled 4x5 has slightly less contrast but vastly better resolution. I think for most amateurs the reasons they use LF will be non-quantifiable, such as a slow contemplative way of working, the ability to see the screen image with both eyes and the general plasticity of tone rendering. Other factors are of course the general relative freedom of LF lenses from distortion (particularly wide-angle lenses) and of course the effortless perspective-control and close-up capability of LF. In sheer terms of sharpness and freedom from grain, there is less and less dfifference as time goes by between, say, an 80 MB digital capture and a 4x5" negative scanned on a high-end flatbed scanner to 80 MB - a drum scan would certainly have an edge but virtually no one will pay for a drum scan with their own money if they only want to print to 11x14" or so.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>More important than resolution, to me, is the overall look. Film has a different look. </p>

[massimo_de_cristofaro]

<p>I think that Bruce's "better look" is given by the fact that all digital images are made by various interpolations: as you can see in the D700 and H3 31, colors are flattened by a sort of average color-number, and the worst is what I call the "invention of contours" in order to give an illusion af a major sharpness.<br>

Moreover, those samples are very un-scientific: they have shot with different focal lenghts, and so, setting the same dimensions of details to compare results, the enlarging factors are strongly different...<br>

General copnsideration: the Hasselblad digital back, with all those bucks that costs, is really giving such bad results?</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>This test is worthless so no comment on it at all. Best this and that it seem like he got sponsored of some digital companies. :-) Flatbed scanning a negative is a joke get me a drum scanner and than you will see. Not scientific!</p>

[hal_b]

<p>If anyone in Digital technology has been working with the thought of, "I sure hope we can catch up to LF with our next sensor release," they are some of the dumbest people alive.</p>

<p>Also, noone who actually shoots LF even cares if Digital "catches up". No self-respecting LF photographer would actually point his camera at a scene he didn't find inspiring for the sake of performing resolution tests, and then follow it up with a D700 and a MF back.</p>

<p>I find this to be one of the most repulsive tests I've ever heard about. It's even worse than all these geeks comparing their new Canon 7D to their 5D Mark II's.</p>

[bruce_watson1]

<p>Yawn...</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Ong...</p>

<p>1. About 10 years ago, Pop Photo Mag ran a big spread about how at 1mp plus or minus digital had now surpassed 35mm film and was about to overtake medium format, yea.....right.</p>

<p>2. DPReview is a site about digital, not film cameras. They are digital all the way (I'd rather push my Ford than ride in your Chevy).</p>

<p>3. The H-3 is a hell of a nice digital camera. I'd sure like to have one. If I made a 4' x 5' print from both it and a 4x5 with a good lens I'm sure they would look equally sharp......if I stood closer to the one made by the H-3.</p>

<p>4. As to the film vs. digital debate, Mr. Watson's "Yawn" is much more polite than any reference I might make concerning barnyard waste.</p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p>P.S DPReview actually does a pretty good job as long as they stick to the subject they know best.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>No.</p>

[razzledog]

<p>Bruce is correct, it's in the look. I couldn't get anything decent, even with a Canon 5D, but plain old Chinese 4x5 film developed in Ilford HC and scanned on a crap Arcus 1200 SCSI flatbed gave this much better result.<br>

Anyway, digital has no soul...so there's no comparison.</p><div></div>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Hi,<br>

First, thank you for your comments and insights. Second, sorry if I touched any sensitive nerves. Not my intentions.<br>

I agree with people that film has a very different quality than digital, much like vinyl records relative to CD's, and I am partial to the look and "feel" of film. It has been more of a gut reaction than based on any systematic information.<br>

I started with film decades ago, mostly 35mm, stop doing photography for a long time and then return via digital. More recently, I have moved back to doing some film, initially with MF (Mamiya RB67), and then LF (Toyo 45G and Cambo SCX), mainly to learn technical movements.<br>

For me, different types of cameras and media offer different potentials and have different limits. I am trying to learn as much as I can about each with the goal of being a more knowledgeable photographer, and a part of that learning is related to comparing.</p>

[massimo_de_cristofaro]

<p>I still think that here there are different lines of thoughts (of course) that do not converge into the single issue. So I wuold like to try to set up a not biased way to interprete digital vs film phenomena: this to try give to "better look" some scientific and reproducible reasons.<br>

Here http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00Tcnr there was already a similar discussion with other (and better) samples.<br>

My point is that all digital interpolations have a specific aim, so the result is different from analog film.<br>

The techincal issue is that, today, with film the informations we collect from the sight of the object are more similar (not equal) to reality than those collected with a sensor with its digital treatment.<br>

The enhancement of contrast in digital is made with contours; but there is an analog one too: with film transparencies... etc etc.<br>

The problem is to have clear the results <strong>before </strong> the shooting. With film we are more expert, with digital maybe it is necessary more time, and a little better devices and "developers".</p>

 

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>To Paul<br /> I do use CD's have no vinyl left but have an almost brand new analogue tube amplifier. :-) Handmade that is!</p>

[massimo_de_cristofaro]

