| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2005 06:13:01 AM · #26 |
| I think its a bit amusing to be debating on Film VS Digital in a Digital Photography website |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 06:17:02 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by shadow:
I think its a bit amusing to be debating on Film VS Digital in a Digital Photography website |
The contest is digital (this is fundamental to policing the time-challenge basis that sets this site apart). But the people making the images are photographers, and therefore interested in photography in all its forms.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 08:22:14 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Part of it is the transparency itself. They have depth... visible, palpable, depth. And although I have never seen a 6mp or higher image converted into even a 35mm transparency, I have to wonder if they have the same kind of depth.
|
At 8Mp from a high end camera digital has the clear edge over 35mm slides.
At 11mp digital begins to eclipse medium format.
At 16Mp you put you medium format film cameras on eBay. |
I compared the 1Ds to my pentax 67 when I was shooting the 1Ds. It wasn't close. I'm wondering how the 1Ds Mark II compares since I can scan in my 67 slides for a file over 200mb.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 08:36:19 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Part of it is the transparency itself. They have depth... visible, palpable, depth. And although I have never seen a 6mp or higher image converted into even a 35mm transparency, I have to wonder if they have the same kind of depth.
|
At 8Mp from a high end camera digital has the clear edge over 35mm slides.
At 11mp digital begins to eclipse medium format.
At 16Mp you put you medium format film cameras on eBay. |
I compared the 1Ds to my pentax 67 when I was shooting the 1Ds. It wasn't close. I'm wondering how the 1Ds Mark II compares since I can scan in my 67 slides for a file over 200mb. |
What has the size of the file coming from the scanner have to do with the quality of the image past a certain point? Are you comparing the resolution of the scanner vs. the resolution of the digital camera? If you are you are leaving several important factors, the main one being the scanner did not create the image.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 08:42:53 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Part of it is the transparency itself. They have depth... visible, palpable, depth. And although I have never seen a 6mp or higher image converted into even a 35mm transparency, I have to wonder if they have the same kind of depth.
|
At 8Mp from a high end camera digital has the clear edge over 35mm slides.
At 11mp digital begins to eclipse medium format.
At 16Mp you put you medium format film cameras on eBay. |
I compared the 1Ds to my pentax 67 when I was shooting the 1Ds. It wasn't close. I'm wondering how the 1Ds Mark II compares since I can scan in my 67 slides for a file over 200mb. |
What has the size of the file coming from the scanner have to do with the quality of the image past a certain point? Are you comparing the resolution of the scanner vs. the resolution of the digital camera? If you are you are leaving several important factors, the main one being the scanner did not create the image. |
...a 6x7 velvia chrome scanned @ 4000 dpi. Plus, how does the 1Ds Mark II handle very long exposures like 10 minutes or more?
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:06:44 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The contest is digital (this is fundamental to policing the time-challenge basis that sets this site apart). But the people making the images are photographers, and therefore interested in photography in all its forms. |
we are all gathered here today on this website because we all share something similar - we all own, use, or have interest in digital camera and digital photography. I think that more or less sums up where our opinion leans to? ;) I love my digital camera and would never return to film (unless someday films cost 10cents a roll and the film development cost just as much :p |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:12:35 PM · #32 |
the chemical process of film records more color information. True. But if you are going to compare a medium format film camera to something, compare it to a medium format digital camera. like this.22 megapixels.
and something like a digital hasslebod...the lens is amazing. I think Glass is a big factor in comparing the quality of film vs. digital.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:15:47 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Plus, how does the 1Ds Mark II handle very long exposures like 10 minutes or more? |
I haven't a clue. I haven't a use. What would you use a 10 minute exposure for? Can you possibly show me an example of an image shot at 10 minutes and tell me the reason for such a long exposure?
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:25:51 PM · #34 |
Exposures of 10 minutes or even longer are common in astrophotography. My recent entry in the D&L challenge was an 8-minute exposure with the 10D.
The 1-series cams have much better long-exposure performance than my current 10D, and I can say that I'd MUCH rather be shooting long exposures with the 10D than with film, except for the issue of edge heating of the sensor, which is also much reduced in the 1-series cams. Remember, there's no reciprocity failure with digital.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:27:15 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Plus, how does the 1Ds Mark II handle very long exposures like 10 minutes or more? |
I haven't a clue. I haven't a use. What would you use a 10 minute exposure for? Can you possibly show me an example of an image shot at 10 minutes and tell me the reason for such a long exposure? |
my website under portfolio on the places page. Number 6 (5 min), number 7 (11 min).
