(When) Will 35mm DSLR Exceed MF Film Image Quality?

swilson · January 9, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5882663">Erik Schaug</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 09, 2010; 11:33 a.m.

I don't think that digital projectors are anywhere close to this, but I might be wrong

</blockquote>

About the highest resolution projectors that I know of do something like 4096x2400 a good 6x7 slide should have a fair bit more resolution then that. You have to be careful went comparing projector resolution to camera resolution. A really good sharp image at 4096x2400 is going to look sharper then the same number of pixels from a standard digital camera, the bayer pattern limits the resolution of a DSLR. I am sure the image from such a projector would be very impressive, given a good source image, but it comes at a very high cost.

But I remember it was not that long ago that we were paying around $6,000 for a projector that did 800x600 pixels. So who know what will be available 20 years from now.

As time go on it is going to be easier to project high resolution digital images and harder to find projectors for MF slides, so I would be sure to scan your slides now so that in the future you have the option of viewing them either way.

scott_kirkpatrick2 · January 10, 2010

Here's a small test. Is the following picture of film or digital origin?

(other) scott

DB_Gallery · January 10, 2010

Dan South wrote:

Who CARES why you want higher resolution? That's YOU'RE business. Shoot 8x10 if you like. Your chosen resolution is completely YOUR OWN choice whether you're a novice, an enthusiast, or a highly successful professional. Maybe one person wants to send baby pictures via email while another person wants to create mural-sized prints or their kids' smiling faces. Use a camera that can give you the resolution you desire and be happy.

</blockquote>

I just deleted what I wrote in pure frustration. You guys go on ahead now and waste your precious time debating useless comparisons and I will go out and make photos, daily.

erik_schaug · January 11, 2010

"As time go on it is going to be easier to project high resolution digital images and harder to find projectors for MF slides, so I would be sure to scan your slides now so that in the future you have the option of viewing them either way."

Thanks for the response, Scott. You are right about MF projectors, even though mine is a battleship quality Linhof. I've had to replace the small rubber belt which drives the fan — had to get it specially made. I'm also apprehesive about replacing the halogen bulb, they won't be making them forever, I imagine. Your reply makes me think I should stockpile a few.

Nevertheless making digital copies would be the smart thing to do, but I'm an amateur and the cost of digitizing over 2000 mounted slides would be prohibitive and not tax deductible. What are the prospects of copying them with a really good digital camera with a macro lens? In film days the slide copying device ( a slide viewer which attached to the lens of the copying camera, as I recall) seemed to work quite well. Maybe something similar, perhaps a hood placed on top of a light table?

My present digital camera is a simple Sony Cybershot, which is not up to the task: the image at macro setting is very distorted. But I would like to get a good quality digital camera in the near future.

</blockquote>

steve m smith · January 11, 2010

Is the following picture of film or digital origin?

</blockquote>

Yes.

steve m smith · January 11, 2010

Nevertheless making digital copies would be the smart thing to do, but I'm an amateur and the cost of digitizing over 2000 mounted slides would be prohibitive

</blockquote>

And it would be a waste of your time as the slides will still exist after the digital files have disappeared or gone corrupt. Just scan them as and when you need to use them. Setting out with the intention of scanning 2000 is just madness.

swilson · January 11, 2010

I scanned a bit more then 2000 of my slides and a fair number of negatives. Not a waste of time since both the slides and negatives are deteriorating. And in the future there is no guaranty that I will have a working film scanner. It took a long time to scan the negatives, but it was kind of fun to go through all the slides and I am very glad I have digital versions now.

Also when friends visit I can quickly find photos going back over 25 years, with slide this was much harder to do.

karl_fermedfor · January 11, 2010

Scanning 2000 slides is only stupid if you wait 'til AFTER you've cut them all to scan them. I've tens of thousands of digital files. Don't have all my film scanned, nor do I feel a burden to do so, because I know how to properly store negatives and slides, but it certainly is nice to have an (almost) free back up in case of a catastrophe.

That windmill in the digital B&W photo is totally blown out. That's what I don't like about digital. It's quite easy to blow out a film print in the darkroom too, but with digital it is hard not too, especially in JPEG.

swilson · January 11, 2010

Karl,

Whereas it is indeed easy to blow out highlights in a digital photo the only ones blown out in the original full size image was a glint off one of the windows, and with the raw file I can get even this back in if I really wanted to. You can see the full size image here

<a href="http://sewcon.com/samples/lighthouse.jpg">http://sewcon.com/samples/lighthouse.jpg</a>

The one you likely were looiking as was the small one where I really boosted the contrast, a look I often see in current BW film images.

I find that when shooting in raw mode I rarely blow out the highlights, but when making a print were I am limited to a much smaller dynamic range then the image has it is often good to let some of the image go to all white. I have shot film for many years an know this is just as much an issue with making a print from film as it is from digital.

john_cooper9 · January 11, 2010

In the 1970's I had several Cibachromes made. They have not changed. However the original Ektachromes have deteriorated very badly. But the B/W negatives from that era are still perfect. Moral: shoot more B/W film and use it as the ultimate backup to a digital copy.

rafall · January 21, 2010

I feel obliged to say "Thank You" to everyone who contributed and "I'm Sorry" to those who may have been upset by my question. I have learned a lot and above all I now have a good feeling for how inconclusive this matter is at this point of time - excitingly. :)

mirkal · November 29, 2010

I believe you are comparing two completely different kind of photography. Neil mentioned in his posting that if you would like to get "film look" from digital SRL then I agree - answer is NEVER. If you look just for resolution power than answer is: "it is just matter of time". Today's 24Mp SRL files will probably one day equal 81Mp file from scanned 6x6, it would happen in probably less then 5 years. From my point of view when this will happen it will be still irrelevant to me and I will shoot film until last roll of 120 available because I love film look. So, it is your choice what do you prefer, what work you are mostly doing, personal preferences, budget (despite top digital SRL's price today equal MF gear pricing anyway). If you shoot reportage or weddings well, I guess 6x6 is not the gear you need or want to use, it is bulky, heavy and time required for films development is some kind of work just impossible to deal with. I believe the answer to your question is rather recommendation - make clear what your needs and preferences are.