Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

digital cameras vs film cameras
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 pm    Post subject: digital cameras vs film cameras Reply with quote
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8027728540/

These are the crops:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8027777263/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8029232628/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8027773596/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/8027774380/


what do you think about DSLR vs analog photos scanned with this drum scanner? IQ, grain etc

here, one analog frame scanned with imacon 848: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/7606282512/sizes/o/in/photostream/


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Difficult to say, but "it seems" that I can achieve equal or better resolution with my 21MP full frame camera tripoded.
For larger negatives, well this is another story.

[]s,

Renato


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RSalles wrote:
Difficult to say, but "it seems" that I can achieve equal or better resolution with my 21MP full frame camera tripoded.
For larger negatives, well this is another story.

[]s,

Renato


yes ...i think the same...a 5d2 achieves more details.
yes 120mm film is another story...i have a bessa 1 with vaskar 105mm...


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wish I could get my 35mm negs drum scanned Sad

On a UK gadget show (a year or so ago) they compared a Nikon digital camera with Nikon film camera and 35mm neg, blown up to a massive poster size on the side of a wall...it was a bit UN-scientific for the neg as they didn't say what was the drum scanner and it was their choice of film and dev...anyway it was a close run thing and the general view was:- the digital was a bit better. Mind you, it might be a different story with the latest digital cameras ? but then film uses can up the quality by using medium format which should compete with the latest 35mm digital cameras.....h'mm well a good scan would be necessary to achieve this.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
if you want to maintain digital postprocess, I don't see reason to shoot 135/120 format film - digital is better IQ in every aspect. it makes sense if you shoot large format like 4x5" or bigger. another thing is comparing actual photographs - I doubt you will notice big IQ difference between perfect traditional print and digitally processed.

@excalibur: I remember that, it was comparison between D700 and some mid-level 400ASA colour negative - Fuji Superia I think? no information on scanning process though. you can guess result of this comparison even without looking at that test. different story would be comparison with some slide film like Velvia (or Astia - shame they don't produce it anymore)


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
for large things there are autopano...hugin...ptgui....i use them with good results


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
if you want to maintain digital postprocess, I don't see reason to shoot 135/120 format film - digital is better IQ in every aspect. it makes sense if you shoot large format like 4x5" or bigger. another thing is comparing actual photographs - I doubt you will notice big IQ difference between perfect traditional print and digitally processed.

@excalibur: I remember that, it was comparison between D700 and some mid-level 400ASA colour negative - Fuji Superia I think? no information on scanning process though. you can guess result of this comparison even without looking at that test. different story would be comparison with some slide film like Velvia (or Astia - shame they don't produce it anymore)


Well I suppose the debate could center around B/W shots or can the 35mm digital sensor capture all the detail in a shot compared to a medium format neg\slide. Also the lenses on a medium format film camera can give different perspectives which can be more pleasing in a shot compared to 35mm.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
if you want to maintain digital postprocess, I don't see reason to shoot 135/120 format film - digital is better IQ in every aspect. it makes sense if you shoot large format like 4x5" or bigger. another thing is comparing actual photographs - I doubt you will notice big IQ difference between perfect traditional print and digitally processed.

@excalibur: I remember that, it was comparison between D700 and some mid-level 400ASA colour negative - Fuji Superia I think? no information on scanning process though. you can guess result of this comparison even without looking at that test. different story would be comparison with some slide film like Velvia (or Astia - shame they don't produce it anymore)


The D700 is a 12.1 megapixel DSLR (I had to look this up because I don't shoot Nikon digital). Fuji Superia 400 is probably the worst ISO 400 film I've ever used, and is one of the worst all time films I've ever used. So frankly I'm surprised that it was fairly evenly matched against a 12.1 mp FF DSLR. Just goes to show the advantage of using a drum scanner, I suppose.

I agree with berraneck that, from a professional standpoint, digital just makes more sense in every respect. In order to want to shoot film one must be in love with film and be willing to deal with its expense and shortcomings. I am and I am.

As for metallaro1980's first post: I appreciate the thorough and detailed description he's included with the scans he posted at Flickr, and the quality of the scans of Kodak Ektar 100 is indeed excellent (I'd really like to see some Velvia 50 scans, though). But the one question he asks, namely "what do you think about DSLR vs analog photos scanned with this drum scanner? IQ, grain etc" I cannot answer that question meaningfully. We need to see images produced from a current high-end DSLR so we can compare them directly with the scans he's provided. My hunch is that the Ektar scans will hold up nicely against DSLR images in the 20mp or so range, which is excellent, but it's just a hunch because there is no digital data.