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:27:51 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Exposures of 10 minutes or even longer are common in astrophotography. My recent entry in the D&L challenge was an 8-minute exposure with the 10D.
The 1-series cams have much better long-exposure performance than my current 10D, and I can say that I'd MUCH rather be shooting long exposures with the 10D than with film, except for the issue of edge heating of the sensor, which is also much reduced in the 1-series cams. Remember, there's no reciprocity failure with digital. |
please note that that doesn't hold true for the original 1D...
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 21:28:01.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:28:26 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Exposures of 10 minutes or even longer are common in astrophotography. My recent entry in the D&L challenge was an 8-minute exposure with the 10D.
The 1-series cams have much better long-exposure performance than my current 10D, and I can say that I'd MUCH rather be shooting long exposures with the 10D than with film, except for the issue of edge heating of the sensor, which is also much reduced in the 1-series cams. Remember, there's no reciprocity failure with digital. |
I don't really have an issue with reciprocity failure. I have my long exposures dialed in.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:29:25 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by th3ph17:
the chemical process of film records more color information. True. But if you are going to compare a medium format film camera to something, compare it to a medium format digital camera. like this.22 megapixels.
and something like a digital hasslebod...the lens is amazing. I think Glass is a big factor in comparing the quality of film vs. digital. |
If pentax offered a digital back that fit I would look at getting one. Pentax medium format glass is some of the best.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:39:30 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by th3ph17:
the chemical process of film records more color information. True. But if you are going to compare a medium format film camera to something, compare it to a medium format digital camera. like this.22 megapixels.
and something like a digital hasslebod...the lens is amazing. I think Glass is a big factor in comparing the quality of film vs. digital. |
If pentax offered a digital back that fit I would look at getting one. Pentax medium format glass is some of the best. |
So would I. It would have to be portable and have a descent size sensor or for me, glass or not, it would defeat the purpose.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:48:38 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by th3ph17:
the chemical process of film records more color information. True. But if you are going to compare a medium format film camera to something, compare it to a medium format digital camera. like this.22 megapixels.
and something like a digital hasslebod...the lens is amazing. I think Glass is a big factor in comparing the quality of film vs. digital. |
If pentax offered a digital back that fit I would look at getting one. Pentax medium format glass is some of the best. |
So would I. It would have to be portable and have a descent size sensor or for me, glass or not, it would defeat the purpose. |
Hmmm...wonder if there are any after market adapters out there...
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 10:57:55 PM · #41 |
if you're REALLY serious about this discussion, and comparing resolution, you should start by reading this.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 11:22:05 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by riot:
if you're REALLY serious about this discussion, and comparing resolution, you should start by reading this. |
I scanned this article and may have missed something, but I don't see how it applies to this subject. Especially if you use 50 or 100 slide film.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 11:40:51 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by riot:
if you're REALLY serious about this discussion, and comparing resolution, you should start by reading this. |
I scanned this article and may have missed something, but I don't see how it applies to this subject. Especially if you use 50 or 100 slide film. |
I think it's relevant in that almost all images, even if shot on film originally, these days go through digitization at some point. The number of images actually sold as silver halide prints from film is infintesimal compared to the number of images sold for offset printing, video, internet, whatever ... the quality of any image digitized from film will be dependent on the quality and qualities of the digitizing device.
I think there are excellent, sharp, high resolution images captured with digital cameras, and some that are ugly blobs of noise. The same with film images, but you have to pay to develop the film to find out.
To compare a scanned film image with one from a digital camera without accounting for the scanner is pretty meaningless.
Also, there are ultimately some environmental considerations, depending on whether we want to have our pollutants somewhat centralized in the form of germanium, arsxenic, and mercury from electronic components manufacturing/recycling, or in the form of widely dispersed silver waste (a possible argument in favor of film).
Ultimately, it comes down to cost. I've shot about 12,000 frames in the last year -- I could afford about 1% of that if I had to pay for developing. It's all well to say "consider more" before shooting, but my style doesn't always allow that -- I shoot a lot of photos while I, the subject, or both are moving, and somewhat intentionally "waste" a lot of frames, because I know they cost me only hard drive and CD space and time, all of which I can afford more than the cost of a photolab. Digital is not free -- the CDs and memory cards have a cost, but for anyone trying to be a "photographer" and not just taking a few pictures would almost certainly find the digital route more cost-effective than film. |
|
|
|
10/04/2005 05:00:02 AM · #44 |
Digital is losing?
