leitz_not_leica Posted June 10, 2008 Share #1 Posted June 10, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thoughts? Resolution and Tonality in 35mm Film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 10, 2008 Posted June 10, 2008 Hi leitz_not_leica, Take a look here 400MP Camera?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted June 10, 2008 Share #2 Posted June 10, 2008 Nothing new... a 70Mpixel scanned slide brings more information than a 12Mpixel shot of the same subject; anyway, the final image from "the 12 MP DSLR" causes loss of value to the whole paper... while the previous series of images, from the scanned FF to the enlarged detail, depixelated, show a rather detailed step by step process, we have not any info on how that final bunch of pixel has been obtained: at least, a full-sensor image of the (supposed) same shot would have to be published. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted June 10, 2008 Share #3 Posted June 10, 2008 Nothing new... a 70Mpixel scanned slide brings more information than a 12Mpixel shot of the same subject; Yes, and part of it is magnified, digtized grain, dye clumps, dust, scratches and other surface defects, which have to be removed by software that also reduces the subject detail to some extent. It also compresses the tonal range. Then there's the issue of an intermediate set of optics, including focusing. But all that has been discussed at nauseum before, and 99% of the world has moved on to digital, and 1% still try to claim there smarter and got better taste. It's cool if people want to shoot film, for whatever reason they make up, or even for no reason at all. But still trying to tell the rest of the world there blind and that scanned 35mm film looks better then 12mp (APS-C or bigger) is just plain embarrassing, or at least it should be. End of rant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 11, 2008 Share #4 Posted June 11, 2008 Line by line critique: "Film photographs and digital images are produced in completely different ways using very different technologies." Note the semantic setup: FIlm images are "photographs", Digital photographs are just "images". Sort of like white people are "humans", those with darker skin are just "mammals". Prejudice. "So it is no surprise that the end results do not look the same between the two." Actually a lot of the time they are indistinguishable. I'll bet the price of an M8 I can show this author or any other observer a mixed group of photographic prints and he or they will not be able to distinguish digital from film at a rate beyond random chance. "When comparing the same scene from both a photograph and a digital image, the photograph will usually be described as having depth, texture and "richness" to it. The digital image will often be described as flat, artificial or stagey; as if the objects in the image were just flat, cardboard cutouts of the real things." "Will usually be described...." BY WHO? Actually the vast majority of the people I show pictures to, including committed film users, usually end up picking prints from digital originals as having the depth and texture advantage. "This difference is due to the ability of the film to record -----much finer detail-----, as well as the ability to record subtle variation in this detail. These qualities are referred to as resolution and tonality." (Emphasis added) Really? Can he prove this? (using "This is what a digital camera would have seen" fakery doesn't count for anything). "There is no way to directly compare film photographs with digital images when looking at the level of very fine detail." If you're competent it is trivially easy. "Each individual pixel on a Full Frame sensor is relatively large, being right around the threshold of what a person can see with the naked eye." Ignorant or dishonest: The threshold of what the unaided human eye can see is around 5 line pairs per mm - which equates to line pairs 200 microns across. FF sensors' pixels are on the order of 8.5 microns (Canon 5d or Nikon D3) or 6.4 microns (canon 1DsIII). average 7.5 microns. 200/7.5 = 26. So this guy believes a 1-story building is "on the threshold" of being a 26-story building. Uhh - OK?! "On the other hand, the details of film photographs are produced at the level of molecules and atoms. These arrange themselves into natural patterns called grain." Well - no. The details of film photographs are determined by grains of metallic silver and the space between them, or by the dye clouds they leave behind in chromogenic films. These are in general from just below 1 micron in size to about 3 microns in size Photographic Film Silver halides are usually crystals, so there is rarely such as thing as a single silver halide molecule, any more than there is such as thing as a diamond molecule. Dissolve a NaBr crystal, and you don't get molecules, you get free-floating Na+ and Br- ions in solution. A silver atom is about 1/4 of a nanometer in diameter, so 3,200-4,000 linear silver atoms would line up across the smallest possible silver grain, and 31,000,000,000 silver atoms (in 3 dimensions) make up a 1-micron silver grain. So "the details of film photographs" miss being produced at the level of molecules and atoms by a factor of 31 billion or so - too bad! Roughly speaking, a silver atom is to a 1-micron Velvia grain as the moon is to the sun. "The real quality of depth in a picture depends on how well it can reproduce the three dimensional textures of surfaces." Again - according to whom? A blowhard with a damn poor understanding of science. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 11, 2008 Share #5 Posted June 11, 2008 Line by line critique: .... A blowhard with a damn poor understanding of science. Agree Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted June 11, 2008 Share #6 Posted June 11, 2008 Use those low resolution photo-receptors at the back of those mushy single element eyeballs put it through a hallucinogenic brain dedicated to interpreting the raw data to support its own opinion and this is what happens.. MTF is one of the few methods independent of this distortion. But what is the fun of a forum without opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooky Posted June 13, 2008 Share #7 Posted June 13, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'll take film for serious work and a digital point and shoot for casual shooting. As much as some of the high-end digital cameras are tempting, why spend thousands on a body that is obsolete? I understand why it's popular for 'media deadline' shooters - but what 'high-end' digital camera from ten years ago is still being used for that work? It's a waste IMO. Film DOES have a different look, it lasts for years in average storage conditions, can be scanned to digital with relative ease, put back in storage and so on, and so on. Digital is a different creative tool because of computers - but I'll still state that it is NOT traditional image capture. Yes, image manipulation has been used for years before digital, but in a much slower and deliberate way - yes, this can be done with digital - film is film - digital is not film, Now, there's my R4sp, and Pentax 67, film, tripod and some fine transparency film and some relaxed 'image capture' awaiting, grain and all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted June 14, 2008 Share #8 Posted June 14, 2008 I am also af the same opinion, anything serious, it's film first, however I do like my little Canon G9 but because it's images are electronic I cannot grasp them like the real thing. Now days I always take the G9 with me and if I have time I cover the shot with both analogue and Digital, the digi shot pacifies me until I finish the film off and get my slides Developed. A couple of shots taken a minute apart. The top image is taken on Kodak Elitechrome 100 slide film.. R7 & 50mm f2 Scanned on a Minolta 5400-2. Please note, a lot of detail is lost when slides are scanned compared to projection it's no contest. The bottom image is taken with the Canon G9 Ken. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/55143-400mp-camera/?do=findComment&comment=581135'>More sharing options...
