Film versus digital (quality-wise)

[Ronnie948]

Hi Bernabeu,

You need to do more research on the size you can print off of a digital file. I did a group photograph at a nursing home with over 100 people and it was blown up to be a 30 inch by 50 inch print. It is sharp enough to read the writing on peoples hats and shirts. The color is perfect. The customer was very happy. I got paid a lot. It would have been just fine with a Hasselblad or any good film camera as long as the lab did not mess up the film while processing.( Print or slides would be OK) as long as the original quality is there.

I did a 11 X 14 print for the lab to match color and crop. I also provided a CD with the post processing and sizing done. I don't know what they do but the final print was perfect and cost $50.00 to have done. It does not really matter if it is Film or Digital. All I'm saying is Digital is much less expensive and safer then film.

The photograph was done with My D-100 because the D-200 was not out yet.

Unless you do it your self. Most film is digitaly processed and printed now-days anyway.

Ronnie

Ronnie948 wrote:

Hi Bernabeu,

You need to do more research on the size you can print off of a digital file. I did a group photograph at a nursing home with over 100 people and it was blown up to be a 30 inch by 50 inch print. It is sharp enough to read the writing on peoples hats and shirts. The color is perfect. The customer was very happy. I got paid a lot. It would have been just fine with a Hasselblad or any good film camera as long as the lab did not mess up the film while processing.( Print or slides would be OK) as long as the original quality is there.

I did a 11 X 14 print for the lab to match color and crop. I also provided a CD with the post processing and sizing done. I don't know what they do but the final print was perfect and cost $50.00 to have done. It does not really matter if it is Film or Digital. All I'm saying is Digital is much less expensive and safer then film.

The photograph was done with My D-100 because the D-200 was not out yet.

Unless you do it your self. Most film is digitaly processed and printed now-days anyway.

Ronnie

EXACTLY my point !!!!!!!!!!

If you print the 35mm negative chemically with an ANALOGUE enlarger you will get the EQUIVALENT of up to 40 megapixels resolution !

Caboose,

the pro sports shooters use digital merely because of the work flow and 'good enough' for mass media application

[Caboose]

bernabeu wrote:

Caboose,

the pro sports shooters use digital merely because of the work flow and 'good enough' for mass media application

this is partially true, but just try to get a just "good enough" picture published inSports Illustratiedor any publication for that matter, it's probably not going to happen. And what about the other pros I mentioned, just "good enough" is not what their customers expect. There is a local pro that has several poster sized prints hanging in his studio that he shot in jpeg, and they are tack sharp. I shot film for years, and loved every minute of it, but now there is something that is just as good and a whole lot easier. Film is not dead yet, I think it will be around for a long time to come, but when was the last new 35mm film camera introduced that everyone just had to have?

[dimagez1]

You seem to have latched onto this nonsense that you can get 24-40mb of usable info from a 35mm scan. You can scan 35mm film to give you

gigabytes of info if you really want to, but everything beyond the 10mb mark is NOISE (grain) not usable information. Arguably 10mb is even being

very generous to film because that's the point where ALL the additional info from higher resolution scans becomes noise. Of that 10mb a considerable

amount is already noise.

Once again, peripathetic, you have managed to display your monumental ignorance with great pride!

I assume that by "mb" you mean "megabytes". Even if you can see signs of "noise" in a 10 megabyte film scan, that by absolutely no means says that's where the extra resolution becomes worthless. Just in case you can't figure it out, an 8bit, 3.5 megapixel image will produce a 10 megabyte file. Are you so completely stupid that you think 35mm film is only worth 3.5 megapixels?!!!

I showed you a 10 TRUE megapixel film scan compared to a 40 megapixel film scan of the same frame of film. I clearly demonstrated that a 10 TRUE megapixel scan of a 135 negative isn't enough to resolve all details; the 40 megapixel scan clearly did better. But you, in your great world of denial, pretended you couldn't see the difference, and you certainly couldn't realize the implications of those differences!

I showed you how little grain there is in a raw, 10true megapixel film scan of consumer grade, 400 speed film. Your response was that you wanted to see some mathematical evaluation of the amount of noise in the image. Ha!

Do you have any actual experience at scanning 35mm negatives with a film scanner? Or did you always judge film by the "horrid prints" you got from the local lab (as you so boldly profess)?