<p>To Frank & Paul: please don't call in <strong>music</strong> !: first CDs were simply horrible, with all sounds shot to high frequencies and image all lined up in front line of 100 instruments (classical music of course). Vinyl were better because of two principal points: ability in recording, mike's psitioning etc, and the fact that canal separation in CD is about 110 DB, instead analog vilyl is 75~80 DB. That means that the overlapping in right and left channels was giving the necessary depth of perspective. Actual CDs are much better, and DVDAudio at 96000 Hertz sampling are much much better.<br>

No way IMHO to compare digital music with digital photography.<br>

MP3 are the worst immaginable thing for music, from quality and social implications points of view.</p>

<p>The only clear advantage of digital photography is in the treatment for publishing: digital can be immediately ready for publishing on newspapers and magazines and for distributions through the Internet. Of course, digital offers many interesting ways to "operate" on images to reach new areas in Fine Arts too, but this is Arts field: Man Ray, Moholy Nagy et others did the same things with B/W film and paper negatives etc...<br>

The point, I think, is to have clear the purpose or the conceptual objective that the photographer has to have; then there will be a tecnique that will allow the planned results to come out better.<br>

At the end, lots of good ideas and discoveries happen just when this line is mistaken.<br>

But I think that without a strong structure, surprises cannot be used or even noticed...</p>

[sergio_ortega7]

Dean Jones is right..."Anyway, digital has no soul...so there's no comparison." Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that prints from digital

capture, compared to those from LF film made the traditional way, just don't have the same "soul". I don't know what it is, but, when I look at

good digital capture prints hanging on a wall, they don't move me the way a good traditonal print does. So, I second the previous "yawn".

[steve_larese1]

<p>Quality aside, film is still vastly less expensive than digital at this level. $40,000 for a back is quite a bit, (unless this works toward your business model; it doesn't in my case).<br>

I'm a wide-angle junkie and don't like the cropping of digital backs.<br>

Factor in the advantages of film (i.e. resolution) and a good scan, and I'll be shooting 4x5 along side my digital systems well into the future.<br>

My Nikon D700 is amazing. Digital is wonderful for many applications, and I'm glad we have another format in our artistic arsenal.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I posted in that forum to the effect that the LF scan was either out of focus, or that the camera wasn't focussed correctly....that and DOF issues. It appears the OP did not wish to discuss the issue at all. I even offered to scan the film myself and inspect the film with a loupe. The real issue though is that he had the 31mp Phase Back showing it exceeded 4x5 by at least 50% in rez. Now with the Phase One Back at shy of 7000 pixels wide....a 50% reduction puts that at about 3500 pixels wide....or an 8mp sensor. So we are now to believe that an 8mp sensor is the same as 4x5 film. No wonder the OP didn't want to address the issues that we commented upon.</p>

<p>That said, I've never seen such a horrible Imacon scan of a MF piece of film. What the heck are the artifacts by the window frame. Of course, many chimed in saying they have found exactly the same thing.....you know....all the people who have never actually made a comparison themselves. </p>

<p>Another comparison poorly done....they're a dime a dozen!</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>Yes the soul is you, it's your image right to the end. When printing it yourself it should be different even if one day the digital would be that good as the one which is coming from a135mm or from the 120 roll. I'm not even talking about larger sizes at all.</p>

<p>Handmade print are a piece of art, a piece of you. In a moment you print with mashines or using digital its become a poster and nothing else. Like a daily newspaper.</p>

<p>I wonder what those wannabies would be with out those hundreds of people who creating all the programs for them to make tests like this :-). I think nothing, but consider this, those people are the consumers who did very bad images with filmcameras as they never bother learn the camera or to print anyway and mostly used colors before. They are used to leave their development and printing to somebody else all the time. Now as they dont had to do it anymore they thinks they are somebody. So how do you ecxapt them to understand?</p>

[bravin_neff]

<p>Dave Luttmann said:<br />"The real issue though is that he had the 31mp Phase Back showing it exceeded 4x5 by at least 50% in rez. Now with the Phase One Back at shy of 7000 pixels wide....a 50% reduction puts that at about 3500 pixels wide....or an 8mp sensor. So we are now to believe that an 8mp sensor is the same as 4x5 film. No wonder the OP didn't want to address the issues that we commented upon."<br>

<br />I don't think you're doing the arithmetic right.<br>

<br />Wouldn't 50% of the linear (width or height) represent 25% total surface resolution? In other words, if the Phase One device was 7,000 x 7,000 (I know it's not, but go with me for the sake of the arithmetic), then it's total surface area would be 49mp (7,000 squared). 50% of this would be 19.5mp, and the linear width (or height) would be roughly 4,400 on the side (square root of 19.5 million).<br>

<br />You are saying his claim that 4x5 film is equal to an 8mp image should be restated to say that it is one half of the Phase One, or 31/2 = 15.5mp. Of course I think 4x5 is "equivalent" to neither of these sizes, as I'm sure you agree, but I'm just trying to straighten out the arithmetic here. You can't cut one dimension half and say you've cut the total resolution in half. You have made it 1/4th as big.</p>

<p> </p>

[jnanian]

<p>Bruce cahn said ----- >> More important than resolution, to me, is the overall look. Film has a different look.</p>