Honestly, I'd like to see one of metallaro's high-end scans of a Fujichrome Velvia 50 35mm slide against Nikon's flagship D800 with its 36.3mp sensor. And just to make the field of testing even, both cameras should use the same exact lens -- say one of Nikon's brilliant Micro Nikkors.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Film vs. digital?

Oh, here we go again...


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:


Honestly, I'd like to see one of metallaro's high-end scans of a Fujichrome Velvia 50 35mm slide against Nikon's flagship D800 with its 36.3mp sensor. And just to make the field of testing even, both cameras should use the same exact lens -- say one of Nikon's brilliant Micro Nikkors.



i dont' understand...


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Film vs. digital?

Oh, here we go again...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088323/ Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
Film vs. digital?

Oh, here we go again...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088323/ Laughing


....but 1000's of newbies interested in photography would like to know the difference, and google would send them here Wink For example:- As a non digital owner (well I have a clapped out P&S) I had the opinion that a digital camera wasn't as good as film for shots from highlights to shadows and it meant going to photoshop to correct this. Question


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://www.photoventure.com/2013/06/26/film-vs-digital-10-reasons-every-beginner-should-avoid-film/

Very Happy

ok, I'm stopping making fun. when you compare film and sensor of same sizes, digital will be way better in IQ, more convenient and probably easier to make nice pictures for newbies. modern backs like Leaf Aptus II-12 or PhaseOne IQ280 are as good or better as 4x5" film; modern FF DSLR's are on par with 6x4,5cm (at least). on the other hand, it's much cheaper to achieve great image quality with film - if you know how to. for the price of Nikon D800 you can buy 6x7cm SLR with bunch of lenses, full darkroom equipment and lots of film Wink

edit: there interesting comparison on LuminousLandscape


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent point, berraneck, and that's precisely what I've been doing, albeit piecemeal, for the past four years. I have pro film equipment that just 10 or 20 years ago would have been worth the equivalent of a top-of-the-line Nikon or Canon DSLR, but I obtained it for a small fraction of the price. So I'm still money ahead. And now that I'm developing my own B&W, E-6, and C-41, even film costs are not so bad anymore.

Last edited by cooltouch on Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
metallaro1980 wrote:
cooltouch wrote:


Honestly, I'd like to see one of metallaro's high-end scans of a Fujichrome Velvia 50 35mm slide against Nikon's flagship D800 with its 36.3mp sensor. And just to make the field of testing even, both cameras should use the same exact lens -- say one of Nikon's brilliant Micro Nikkors.



i dont' understand...


It's simple. It would be very informative, I believe, to compare one of your high-end drum scans of a 35mm slide of Velvia 50 against an image taken by a Nikon D800. To insure a level playing field, the subject should be the same, the pictures should be taken at the same time -- or within a few minutes of each other -- for an outdoor subject, and both cameras should share the same lens, preferably a Micro Nikkor -- 55mm, 60mm, 105mm, or 200mm, I don't think it would matter much.

11,000 ppi or 36.3 mp -- which image contains the most information?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Film vs. digital?

Oh, here we go again...


+1 silly to talk which one is better rather pray and do maximum what you can keep to alive film, no matter how sharp or not how grainy or not. If film is dead all film camera going to garbage or to collector shelves and next generations will can't enjoy to shoot with them.
I found same crap to compare them than compare lenses, looser will have sad life , diversity is important at every area of life, photography is not an exception. We can say big than you to GOD we have opportunity to enjoy digital and film both.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If the answer to this question was simple as "how much information" it would be probably D800 but there is another point: HOW this information is delivered - printed - to the final viewer? Actually I see a problem to the film as a medium only with foveon sensors: all interpolated CMOS sensors have that "crapinness " which I work with and had learned to live with. A medium or large format negative very well exposed and developed is as challenging as the hell can be to a digital camera, no matter it's sensor size. Film was born to bee seen in a material medium, paper, glass, etc. I name it the "Real" game. Digital, well, it depends of the color correction, the display, the printer, the ink, the paper, and the list is huge and if you're running the Pro profile the money to fill this hole will never see an end.

Long life to film, without it, the digital products never would have a mirror to look at all, never had a refering point, its Azimuth,

Cheers,

Renato


PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
Film vs. digital?

Oh, here we go again...