haris Posted June 14, 2008 Share #9 Posted June 14, 2008 Line by line critique: "Film photographs and digital images are produced in completely different ways using very different technologies." Note the semantic setup: FIlm images are "photographs", Digital photographs are just "images". Sort of like white people are "humans", those with darker skin are just "mammals". Prejudice. ... A blowhard with a damn poor understanding of science. No, not the same, and not prejudice. And it is not fair to introduce that comparing. So, if anyone disagree with you, and agree with that constatation about film/digital should be afraid to be seen as racist? Not honnest. And I would agree with that line if nothing else. FIlm photograph is photograph, digital image is image, for me. Political corectness is just another name for avoiding discussion. Or avoiding to call things by their real names. Something like "collateral damage". That is phrase introduced to put peace in mind of people. For example of people who could not stand that their soldiers kill innocent people, and for soldiers to continue to kill without moral and ethic questions. When in some war army hit some school or building or hospital or... and kill let say 100 children or any non military people it is not killing of 100 children, it is "collateral damage". That is why political correctness is introduced, and that is why it is hypocrism. So, back to photography, film photography IS photography, and digital imaging is imaging (and not photography). And, as I am not politically correct, I am not afraid to say it loud and clear Enjoy life and best regards, Haris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 14, 2008 Share #10 Posted June 14, 2008 Hard to see any link with war Haris. Photography means writing with light. Deciding that you want only write on film is a personal choice that others are allowed to follow or not my friend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaswe Posted June 14, 2008 Share #11 Posted June 14, 2008 I get so fed up with all this discussion weather film is better than digital etc. I use film and Leica only because I want a negative. I want to leave something to coming generations, not just a file that says DC100001.jpeg !!! I dont care if my images are sharper than digital, they might be, I only care for my children and their children and so on. My camera has something that no digital camera has: It leaves something behind that will last at least a 100 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted June 15, 2008 Share #12 Posted June 15, 2008 Hard to see any link with war Haris. Photography means writing with light. Deciding that you want only write on film is a personal choice that others are allowed to follow or not my friend. Lct, long time, no see War is just example of politicall corectness. Let me try to explain: One can't call fat person fat because it is "insulting", so one must be politically correct and call thet person as "person with weihgt issue" or whatever. And that person is simply fat. Same as photography. One can't hold strong opinion about film or digital because stong negative opinion about one is insulting for people who like it, and one must be politically correct and not express his/hers opinion because of fear to be seen as insulting. And it doesn't matter what one want to say, it only matter what others think one wanted to say... And political corectness I see as in my previous post, not to repeat it. SO war i justexample of hipocrity of polliticall correctness, nothing to do with photography. That is my line of thinking. I know I complicate things, well that is how I am made Of course everybody is intitled to write with light on chip instead of celluloide if wants. I just don't think it is photography. Same as I don't think that hearing programmed classical guitar sound made on computer is same as hearing real guitar player playing on classical guitar. No matter if as result listener listen sound of classical guitar in both cases. It is another form of writting with light, and that has name digital imaging. I see it like that, and others have right to disagree.. Enjoy life and all the best, Haris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 15, 2008 Share #13 Posted June 15, 2008 Hi Haris. What you call political correctness i name it respect and what you name digital imaging i call it digital photography. Just semantic issues if feel, nothing to worry about IMHO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted June 16, 2008 Share #14 Posted June 16, 2008 Harris...you sign your postings "Enjoy life and best regards"...after you've insulted people. Hypocritical, aren't ya. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 18, 2008 Share #15 Posted June 18, 2008 I get so fed up with all this discussion weather film is better than digital etc. I use film and Leica only because I want a negative. I want to leave something to coming generations, not just a file that says DC100001.jpeg !!! I dont care if my images are sharper than digital, they might be, I only care for my children and their children and so on. My camera has something that no digital camera has: It leaves something behind that will last at least a 100 years. Understood. But the original post is about image quality as a specific, measurable aspect - not about the wider differences of film vs. digital. It is funny how the subject alway gets changed in these film vs. digital threads. You start with cost or image quality or convenience as a discreet subject, and then once one side or the other starts to lose in that subject area based on facts, they sidestep into longevity or some other way of figuring cost or whatever. If one wants to discuss longevity, that's fine. But IQ or cost are irrelevant to that discussion. In the same way, longevity or cost are irrelvant to a discussion of image quality. I'm not even arguing that digital HAS better image quality - I'm just pointing out that the site linked to in the original post is full of specious opinions masquerading as science (and pretty sloppy science at that). If that page of slop is the best defense available for film - then film really IS dead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted June 18, 2008 Share #16 Posted June 18, 2008 Harris...you sign your postings "Enjoy life and best regards"...after you've insulted people.Hypocritical, aren't ya. I didn't insult anyone. Only if you want to understand my postings as insultig, but that is up to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.