Film IQ After A Scan

[friskybongo]

<p>I hope I posted in the correct forum; please feel free to move if not. <br>

With all the debate over film vs. digital IQ, I began thinking about this scenario. Let’s say for argument’s sake that film holds the edge over digital. If I scan the film/transparency in order to make a print or to share, won’t the scanning process itself cause the image lose its supposed IQ advantage? If so, debate over! Unless you’re old school and like to project original transparencies or just examine them over a light box with a loupe. Am I missing something here?</p>

[dan_south]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the debate isn't quite over, but we'll see how your post is received.

 

I've had a lot of film scanned. It doesn't look the same as digital capture - not necessarily better or worse - so maybe it's an apples versus oranges debate.

[wogears]

<p>Let's do a bit of <em>reductio ad absurdum. </em>Suppose I scan a negative from my RB67. The result is about a 28 megapixel file (more is possible, but this is what I can afford). Now compare this to a file from my Olympus 5050Z, which is five megapixels. No contest. Film wins! Annoyed, I rush out and buy a Phase One 80mp back and a Hasselblad to hold it. Then I compare this to a scan from 35mm, which is 15 mp. Digital rules!</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<blockquote>

<p>won’t the scanning process itself cause the image lose its supposed IQ advantage?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That depends on your equipment. Example: If you use a Contax G2 with ZEISS prime lenses, a Fuji Provia 100F or Astia slide film with fine grain, have a great E6 lab and scan the slides with a Nikon LS 5000 or LS 9000 or - even better - an Imacon @ 4000 ppi @ 48 bit color depth, film and full frame digital are on par. However, there is something in film that I call 'soul'.</p>

<p>If you use a low end scanner, you'll lose lots of IQ.</p>

<p>Last but not least: How do you define IQ? Isn't that based on perception? Hard to measure?</p>

<p>Maybe your IQ is what I call soul? For me, film offers so much more gratification that I've never switched to digital, not even after conducting some tests with very expensive systems.</p>

<p>If you want to check a few images I've shot with 35 mm and scanned as mentioned in the above scenario, you might check <strong><a href="http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/category/photography/contax-g2-system/">this article</a></strong> for capturing and <strong><a href="http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/category/photography/the-art-of-scanning/">this one</a></strong> for scanning<strong>.</strong></p>

<p>Maybe it helps to make up your decision.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>As far as I am concerned, the ONLY fair evaluation between 35mm and DSLRs is this:</p>

<p>A totally film-originated, optically-produced 19x13 inch print vs. its totally digitally captured & created & produced equivalent. With modern, higher-end DSLRs of the past 4-5 years, I cannot see film ever "winning" that battle. <strong><em>35mm film is dead</em></strong> (but will remain as a micro niche for another 10 years I suspect).</p>

<p>Another aspect where digital wins: you can shoot your subject and print it large within 5-10 mins. at most. Impossible with film. Not that super efficiency gains are an overriding concern... but they do matter.</p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>Bugger! I didnt know 35mm film was dead. I wish someone had told me earlier then I wouldnt have just brought some. I must assume I was sold the canister with nothing inside it.</p>

[stp]

<p>Some scanners are better than others regarding IQ -- dedicated film scanners will give a better scan than flatbed scanners. Film formats vary in their ability to reveal IQ at different print sizes. Some digital cameras are better than others regarding IQ. I've used film and digital, and I've been extremely happy with the results of both. I'm currently scanning 35mm, 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, and 6x7cm film, and I would never use 35mm film again, echoing the opinion of Ken. Your blanket suggestion that the scanning process itself would cause the (film) image to lose its "supposed" IQ advantage is far too broad to be valid; you fail to take into account IQ variations among digital cameras, scanners, and film formats when printed at varying sizes (especially large).</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Jim, you probably should sniff the film before you use it. Who knows how long it has been dead?</p>

<p>I don't think there's any danger of botulism, however, unless you are photographing video stars or politicians.</p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>JDM Thanks for the advice. I did check by pulling out the leader and inspecting it under a bright light. It didnt smell of anything but I washed it in some old stuff called fixer just to make sure. Now I just have to figuer out how to stuff the whole lot in my new wizz bang digital camera!</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Better critical reading Jim. <br /> 'Effectively' and realistically, except for super small niches, 35mm is dead. That niche will narrow every year; I am still part of that tiny niche as well.<br>

If it weren't effectively dead then why no new bodies from Nikon or Canon? When was Canon's last film body update -- over 6 years ago? It's not like auto focus or metering system tech improvements have stopped in those 6 years.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>The answer to most technical questions is, "It depends." That is true here. The IQ of the image after scanning depends on the scanner characteristics. Lets say you are using a high resolution that has an MTF curve that extends all the way out to 100 cycles/mm. If your scanner can scan at least 200 pixels/mm and the scanner spot can truly resolve a spot that is 0.005 mm, and the spectral response is a reasonable match for the spectral dye densities, then you can capture all of the information that is in the film. This gives you the chance to display a digital image that has image quality as good as the original. There is no guarantee. You still need a scanner with good tone scale and color reporduction</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Same response after proofreading:<br>