Message edited by author 2005-10-04 05:00:49. |
|
|
|
10/04/2005 06:07:07 AM · #45 |
See kirbic's comment earlier as to why that article is rubbish. I must say, anyone whose alarm bells aren't set ringing by the comparison of "here's a shot from 4x5" film, here's a shot from an unspecified digital camera at unspecified resolution with unspecified lens" must really have their blinkers on.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 07:16:10 AM · #46 |
One also might consider the age of each. Film has had years to evolve. In its infancy, the images would be considered crap today when blown up to unreasonable proportions. Considering the age of digital photography, advances made so far are amazing.
There are situations, large scale landscape photography being one of them, where film is still the better choice. And, the color palette is unlimited in film where it is limited (though not noticibly for most applications) in digital. But, think about where digital will be 5 years from now. 10 years from now. At the pace digital photography is evolving, it will surpass film quality soon. And it won't take as long as film photography to get there.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 07:50:47 AM · #47 |
In the October issue of Outdoor Photographer, Jack Dykinga is quoted as saying, "In terms of raw capture of information, if you look at it from a computer geek's point of view, I'm capturing roughly 1500 megabytes of information in a single sheet of film. That translates to about 500 megapixels." He doesn't say what bit depth or resolution he's basing these numbers on, but to me it seems a bit biased in favor of film. Can someone quantify what this guy is saying?
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 08:37:13 AM · #48 |
I think the size of the information is irrelevent or I have no idea what he is getting at. As I understand it, an OS on a computer can 'see' about 16 million colors. Most digital work done is also done in 8 bit which gives you roughly 16 million colors. If you step up to 32 bit you get 80 octillion colors. But not many computers or programs can process this amount of data. Film images are not limited by number of bits per channel. They aren't limited by bits at all.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 08:47:07 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by orussell:
He doesn't say what bit depth or resolution he's basing these numbers on, but to me it seems a bit biased in favor of film. Can someone quantify what this guy is saying? |
From those numbers, I'd guess he was assuming scanning medium format negs at somewhere around 4000dpi. Quite whether that accurately reflects the resolving power of the film in question is a matter of continuous debate! |
|
|
|
10/04/2005 02:07:30 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
And, the color palette is unlimited in film where it is limited (though not noticibly for most applications) in digital. |
Not at all. A ccd or cmos is often sensitive to a higher range of wavelengths than silver halide crystals, reaching well into the ultraviolet and infrared if left unfiltered. In terms of colour separation, colour film has emulsions that split it into red, green and blue segments - thus each portion of the film (microscopically speaking) can be full-red, full-green, full-blue or any combination of the three.
In comparison (although ccd and cmos elements are generally larger than silver halide crystals in normal film), each pixel on a digital image is composed of three sensors (like the emulsion), with coloured filters - a red, a green and a blue. Except that each of the three sensors can have values between 0 and 255 (assuming only 8bit output), rather than just being off or on.
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by orussell:
He doesn't say what bit depth or resolution he's basing these numbers on, but to me it seems a bit biased in favor of film. Can someone quantify what this guy is saying? |
From those numbers, I'd guess he was assuming scanning medium format negs at somewhere around 4000dpi. Quite whether that accurately reflects the resolving power of the film in question is a matter of continuous debate! |
The size of the average film grain is around 2 micrometres (microns) = 0.000002m. There are 39.37 inches in a metre, making each grain around 0.00007874 inches big - giving this film an effective MAXIMUM resolution of 12700dpi (we're talking individual on-off dots of one colour or another, NOT full colour on each dot). Dividing this by 3 to try and hope to get one dot of each colour into each scanned pixel, you get 4233dpi, which is surprisingly close to the 4000dpi mentioned. However, you have to remember this is a best case scenario, as it's highly unlikely the scanner's lens will manage to resolve the image to individual dots, even assuming that every grain is where it should be.
Now, let's compare to a (good) full frame digital sensor - that on the 1Ds mark II. Its actual sensor resolution is 17.2Mpix but effective is 16.6, so we'll work with that. That gives a resolution of 4992x3328 over a sensor size of 36x24mm - that's one (full colour) pixel every 0.0000072m - only about 3.5 times the size of the film grains. Using the same calculation as above, we get 3522dpi, and this isn't counting the fact that each pixel is made up of three analogue cmos elements (rather than one, or three binary grains). Now you're guaranteed that full dpi, because that's your final result and you're not having to feed the results through another lens. You decide which is better.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:42:20 PM EDT.