How completely blind are you that you can't see that your digital camera doesn't even produce the actual resolution that it is advertised to produce? Do you honestly think that your digital image at 100% looks truly clear and sharp with no edge artifacts or anything like that? An 8 megapixel digital camera does NOT produce images with 8 megapixel resolution; far from it in fact. I tried to explain this to you before, but it was obviously far beyond your comprehensional abilities.

Again, peripatetic, in a last ditch effort, you resort to your pethetic argument that "digital is better" because "most pros use it". Do you really think they use it because it produces better results?!!! They use it because they need to be able to take thousands of pictures (like a sports photographer) or have fast turnaround times (like a news photographer). They don't use it because it produces higher quality images.

Guess what, more people, by far, use point-and-shoot digital cameras than dodigital SLRs. Does that mean adigital point-and-shoot will produce better images? No!

Some of you here seem to have the misguided believe that digital camera images aren't processed when they come out of the camera and that's why film can look better; because it's always processed. Again, completely unabashed ignorance at work here! All digital cameras apply huge amounts of processing to the images; without it, many of you would be completely disgusted by how ugly the images look. Digtal camera images, when compared to film, are subjected to far greater amounts of processing using far less natural methods! How do you think a Bayer-pattern sampled image can look as good as it does? Did you know that virtually all digital cameras employ noise reduction? Bayer reconstruction algorithms (which apply a very large amount of processing to the image)? Sharpening? Color correction? Contrast correction?

Cameras like 5D, 1D, D2X will generally give equal or better results than 6x4.5 medium format.

You actually believe a 4 megapixel camera like the 1D can outresolve medium format film...or even a 12 fake-a-pixel camera like the D2X?!!!! I don't know if you noticed this or not, but the D2X doesn't exactly produce noiseless images, even in spite of using noise reduction. Yes, it is obvious that you DON'T speak from experience!



-Ted

Is it real?...Or is it Memorex?

If you can print it 'razor sharp' on 16x20" high gloss paper -> it's a photo!

yada...yada...yada...............................

[peripatetic]

How completely blind are you that you can't see that your digital camera doesn't even produce the actual resolution that it is advertised to produce? Do you honestly think that your digital image at 100% looks truly clear and sharp with no edge artifacts or anything like that? An 8 megapixel digital camera does NOT produce images with 8 megapixel resolution; far from it in fact. I tried to explain this to you before, but it was obviously far beyond your comprehensional abilities.

Hi Tod,

Ah yes your silly old assertion that because of interpolation the number of true pixels can be only 4 mp at moston a 8mp sensor.

What you are asserting there is that the interpolation algorithm gets it 100% wrong. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes an interpolation algorithm will get it 100% right, but usually less that than. How much less depends on the algorithm and the pattern.

In your original example you gave which was that you just take a picture of a red card, I'm pretty sure the algorithm would get it 100% right.

There's a lot of monumental ignorance going around. Enough for everyone, I have my share but you've got a bucketful too.

For those people who don't think bayer interpolation is any more sophisticated than taking a wild guess and couldn't possibly get you closer than 4 "true" mp out of 8 claimed mp on an 8mp sensor perhaps they can start with this article - google has a zillion more links for those interested.

http://graphics.cs.msu.su/en/publica...prog2004lk.pdf

Again, peripatetic, in a last ditch effort, you resort to your pethetic argument that "digital is better" because "most pros use it".

Nope that's not the assertion. Most pros use it because it's better in a multitude of ways and image quality is good enough. And when your livelihood depends on it you pay more attention. It is an indicator that most pros use it, you're confusing cause and effect again.

It is a separate assertion that image quality is as good or better and that many fine art photographers (who may or may not be professionals) are turning to digital because they have come to that conclusion too.

I assume that by "mb" you mean "megabytes".

No that was a typo I meant megapixels.

Cameras like 5D, 1D, D2X will generally give equal or better results than 6x4.5 medium format.

No I meant the current iteration of the 1Ds i.e. the MkII - I wasn't aware you were still lurking on these forums. Thought you'd long gone otherwise I would have been more careful in my typing.

Some of you here seem to have the misguided believe that digital camera images aren't processed when they come out of the camera

Well shooting RAW they're not. Pretty much by definition. But of course then all the math happens on your PC. But do you really think that people are so stupid that they think a DIGITAL image isn't run through a microprocessor to turn it into a picture?

I showed you how little grain there is in a raw, 10true megapixel film scan of consumer grade, 400 speed film. Your response was that you wanted to see some mathematical evaluation of the amount of noise in the image. Ha!

