135 film vs 10 MP digital

[Kent10D]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have A similar test, this time Canon 20D 50mm F1.4 (F8) at 100ISO vs Nikon F2 80mm F2 (F8) 200ISO Kodachrome

Digital is smooth and detail lacking

 

Yes, sorry Mark, but "the 20D is smooth and lacking in detail" may be accurate, but "digital is smooth ... etc." is too broad a generalization. You'd find that the M8 would challenge your film shot for technical quality in every way.

 

But that's not the point. Film is film, and it is a beautiful medium that, in my opinion, doesn't really need to be compared. It's just film and I like the way it looks.

 

I actually tried to do a film vs. digital comparison a while back using my M8 and M6, using comparable effective focal lengths and all, but it really is a difficult undertaking and so many factors have to be kept under control. In the final analysis I simply came to the conclusion noted above: that film is film and digital is digital, and each medium has its strengths and weaknesses. I have basically decided that it's digital for color and film for B&W, but that's purely a personal aesthetic choice, which is really all it can be. Sort of like the difference between painting with acrylics or oils.

 

If it's precise detail and color reproduction you're after, I'm afraid I have to report that the future is digital. But I sincerely hope that good film will always remain available as an aesthetic alternative. It just looks good.

[AlanG]

While we are making unscientific comparisons, how about these shot with a 7 megapixel P&S (Canon SD800) from a moving boat? No grain and they also have color.

 

For me, this tiny p&s is more than good enough for a lot of my personal snapshots.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Mark Antony]

Sorry, again - Canon 20D is 8Mp, not 10, and has an anti-alias blurring filter (which the M8 does not)

 

"Digital" covers a range as wide and varied as K25 to Delta 3200.

 

Anyone who thinks they can generalize about it in a phrase like "Digital is smooth and lacking in detail" is living the the last century...

 

Well 10mp is a tiny step up from 8mp in fact to double the res of the 20D you need 32mp.

 

Yes digital covers a wide range, maybe I should have qualified my statement "Digital is smooth and lacking in detail" means the digital comparison *I* posted lacks detail not meaning it to be a generalisation, but a specific related to the test I posted.

Mark

PS I'm not trying to bash digital, but no digital camera I've ever used has satisfied me (that includes the M8) I use digital for speed, film for pleasure (and yes my view is a personal one, not meant to be scientific)

[andybarton]

I think we have come to the stage where film and digital are two entirely different mediums. Like watercolour and oil paint.

 

Both equally valid, but different.

 

I do feel a resurgence in film use on this forum, but nothing is going to topple digital shots from their numerical perch now.

[adan]

I'm going to add my own "10 Mpixel vs 135" images, but before I do, I must acknowledge Mark Anthony's clarification, and add one of my own - yes, a fair amount of digital imagery is "detail-free". Just not (IMHO) the M8.

 

Also - an image scanned from film is a second-generation image created by the scanner's lens and digital underpinnings, therefore something will always be lost in the translation, especially in comparisons here on the Web.

 

All that being said: here is the first of 4 images.

 

1. The M8's 10 Mpixels compared to Velvia 50. Same lens (50 cron), change of position so that the overall picture framing was identical for each shot (standing farther from the subject with the M8). Film scan at full 4000 ppi resolution, M8 shot uprezzed to the same file size (54 Mbytes in 8-bit).

 

I'll grant the Velvia better handling of the "A" logos on the Rossignols, and claim the M8 handles the bolt heads more cleanly. Just about everything else in the image (or at least this section) looks essentially equal to me in terms of actual information captured.

 

The film version of stucco has more texture, but a lot of that is really grain, not the true texture of the wall. The flip side to that is that the resin smoothness of the skis IS accurate in the digital shot, whereas it is sandpapered with grain in the Velvia image, note especially the yellow ski.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[adan]

Next: comparing M8 and Velvia 50 from the same shooting position. I. E. the lens is projecting the same image size on both the film and sensor, and the film was scanned at "10 Mpixels" (about 2900 ppi).

 

So this compares film vs a CCD at the same scale - 1 mm^2 vs. 1mm^2. Not fair to film - BUT it would be a fair comparison if the M8's sensor, with the same pixel size, were full-frame, as some expect the M9 to be.

 

In effect this is an "M9 preview", assuming the M9 goes up in Mpixels while keeping the same 6.8-micron pixel size.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just for reference and scale, the overall scene:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[adan]

And finally - the "HasselM8". Comparison of an M8 image, cropped 6x6, to a scan from a Hasselblad/Delta 100 neg.

 

I do NOT draw the conclusion that the M8 is "as good as" 6x6 or 6x7 film in its raw state - just that the differences become pretty minimal if one compares a scan in a size that makes any sense for desktop computer work (250-300 ppi +/- and a 12 x 12 or 12 x 15 print o 13 x 19 paper).

 

Mostly what I get from all of this, and it was something I was already working on before this thread came up - is that I am putting my scanners away, and if I shoot film again (and I very well may at some point) it will be as part of an analog-only workflow.

 

Film originals (and likely 6x7) for darkroom work - digital originals (at any double-digit megapixelage) for computer photography.

 

Ultimately, shoot what you like to shoot, and quit worrying about the pixels.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[frc]

All test done here are true and not true.

Technical comparisons have little to do with the in the field use.

A film M and an M8 should be tested with lenses with a similar angle of view.

When I'm on the job I need the fast 35 ( film ), with the M8 yhis would be a fast 28.

With these two setups there would be an honest test of how it works in the field.

And remember that this means investing over €8000,00 for a body, a lens, coding all my lenses and filters ( some of my lenses perform less with a filter ).