<p>exactly ... digital has caught up with a lot of the "stuff" i use ... but i find it hard to get the same look<br /> as i get with film &C unless i use film &C ...</p>

[anthony_lewis1]

<p>Two points.<br>

Firstly, whatever digital gear you buy, you will be replacing it within 5 years - that includes all your post computer gear - the lot. To be replacing all the capital I've invested in my hobby every five years, well, I couldn't do that to my family. <br>

To all those who believe cameras like the 5D ii (I also own one) will last along time, then just remember the next big thing our manufacturers are about to unleash are HDR cameras. That will make all digital cameras, including all those $40,000 digital backs, obsolete almost overnight. <br>

Secondly. The digital proponents claim all sorts of advantages of shooting digital. I can think of only one real advantage that digital technology has achieved, and that is the ability to view your image immediately. Other than that, there are no other real advantages.<br>

For our manufacturers to have invested billions of dollars in digital technology over two decades, and only achieved one real advantage, then I think this is an abysmal failure.<br>

There is a equal parallel in the film industry, which is going electronic. Here they have achieved more than the 10 minute film roll. To record for an hour or more is a great advantage, but since this is about all electronic filming has achieved, then this is also pathetic with the investment involved.</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2357219">Bravin Neff</a> , Oct 27, 2009; 01:18 p.m.</p>

Response to Response to Film versus digital

<p>Dave Luttmann said:<br /> "The real issue though is that he had the 31mp Phase Back showing it exceeded 4x5 by at least 50% in rez. Now with the Phase One Back at shy of 7000 pixels wide....a 50% reduction puts that at about 3500 pixels wide....or an 8mp sensor. So we are now to believe that an 8mp sensor is the same as 4x5 film. No wonder the OP didn't want to address the issues that we commented upon."<br /> <br /> I don't think you're doing the arithmetic right.<br /> <br /> Wouldn't 50% of the linear (width or height) represent 25% total surface resolution? In other words, if the Phase One device was 7,000 x 7,000 (I know it's not, but go with me for the sake of the arithmetic), then it's total surface area would be 49mp (7,000 squared). 50% of this would be 19.5mp, and the linear width (or height) would be roughly 4,400 on the side (square root of 19.5 million).<br /> <br /> You are saying his claim that 4x5 film is equal to an 8mp image should be restated to say that it is one half of the Phase One, or 31/2 = 15.5mp. Of course I think 4x5 is "equivalent" to neither of these sizes, as I'm sure you agree, but I'm just trying to straighten out the arithmetic here. You can't cut one dimension half and say you've cut the total resolution in half. You have made it 1/4th as big.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I should have been more clear. I meant 50% of the horizontal rez....that said, even using you measurements, we know a 4x5 sheet beats out a 15mp. I've done comparisons against my Pentax K20D and the 4x5 slaughters it. </p>

<p>As well, the MF scan looks like it was done on a flatbed. I've never seen Imacon artifacts like that unless the image has been artificially interpolated.</p>

<p>Finally, as I pointed out in the thread, most people find the P45 at 39mp a decent match at print sizes say 30" and below.....and here this fellow shows a digital back with less resolution slaughtering 4x5. </p>

<p>As I said, these issues seem to be in poor focus, lack of consideration to potential DOF issues, and a generally horrible scan. I get better results from my Epson V700....I don't get soft images like his.</p>

[spodzone]

<p>If you want a measure of the amount of information attainable in images via all-digital or film+scanned means, take your photos of the same scene and save as JPEG at the same quality% and simply compare the file-size-per-pixel. <br>

Eg 8760x6903px, 24Mb for a photo of a (motion-blurred) waterfall. Good luck holding a 30x23" print at arm's length to assess its sharpness :)</p>

[paul_ong1]

<p>Hi,<br>

Thanks to everyone. It has been very informative to me. Base on your comments as well as some links to other tests, I do believe that the comparison is less than perfect. But I also believe that in terms of resolution that digital is now higher for a given format (35mm digital versus 35mm film, MF digital versus MF film). (Yes, I know and agree that is only one aspect of image quality, but that does not mean IMO that it should be dismissed as being irrelevant.) I think that LF when done properly still holds a great edge, with the possible exception of the new hi-res MF, which as other mentioned is prohibitively expensive for most.<br>

I know that many are not interested the comparison because they value other aspects of the LF. I both respect and understand that. As I indicated, I am interested in knowing more about the technical aspects of various types of camera's. It may not make me a better photographer, but it helps me know the potentials and limits of the equipment.<br>

I think this is like the experienced I had last weekend. I know there is a risk in using an analogy (e.g., the less the successful comparison of vinyl versus CD, although I did enjoy hearing about Frank's hand built tube amplifier), but here goes. My son and I built a work bench, and we used several cutting tools to get the job done (cutoff saw, jig saw, circular saw, hack saw). They all have one thing in common, that is, they cut wood. However, each has different abilities, which made each appropriate for a given task. I am happy that we had the different tools. I guess I feel the same way about how I approach photography. As Steve stated, it is good to have options in "our artistic arsenal".</p>