+1 silly to talk which one is better rather pray and do maximum what you can keep to alive film, no matter how sharp or not how grainy or not. If film is dead all film camera going to garbage or to collector shelves and next generations will can't enjoy to shoot with them.
I found same crap to compare them than compare lenses, looser will have sad life , diversity is important at every area of life, photography is not an exception. We can say big than you to GOD we have opportunity to enjoy digital and film both.


H'mm well Attila talk and communication is important..Winston Churchill once said "jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war". Well we all know digital is more convenient and better at things like experimenting, easier for panos etc and film is more relaxing in that you plan your shots carefully and learn about correct exposures and can get very good results for as low as £5 inc film, dev and\or scanning and that includes buying a camera, and so on.
So what's the point in saying a common remark such as "film is different" when they don't say why? If there is no difference why bother with film? Only unbiased digital\film owners can answer these sort of questions...which lets me out being just a film user as my opinion is limited to hearsay like:- film is better for B\W or digital can't compete with slide film or neg film is better for shots including highlights to shadows.....................................


PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
metallaro1980 wrote:
cooltouch wrote:


Honestly, I'd like to see one of metallaro's high-end scans of a Fujichrome Velvia 50 35mm slide against Nikon's flagship D800 with its 36.3mp sensor. And just to make the field of testing even, both cameras should use the same exact lens -- say one of Nikon's brilliant Micro Nikkors.



i dont' understand...


It's simple. It would be very informative, I believe, to compare one of your high-end drum scans of a 35mm slide of Velvia 50 against an image taken by a Nikon D800. To insure a level playing field, the subject should be the same, the pictures should be taken at the same time -- or within a few minutes of each other -- for an outdoor subject, and both cameras should share the same lens, preferably a Micro Nikkor -- 55mm, 60mm, 105mm, or 200mm, I don't think it would matter much.

11,000 ppi or 36.3 mp -- which image contains the most information?
..I think these scans are not from metallaro1980, right?

anyway, one of my friends (nikon user with MANY lenses) switched from Velvia50 to Nikon D800E - IQ advantage is big enough to justify the price, which didn't apply to D700 (which is worse) and D3X (which is too expensive). surely previous cameras are better at high ISO, but if you don't need that..


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
for me, when i do zoom-in in the file jpeg of the analog frame scanned...i find that the details go away too early.
in my opinion.. my 5d2 with carl zeiss planar t* 50 f/1.4 can achieve more details because for me...these scanned files are very similar to an interpolated files enlarged by a bicubic resize


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In one century from now, all the films shot today will still be here in nearly perfect condition.
The digital files will all be gone, unless they get duplicated on at least two different supports at least once a year.

Also, with digital files becoming very old there is the risk that their format may not be readable anymore. Think
it's a remote risk? Well, think again. From what I could read, NASA is unable to read today some of the older probe files
they received 30-40 years ago, because they don't know how to read the format anymore.
And if an organization like NASA has this problem, do you think that we'll be immune from that in, say, 2113, when
someone will try to read our Raw files?


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio ... the life of cd-r dvd-r bd-r is 20 years..i think...
there are other problems.
for example.. the AD converter in DSLR is 12bit and jpeg is reduced to only 8bit...
there is jpf but the printer lab want only jpeg Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
metallaro1980 wrote:
Orio ... the life of cd-r dvd-r bd-r is 20 years..i think...
there are other problems.


You think so? Then why all major libraries are still microfilming their book collections instead of scanning them?

P.S. How many of your CDs or DVDs made 10 years ago are still readable today? About half of mine are gone.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
In one century from now, all the films shot today will still be here in nearly perfect condition.
The digital files will all be gone, unless they get duplicated on at least two different supports at least once a year.

Also, with digital files becoming very old there is the risk that their format may not be readable anymore. Think
it's a remote risk? Well, think again. From what I could read, NASA is unable to read today some of the older probe files
they received 30-40 years ago, because they don't know how to read the format anymore.
And if an organization like NASA has this problem, do you think that we'll be immune from that in, say, 2113, when
someone will try to read our Raw files?


Well I can go back to the early 1960's and my B\W negs are excellent, Kodachrome excellent, colour negs good, Agfa slide faded slightly and Perutz slide has really faded.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
metallaro1980 wrote:
Orio ... the life of cd-r dvd-r bd-r is 20 years..i think...
there are other problems.


You think so? Then why all major libraries are still microfilming their book collections instead of scanning them?

P.S. How many of your CDs or DVDs made 10 years ago are still readable today? About half of mine are gone.

i don't know
but i have a cd-r of mp3 (10 years old) and it is fully readable.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3