The answer to most technical questions is, "It depends." That is true here. The IQ of the image after scanning depends on the scanner characteristics. Lets say you are using a high resolution film that has an MTF curve that extends all the way out to 100 cycles/mm. If your scanner can scan at least 200 pixels/mm and the scanner spot can truly resolve a spot that is 0.005 mm, and the spectral response is a reasonable match for the spectral dye densities, then you can capture all of the information that is in the film. This gives you the chance to display a digital image that has image quality as good as the original. There is no guarantee. You still need a scanner with good tone scale and color reproduction</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>A totally film-originated, optically-produced 19x13 inch print vs. its totally digitally captured & created & produced equivalent. With modern, higher-end DSLRs of the past 4-5 years, I cannot see film ever "winning" that battle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Until you increase the size of the film..... and film can go much bigger!</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>How do you define IQ? My Epson V600 flat bed scanner chokes up the shadow areas in 35 mm and does a better job with medium format 120 6x7 but probably not as good as I could get from a good DSLR. Where film helps me is that I slow down and spend time composing when shooting my medium format film camera. That's something I don't do well with digital. So the final picture is <em>artistically </em>better with film although I'm sure I could get a better <em>technical </em>image with digital.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Another silly thread comparing film to digital, with the only criterion being resolution. It's like buying the loudest violin without regard to the quality of its tone, or the fastest car regardless of handling.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>It's like buying the loudest violin without regard to the quality of its tone</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like that analogy.... I think I will have to use it myself!</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Alan,</p>

<p>That just doesn't make any sense. The scanner doesn't know what film it is scanning. If it is choking on 35 film area, it is choking on that same area of film within a 6x7(made up of about 3.5 35 areas combined). It is going to scan the same area the same.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Who said IQ = resolution? The most important determinant of image quality is tone scale. Sharpness is far more important than resolution. Graininess and color reproduction also contribute. </p>

<p>Off topic, but FWIW, Stradivarius violins are reputed to have the best tone quality AND the greatest volume.</p>

[rconey]

<p>I was a slide film shooter until the E6 process effectively vanished and Cibachrome printing absolutely died. I remember the days of 1 hour development. When I had to drive 20 miles to the one store in town that turned it around in a week I gave up. Transparency film with a pure optical pathway is dead.<br>

I have done a fair ammount of scanning with a Nikon 9000. It is very time consuming and delivers a great product from medium format transparancies (Mamiya 7). AT 12 megapixal resolution I sold all my film gear. I can print well to 13x19, which is pretty good. I haven't felt the need or desire to go back to film.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Richard: I understand your point about shadow areas. However, my results seem to point that 35 mm film blocks up. Take a look at my Flicker pages and compare 35mm vs medium.</p>

<p>35mm Ektachromes <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/ektachrome/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/ektachrome/</a></p>

<p>120 Velvia <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia/</a></p>

<p>Maybe it is because all my 35mm were Ektachrome transparencies scans although my Velvia transparencies scans on 120 seem better in the shadows. The other possibility is that because the area of the shadow in spread out over more real estate on 120, the tones don't "bunch up" as they do on the smaller area for the same scene on 35mm. Of course this is just conjecture on my part. But the results I get do seem different. If anyone can help me get better scans on 35mm in the shadows, I'm open for suggestions.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I shoot lots of film but I also shoot digital. As some people have said the images from film and digital have a different look. In terms of resolution this is what I find (I scan with a Nikon 9000 or 5000)<br>

My 5DII (best DSLR I own for IQ) beats 35mm film - I am sorry to say this includes my M6 with 35 F1.4 Summilux and any one of my 3 Contax G series bodies (Contax 21-90mm lenses).<br>

With 645 film the scan and the 5DII are about the same - I tend to prefer the film but this is due to the lenses and the way the film looks.<br>

Film beats digital when you get bigger - my Fuji GX680 (6x8cm) beats the 5DII clearly - even 20x30 prints show a significant difference. Of course a Nikon 9000 scan of the GX680 image is anywhere up to 600 MB in size!<br>

So if film beaten by digital why do I shoot it?<br>

Well it is really a case of art vs science - digital images have a slightly 2 dimensional clinical feel whereas film often has a more emotive three dimensional feel. I also love the solid touch and feel of film cameras - especially the rangefinders and old Pro bodies like Canon F1s.<br>

The conclusion is that you can get good results from either approach - digital is easy and has instant feedback - you have to work harder with film and this is often a good thing (although when you lug a GX680 up a mountain you sometimes wonder!). best advice is just to take pictures and enjoy them. I do have to say that giving one of the kids an old manual camera to use made a big improvement in the digital images as they had to think about what they were doing, slow down and move (I did not let them use any zooms!)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I've been using a pretty good scanner (Minolta Dual IV), a quite good scanner (Minolta Elite 5400), a D90, a D7000, an F100 that shares lenses with those digitals and some manual focus film equipment with mostly higher end print films (mostly Portras and Ektar, and Kodak and recently Ilford B&W films) and occasional E6. I'll do digital post on scans or DSLR raw files and print up to 13x19 from any of those sources.</p>

