DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Dynamic Range of Digital Vs. 35mm Film
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/14/2005 06:17:41 PM · #1
I've read from multiple sources that the dynamic range of digital SLR's is actually greater than the dynamic range of 35mm film.

Here are some sources:

Source 1

Excerpt from above source: âThere seems to be an urban legend that says digital cameras have less dynamic range than film. The legend is wrong. The above plot shows the comparison of a DSLR with print and slide film. The slide film records only about 5 photographic stops of information (a stop is a factor of 2, so 5 stops is 32). The print film shows about 7 stops of information. The digital camera shows at least 10 stops of information (this test was limited to 10 stops). Other tests show the Canon 1D Mark II camera has about 11.6 stops of information (a range of 3100 in intensity). Other DSLR cameras, like the Canon 10D have around 11 stops. Point and shoot digital cameras, somewhat less.â

Source 2

Excerpt from above source: "The total dynamic range of the EOS-10D is 8.5 f-stops"

Source 3

Excerpt from above source: âThe three Canon digital SLR's tested here (EOS 20D, EOS-1Ds Mark II and EOS 5D) produce as-good-as identical amounts of dynamic range, somewhere around 3.7 EV above middle gray (highlight range) and around -4.3 EV below middle gray (shadow range), or around 8 EV in total.â


Discuss...

Edit: While I'm not sure that sources 2 and 3 specifically say that the dynamic range of the 10D or 20D is greater than that of 35mm print film, I am inferring that it is greater based on source 1's statement that print film has 7 stops of dynamic range.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 18:27:02.
 12/14/2005 06:22:16 PM · #2
It's true. Velvia has 5 stops of range, b&W neg film has like 9, but bear would be able to tell you how much range you can get out of the neg with the zone system.

We need a spot light or something (like batman has) for bear, so we can call him when we need him. ;o)
 12/14/2005 06:35:16 PM · #3
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
It's true. Velvia has 5 stops of range, b&W neg film has like 9, but bear would be able to tell you how much range you can get out of the neg with the zone system.

We need a spot light or something (like batman has) for bear, so we can call him when we need him. ;o)


Like a Easy Button? just have it off to the side like a DQ-agram, "This Post needs to be reviewed by someone smarter than me, before I make an ass of myself."
 12/14/2005 06:45:14 PM · #4
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

We need a spot light or something (like batman has) for bear, so we can call him when we need him. ;o)

Originally posted by wavelength:
Like a Easy Button? just have it off to the side like a DQ-agram, "This Post needs to be reviewed by someone smarter than me, before I make an ass of myself."

LOL! Good idea ...

In a digital world, the range of the film may be made partially irrelevant because the dynamic range of the scanners used to digitize the image from the film only have a dynamic range of about 3.4-3.8 (on a log scale) -- not quite sure how that translates to film stops, but I know there's often an issue of capturing an adequate range in scanning.
 12/14/2005 07:01:21 PM · #5
I just read THIS that said 3.8 log is about equivalent to 13 f-stops. This being theoretical because slide and other film really don't have that info to give to the scanner.

So, if I read that right, scanned files should be just as good as the original was. (again, I need an easy button)
 12/14/2005 07:05:04 PM · #6
Originally posted by wavelength:
I just read THIS that said 3.8 log is about equivalent to 13 f-stops. This being theoretical because slide and other film really don't have that info to give to the scanner.

So, if I read that right, scanned files should be just as good as the original was. (again, I need an easy button)

Most "home" scanners are more like 3.4, but that still sounds pretty good. As I recall, the range for paper is quite a bit less than film, and a lot of images are scanned from prints.
 12/14/2005 07:16:35 PM · #7
I would have to check, but I thought my coolscan 8000 had 4.2.
 12/14/2005 10:32:46 PM · #8
Bump.

12/14/2005 10:39:51 PM · #9
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
It's true. Velvia has 5 stops of range, b&W neg film has like 9, but bear would be able to tell you how much range you can get out of the neg with the zone system.

We need a spot light or something (like batman has) for bear, so we can call him when we need him. ;o)


To be honest, I don't really know the answer to this, at least in technical terms like you guys are using here. With film, for example, we're talking two different things; what kind of range can the negative contain (how many zones of gray can a negative contain?) and what kind of range can be expressed (how many zones of light can be compressed into the film?). So, with a slow-speed, panchromatic film liek ht eold Plus-X we used to use in 4x5 sheet form, I had a greater range of grays possible in the actual negative than I could express in the print, simnply because transmitted light is more expressive than reflected light, which is what a print reveals.

But the bottom line is that the papers had a maximum useable range of maybe 8 zones, so everything between white and black had to be compressed into 8 zones basically; pure white, pure black, and 6 steps of gray between was the best we could do, and 7 zones was more realistic. Now, by meticulous exposure and processing of the film, I could compress a 12-stop/zone range of light into 8 zones on the film; so that's your rule-of-thumb answer; with film/paper prints I could make use of a 12-stop/zone range of light if I exposed and developed perfectly, in the making of a full tonal-range print. A more useable range was 10 stops.

Now, I haven't made a study of this in digital (although I ought to) but it's my sense that my 20D can handle about that much range also without much trouble, if I expose properly and process from RAW. It also appears that I can go even further if I expand into parallel processing two separate versions and combine them into one image.

In practical terms, I'd say that the 20D is more "forgiving" than B/W film was, when pushed to the extremes, and it's definitely more forgiving than color transparency film is, so practically speaking I'd say digital has a couple stops/zones more workable range than film.

Robt.

12/14/2005 10:57:22 PM · #10
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I would have to check, but I thought my coolscan 8000 had 4.2.

That would be reasonable for a really good transparency scanner ... I'm sure the scanners have made a lot of progress since I used them extensively.

FWIW a 4.2 density range is what you might have expected from a $350,000 Crossfield or Scitex drum scanner about 20 years ago; probably a minimum of $25/scan to have those done.
 12/14/2005 11:06:53 PM · #11
Tastes Great!!!
 12/14/2005 11:42:51 PM · #12
Originally posted by Niten:
Tastes Great!!!


I agree. RAW files are definitely NOT "less filling", LOL. 'specially not from the 5D!
 12/14/2005 11:45:56 PM · #13
With regard to scanners, the Coolscan 8000 Dmax is in fact 4.2, which is so much better than my Coolscan III (LS-30) it isn't even funny! Even an older, less expensive scanner like the LS-30 can do much higher densities using multi-pass scanning, though, it just takes forever. I use Viewscan, and for high-density positives, I run at least four scans if I want the best results.
 12/14/2005 11:47:35 PM · #14
With regard to "source 2" in the OP's original post, you can definitely trust Norman Koren, he knows his stuff! Also, I believe the DPReview tests understate synamic range, since Phil does not shoot RAW and "expose right".
 12/15/2005 12:36:28 AM · #15
Originally posted by kirbic:
With regard to scanners, the Coolscan 8000 Dmax is in fact 4.2, which is so much better than my Coolscan III (LS-30) it isn't even funny! Even an older, less expensive scanner like the LS-30 can do much higher densities using multi-pass scanning, though, it just takes forever. I use Viewscan, and for high-density positives, I run at least four scans if I want the best results.


I use 16x sampling on my scans. And I scan then in @ 16 bit.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 12:04:19 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/27/2025 12:04:19 AM EDT.