Since most of the jobs I do are reportage where I need zooms, the M is only for the documentary stuff, and that's no money maker. Portrait is most shot on film, for the texture, away from the job it's M ( film now, digi would be fun too ).

Possibly a great camera but: too much money for too little gain.

 

Keep on testing M's, do it on the tripod for max sharpness.

 

I'va got mine on the strap and at hand.

 

Best, Fr.

[frc]

Hi andy,

 

On 135 film or M as you like we want a rectangle not a square.

 

Besides, if you crop the Hassies file instead of the M's the difference would be less and in the benefit of the latter.

 

First a set of rules, than the tests, this is chaos gentlemem.

[imported_peter_m]

Its always chaos when the digital versus film thing starts

 

Depending what you use or how you process you can give one or the other the advantage

 

Peter

[zapp]

It is an old mistake to compare film with pixels although necessary you will miss the pint in the comparison. Film is not pixel and pixel is not film. The advantages of both systems lie somewhere else. Digital images are much cleaner with less grain and less noise than film images. You can make great images with film and with digital.

[ndjambrose]

Unfortunately I don't think this test is in any way convincing.

 

I shoot a lot of film with my M6 - on average nearly a roll a day - and am in no way one of the 'digital is better' fraternity. Trust me on this - I'm a serious dedicated fan of Tri-X, which you'll quickly figure out if you check out my site. And I've been shooting film for years -both 135 and 120 - and won't be stopping any time soon.

 

But I also own an M8 and in the early days of owning it did a few side by side shots similar to yours, because I was interested in seeing the relative performance of film to digital just like you are. And, having done that, I know that your tests are meaningless.

 

If you want to do a real test try this:

 

1. Compare 100 ISO film to 160 ISO M8.

 

2. Use the same lens and the same aperture.

 

3. Use a tripod for both cameras.

 

4. Scan the film at whatever resolution you like, but scale your scan downwards to the same size as the digital image. Don't interpolate the digital image upwards. The reason for this is there's negligible loss of quality in sizing a scan to be a little smaller, but there's a significant loss of quality in sizing a digital image to be a little larger.

 

5. Print both images on the same printer and the same paper, using the same inks and at the same resolution.

 

If you do this you'll find that you've equalised the bias that you've built into the experiment. And - without the bias - you'll see that the digital image has the greater resolution, with visibly more accutance on the final print.

 

There are plenty of reasons to use film. I love my M6 - no battery dependence, no problems about bad weather, or not being able to work in the cold, or white balance problems, and of course - the best reason - for the love of it. But claiming that film outperforms a digital capture made in the same format and resolution is a false science, I'm afraid.

[Mark Antony]

Next: comparing M8 and Velvia 50 from the same shooting position. I. E. the lens is projecting the same image size on both the film and sensor, and the film was scanned at "10 Mpixels" (about 2900 ppi).

 

So this compares film vs a CCD at the same scale - 1 mm^2 vs. 1mm^2. Not fair to film - BUT it would be a fair comparison if the M8's sensor, with the same pixel size, were full-frame, as some expect the M9 to be.

 

Surely you can see the problem here, you're scanning film at 10mp to match the sensor.

 

Do you think a better test would be to do a print and compare, otherwise it would seem to me it would be your scanner vs your M8.

 

I use a 12mp scanner, and I'm not seeing anywhere near the detail in my scans that I get from straight prints, and I also see a lot more scanner noise that some mistake for grain.

 

I have seen some scans from 4000 dpi high end scanners that are better, I think to scan to get as much from the film as possible, then downsize to the same file size would be better.

just my 2¢

Mark

[wattsy]

4. Scan the film at whatever resolution you like, but scale your scan downwards to the same size as the digital image. Don't interpolate the digital image upwards. The reason for this is there's negligible loss of quality in sizing a scan to be a little smaller, but there's a significant loss of quality in sizing a digital image to be a little larger.

 

I'm not sure why the files need to be compared at the same size. Surely, the whole point of the exercise is to compare how much information each medium is able to capture? For film, that means scanning at the highest practicably obtainable resolution.

 

[Like many here, I have no axe to grind either way. I personally prefer the look (especially the colour and tonality) I get with film. However, for workflow and convenience reasons, I tend to shoot almost exclusively digital.]

[rob_x2004]

Yea but...film is just better?

[telyt]

I think the proper question is:

 

"Given my habits and subjects, do I produce better photographs with digital camera X, or with film camera Y and film Z"?

 

For myself, at high ISO photographing wildlife the R8/DMR I am more productive than with the SL or SL2 with Provia 400F. Where lower ISO is appropriate I am more productive with the SL or SL2 with E100G than with the R8/DMR.

[rob_x2004]

C'mon Doug, stop being pragmatic.

[Namelast]

I use digital for speed, film for pleasure (and yes my view is a personal one, not meant to be scientific)

 

Great sum up. I would add: digital for crispness, and film for grain.

 

Anyhow, always state which scanner are you using when doing this kind of comparisons, since that is the major bottleneck! (assuming the developing is good)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ndjambrose]

I'm not sure why the files need to be compared at the same size. Surely, the whole point of the exercise is to compare how much information each medium is able to capture? For film, that means scanning at the highest practicably obtainable resolution.

 

Yes - I don't dispute that at all. But in order to make an accurate comparison about resolving power, the resultant images need to be the same size. Otherwise it's an impossible test. By all means scan the negative at the highest practicable resolution; just downsize it afterwards. This won't affect detail. If anything it may improve it, as scanner noise will be reduced.