<p>The image quality difference I see is not in the resolution or detail (given the same lenses I'll get the same amount of detail) but in the color and tone. Print film and slide film each have a look that's not the same as what I get from digital. My print film scans are what I think of as "realistic". The chromes have more of the "pop". The digital is better for when I want a manipulable image - especially with the D7000, which outputs a crazy amount of color information and dynamic range. None of these is better than any other - they're just useful for different things.</p>

[sfcole]

<p><strong>Off topic, but FWIW, Stradivarius violins are reputed to have the best tone quality AND the greatest volume.</strong><br>

Unless you compare them to a Guarnerius del Gesu, which regularly go for millions more than Strads (I've played on both). </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>So Philip, I feel compelled to ask you for clarification. You're actually one of the few photographers I trust to give a thoughtful answer to this question:</p>

<p>When you refer to the "more emotive, three-dimensional feel" to film, vs. the "slightly 2 dimensional, clinical feel" to digital images, I'm curious what properties of the images give you those different perceptions. My own work, which is almost all digital, is very heavy in contrast curve manipulation, particularly in B&W. I regularly impose contrast curves with heavy toes and shoulders to create a film-ish look that, to me, does seem more emotive and three-dimensional. I this some of what you're talking about? If so, it can be achieved very easily in post.</p>

<p>Another aspect of film is that it can be pull processed and can then often represent a larger exposure latitude than a digital image. Of course there's always HDR (sans the tone mapping) that could be applied to either medium to augment latitude. Much of the extended latitude of film is of course stuffed into the toe and shoulder regions of the response curve, which is where I tend to stuff it when I'm doing post on a digital image. Strictly speaking, though, the highlight and shadow details might appear less "clipped" in a film image, at least if it derives from a single exposure. Is this in any part of the difference that matters to you?</p>

<p>And then there's the graininess of film. It's a look, and some people really like it. I confess it's not really my style. Back in the 70's, when Tri-X was all the rage, I was a Panatomic shooter. (No, really!) And when I shot Plus-X for the speed, I'd develop in Microdol-X to ease the grain. I truly hated Tri-X BECAUSE of the grain -- well, that, and I felt it was too contrasty for my purposes. Still, I realize grain yields that "gritty" sort of look that so many people like. Perhaps that makes it a bit more "tangible" -- as though the process of laying down the image is somehow evident on the paper. Is the graininess of film what matters to you? (I've not found a method for introducing grain that is wholely satisfactory, although I admit I've not devoted much attention to this issue. I don't like grain, remember? ;-)</p>

<p>Just curious... Honest questions, not debate or argumentation.</p>

<p>Oh, and FAIW, I've been using one digital method that DOES look a whole lot like Tri-X. I've been shooting high-ISO natural light photos in Colonial Williamsburg in rather dark environments, applying sigmoidal contrast curves, and then "salt and pepper" filtering to null out the finest grained noise content. That leaves a coarser noise pattern that does have a granularity very much like Tri-X. It's rather interesting. I have to admit the look is growing on me a bit, although I think I would still prefer something less grainy. Here are a couple of examples:<br /> <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phcobblersm.jpg">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phcobblersm.jpg</a><br /> <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phblacksmith01sm.jpg">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phblacksmith01sm.jpg</a></p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>Yes, you are missing something. So is almost everyone that responded. I do this for a living. Scanners come in two flavors, PMT and CCD. Drum scanners have PMT's and the CCD's are used for flatbeds, including the Imacon/Flextight. PMT's are so sensitive they can detect a few photons bouncing around in the light box. They do not use a lens, it is an optical sensor. Therefore, there is no degradation of the image thru scanning when using a drum scanner. CCD information is passed thru another lens and there is degradation. Higher end flatbeds like the Imacon use better lenses, whereas the Epson type scanners use plastic ones. To put it simply, there is a difference between scanners.<br>

I have an Aztek Premier drum scanner that is capable of 8,000 dpi optical resolution. It has a 3 micron engine. The file size for 35mm runs about 500mb. Med format, 2.2 Gigs, 4x5 1.7 gigs (up to 6 gigs) and 8x10 3Gigs (up to 24 gigs). (I just did one of those large ones for a guy who wanted to make a 35 foot print....)<br>

My standard 8x10 scan is done at 2666 dpi, which yields 3 gigs of info. I can do an 88 inch print at 300 dpi, or a 44 inch one at 600 dpi. More than I need. It's roughly 568 megapixels. The 4x5 is approximately 325 megapixels, with a 4,000 spi scan. <br>

Now we all know that lenses (film or digital) can only separate so many lines per mm, there is diffusion at the higher fstops, etc. No one is claiming a 568 megapixel real resolution. However, the comparison to digital is a joke. Digital has only one advantage, that of instant feedback. Very handy, to be sure. However, as far as quality goes, digital can not compare with what film can do. And they won't until the sensor size increases dramatically.</p>

<p>Lenny<br>

EigerStudios<br>

Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing<br>

eigerstudios.com</p>