Yeah how's that going? Still working on it? Made any progress?Come on Tad we're waiting.


In the meantime for anyone who is interested they can have a look at Roger Clarke's calculations. (Who incidentally has fewer statues celebrating his ignorance than I do.)

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ise/index.html

peripatetic,


but, they SCANNED the film image making it a DIGITAL image !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

his method merely compared a digital capture to the results of a digital scan of a film capture

PLEASE, let's compare a 'darkroom' film print to a digital file print :?

[dimagez1]

Yeah how's that going? Still working on it? Made any progress?Come on Tad we're waiting.

I see you still haven't changed a single bit! You still try to avoid the proof that I handed out to you. You act as if my demonstration of film grain means nothing unless some numerical signal-to-noise ratios are applied to them. Wake up, man! It's a freakin' picture, you judge it by how you see it! Where do you get this notion that it has to be mathematically judged? Was my demonstration so convincing - were the visual results so neck-to-neckthat you thought a more precise measurement was necessary? I see you still cling to the notion that a lack of grain is all that matters.

What you are asserting there is that the interpolation algorithm gets it 100% wrong.

When did I say that? You seem to be under the blatantly stupid notion that you can get something from nothing! Sometimes the interpolation get's lucky and adds a speck of detail that actually was there. But, far more often than not, it's very innacurate.

It's so simple, even you should be able to understand it! The green channel has the most detail because it has the most photodiodes dedicated to it. It is the highest resolution channel, period! Even at that, it only used half of the pixel count of the camera. Because red and blue are the lowest resolution channels, they need to have their resolution "increased" by copying edgesfrom the green channel. This not only gives an apparent increase to the red and blue resolution, but it also helps hide the color artifacts that would be apparent on edges because bayer pattern innaccuracies. Therefore, many edges in digital camera images appear desaturated. That's because the same luminance was copied to all channels. Prove it to yourself...find an edge (like a powerline against a sky). Now look at the same edge in the green channel and then the red channel. Now, notice how the red channel edge has the same luminance as the edge in the green channel. Let's see you try to explain that into non-existence!!!

Wouldn't it be great if interpolation algorithms work as good as you blindly hope they do? We wouldn't need megapixel sensors, we'd just need a few thousand pixels from which we can then interpolate a huge, clear, 40 megapixel image!

Come on man! Where's your explanation for all of the edge artifacts you're getting? Those overpopulated edge halos? The softness? Let's see some real info and demonstrations out of you for once - rather than all of your pathetic avoidances of the issue at hand. You can't just conveniently gloss over the obvious. Ton's of people notice edge artifacts and softness all of the time. So, where's your explanation for them?!!!

But do you really think that people are so stupid that they think a DIGITAL image isn't run through a microprocessor to turn it into a picture?

Just another one of your typically idiotic points! So what if it's run through a processor? That doesn't necessarily mean any of the image data is being modified. Bayer reconstruction on the other hand...

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/index.html

Another one of your sad-sap references! Do you seriously believe that Velvia 50 appears more grainy than the 1D Mark II does at ISO 800?!!!! Number one, film scanners CANNOT handle the density of slide film - they'll typically make the image appear more contrasty and thus more grainy. And, how is it fair to compare a noise-reduced digital camera image to a raw film scan? That's hardly a comparison. Idiots like you that are trying desperately to convince yourself that you have the best camera in the world would need to resort to a tactic like this. Mathematical perfection and visual perception are two very different things.Anybody with any technical knowledge should know that signal-to-noise ratios are used for comparing the amount of noisegenerated in theelectronic world. What idiot got the idea of using it measure film grain against electronic noise! Man, talk about comparing apples to muffins.

I've seen so many stupid examples like this on the net! Somebody even managed to make negative film look far more contrasty than a P&S digital camera!!!

And ultimately, I think it is rather hilarious how you alwaysrun to the big boys (1Ds Mark II and the like) to try to prove that film isn't better. Why don't you try comparing your camera? What is it - a 20D I believe, or is it a 30D now?

I'd relish the opportunity to get into a photographic shootout with you. You will get less grain but nowhere near as much less as you hope for. Your resolution will look obviously inferior, especially your contrast range.



-Ted

can i join the shoot-out ?!

i'll use my 1969 $59 Vivitar rengefinder with the f2.8 (factory) Zeiss lens and kodacolor gold 200

HOORAY- A CONTEST

we will make 20x30 prints and examine them with a 3x glass

lol, all, and..........................good night





:homey: