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

Film versus digital media
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:02 pm    Post subject: Film versus digital media Reply with quote
http://forum.manualfocus.org//viewtopic.php?id=18674


PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another brilliant comparison:
http://forum.manualfocus.org//viewtopic.php?id=18692


PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
They had too much time ... to compare them quiet silly, we need to be happy we have both and we can select proper tool for every task.
Quiet nasty to compare a large film piece with a tiny sensor and say hey film is better.. compare 35mm film with 35mm digital sensor Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Quiet nasty to compare a large film piece with a tiny sensor and say hey film is better.. compare 35mm film with 35mm digital sensor

even at 35mm, the film is still better
the test only report the resolution of 5Dmk2 + microscope
as Tim Parkin note, the eye clearly see more detail than the 5Dmk2
for this reason, Zeiss use research microscope to measure film resolution

Tim Parkin wrote:
The images were taken using a Canon 5Dmk2 but even this was not able to show the very finest of lines visible through the microscope. e.g. the Mamiya 7 T-Max result shows 7 as the highest value when photographed through the microscope but we can clearly see a value of 9 by eye (the microscope has a higher magnification when used by eye)


Zeiss wrote:
The new Planar T* 1,4/50 ZF went even further: It reached 320 lp/mm in the aperture range from f/5.6 to f/2.8, and 250 lp/mm at f/2.
The resolution test chart was placed in the center of the frame, and the negatives were inspected directly on a research microscope. No other process involving projection (through even the best enlarging lens) or digitizing (in today’s best currently available scanners) is capable of transferring such high resolution values.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
***even at 35mm, the film is still better***

...wish film users could get everything off the neg cheaply Wink


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I´m looking forward to moment when this film vs digital comparisons stop... but it´s nice to see that Mamiya7 still equals to digiback like IQ180 Cool


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
***even at 35mm, the film is still better***

...wish film users could get everything off the neg cheaply Wink
That's the rub, ain't it? film is only as good as the scanner, as discussed elsewhere. And on the whole, that means film is pretty crappy Sad


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
GrahamNR17 wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
***even at 35mm, the film is still better***

...wish film users could get everything off the neg cheaply Wink
That's the rub, ain't it? film is only as good as the scanner, as discussed elsewhere. And on the whole, that means film is pretty crappy Sad


Well film and digital shots can look excellent on a computer screen, but would the equalizer of a printer show much difference comparing a 35mm neg scanned by a cheap V500 and 5DmkII for say a normal 8X10" (or A4) print Wink As I don't have a decent digital camera maybe others have compared.
And MF and LF negs give VG results from a V500.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
GrahamNR17 wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
***even at 35mm, the film is still better***

...wish film users could get everything off the neg cheaply Wink
That's the rub, ain't it? film is only as good as the scanner, as discussed elsewhere. And on the whole, that means film is pretty crappy Sad


+1


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is completely unfair to compare 36x24 digital sensors to large format negs.

You don't compare a Ferrari with a van and then complain that the Ferrari does not have enough room for all those suitcases you need either, do you? Wink

The thing is that you really cannot compare film with a sensor, they are just too different.
It's a matter of taste. And if film enthusiasts like poilu prefer film, they are right. If digital fans prefer the sensor, they are also right.

We should enjoy our fabulous hobby and not care about those academical issues. (Although it IS quite interesting every now and then. Wink)


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rubbish or not it is just an interesting past time reading.... Wink


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stingOM wrote:
Rubbish or not it is just an interesting past time reading.... Wink


..and for lurkers and newbies who come from google who would like to read views and answers.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Trouble is, there's just so many variables. Film choice, developer choice, exposure etc all have such a huge impact on the finished negative. A raw digi file is bland until heavily PP'd.

You can't compare mono films, as the same film put through a dozen different developers yields a dozen totally different negs.

I suppose if you took a digi camera and had the resolving power data of its sensor, and found a colour film with identical resolving capabilities, you could make an informed comparison. Fortunately C41 developer is pretty similar/identical across the manufacturers so it's one less variable.

Then you'd have to produce identical outputs, say an A3 sized print. But that has variables too. Paper/chemical/enlarger lens for the neg, paper/printer/ink for the digi. But that really just compares the darkroom equipment and consumables to the printer consumables. I'd wager the differences would be hard to distinguish at A3.

But if you chose to compare them on a display, the analogue image would have to be scanned, adding another huge variable.

And so on, and so forth.

Personally, I find the whole film vs digital thing futile and utterly pointless. The hours people waste "testing" equipment and trying to make comparisons is wasted picture-taking time.

The only time where the question "Analogue or digital" is appropriate is when choosing which will yield the results you are trying to achieve.

I'm admittedly "old school". I expose for the developer I'm planning to use to get the result I want. It's how we did it back then. It's kind of like doing the Photoshop bit before you've pressed the shutter release Embarassed


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
GrahamNR17 wrote:


The only time where the question "Analogue or digital" is appropriate is when choosing which will yield the results you are trying to achieve.



This statement is key!!

Ignoring all possible variables, if you take the industry's best approah for each format and print them to a certain size within the constraints of the capture media and then ask a representative panel of people to judge the results then you will have the semi-quantitative answer.

In the end, no one single media will win. Each is unique in its own right and each serves a different purpose.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well in the film versus digital debate:-
One of the best pluses for 35mm film was Kodachrome (now gone) .... and one of my favourite lines in the past was "Kodachrome is good for about 120 years, where will your jpgs be after this time" Wink and my other line is:- to joe public for a future time bomb when after about 25 years all those shots of their kiddies, family, holidays etc will go after their prints fade and they have lost their JPG's. My colour negs are still quite good after 45 years also hundreds of B/W ones.

Me 45years ago Rolling Eyes
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/img148.jpg

Last edited by Excalibur on Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:51 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting, but it's a bit like arguing apples & oranges. Laughing

I shoot both, I enjoy both, so they're both good for me. If you don't like one format, don't use it; you do have a choice. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
If you don't like one format, don't use it; you do have a choice. Smile


We are lucky to live in a time when we have so many GREAT choices at reasonable prices.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1