Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sbelyaev

Puts on M8 vs film

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There was an interesting comparison on APUG between Ektar 100 and Velvia (I think) on a drum scanner and the Sony full frame DSLR (A900?). It was interesting. It was also nice that there was no BS in the test or in the discussion. The Sony easily out resolved the Ektar. I liked the look of the Ektar more.

 

From what I've seen, negative film has better dynamic range than digital. Even better, it has that nice thing called the shoulder, that makes the transition into blown highlights smoother, which looks a lot more natural to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, that is a really rude post

 

I've got plenty to say in response....but am just tired of arguing with rude people on the net (especially when much of your post is just a misunderstanding of what I originally wrote)

 

It's pointless to talk to such rude and condescending people

 

Sorry, but are you calling my post rude?

 

If so, I'm genuinely sorry you took offense, since as I said, I agreed with a lot of your post. As a Canuck, I'm probably overly sensitive, but I don't think I've been rude by any stretch.

 

We certainly disagree about the film capture being better than the digital one, obviously, but I don't think I attacked you personally, did I?

 

I did say that I think using a high-end digital device as a proof point for a corresponding film capture is a little ridiculous. If you want a little of both worlds, then shoot (and enjoy) a little of both worlds. As I said before--they're different, not better or worse.

 

But that's just me and my opinion--no offense intended. Feel free to buy an M9 to make sure your exposure for your M7 is correct

(also, please note smiley, as before, intended to suggest light-heartedness).

 

YMMV, of course, and just in my opinion. And yes: sometimes conversation *is* pointless (particularly so when people don't read), so that's the end of it from me.

Edited by Jamie Roberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puts nailed me - I can only confirm.

 

Digital has its strength, but every once in a while I grab a roll of film and here and there I catch a picture that stunns me more than I can ever achieve by the digital combo with photoshopping. The number of keepers though is higher with digital. At least for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did say that I think using a high-end digital device as a proof point for a corresponding film capture is a little ridiculous.

 

If the Villain is right, there should be Nikon users out there now using D3x's as "pseudo-Polaroids" for their F6s.

 

Or maybe it's only Leicas that send their owners quite so crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Stephen--and FWIW it wasn't even my comment but David Adamson's!

 

jamie,

i overlooked the word 'film' in MF. but i knew that you would not make the comparism between 10 amd 50mpx, peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visiting my local camera shop today, to purchase the last roll of Kodachrome that they had on their shelves last week, I was informed that Erwin Puts had bought it a couple of days ago. So perhaps there's another comparison coming up soon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back to the original post. If Erwin Puts is one thing, it is inconsistent. In his book: Leica Lens Compendium he makes a compelling argument (pp 104-105) that the effective resolution of film is 30-40 Lp/mm, irrespective of the exaggerated claims of film manufacturers. Now he claims digital is inferior to that. Well, the M8 resolves over 75 Lp/mm and even if converted to full crop, in excess of 56 Lp/mm effective. So either he is talking through his hat in his book, or he is doing so now. Given the comparison of results many of us made, I respectfully suggest that he is wide of the mark in his recent article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking facts.The confusion arises from the difference in media.Film resolution is based on MTF numbers, arrived at at a wholly unrealistic contrast ratio of 1/1000 whereas sensor resolution is a simple mathematical function.

Edited by jaapv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is hard to understand why this FACTUAL information triggered such an emotional discussion.

 

I have a theory... Film emits an odourless, colourless gas that has a calming effect on photographers. Film photographers are hence far more laid-back and generally calmer people, getting a fix every time they raise their cameras in front of their faces. Those who have embraced digital, on the other hand, have the opposite to contend with. All those electronics between them and their subject, held close to their frontal lobes, scrambles their brains and makes them aggressive, obnoxious and overly emotional when anyone dares to criticise their choice of camera.

 

This is the only explanation I can come up with for the behaviour of otherwise sane and normal people once they acquire an M8 and start posting in this sub-forum...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about the most recent Puts's article.

 

The fact is that Delta 100 is better under specific conditions.

The fact is that the limit of handheld camera resolution is about 40lp/mm (per Zeiss) Puts is right.

 

It is not the fact that resolution of m8 is 75lp/mm (even if you divide the number of active pixels of KAF-10500 by the length of the sensor, for it is 73lp/mm). Are you sure that diagonal resolution of the sensor is the same as horizontal? (it is lower) Are you sure that in order to calculate the resolution of the sensor one should divide the number of pixels in one mm by 2 but not by 2.5 or 3? (although typically it is divided by two)

 

Personally I don't like what M8 does to highlights. M8/digital cameras are convenient. M8 is excellent, like other digital cameras, in flat/controlled light, but in high contrast environment it sucks.

 

Someone has mentioned that M8 is better than MF. It was a joke, I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was not. highlight handling is postprocessing expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people (myself included) do not want to accept that $4000-$5000 were wasted.

I continue to use M8, for I don't want to lose $2000 selling it.

For something important film (MF) is so much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but overexposed areas of digital images lose color (washed out color, color cast). This could not be recovered with software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took this picture only because I liked the color or the lamp (it was warm red-pink)

It was not orange. The color could not be recovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try processing it with LAB colour, no problem. And developing in C1 instead of ACR.

Anyway the definition of a linepair is a black and white line next to one another. That s two adjacent pixels. That means dividing by two,not some other number.

3963/27/2=76.888.

The DR of the M8 is 11 stops, double of slide film and about the same as negative film.

Edited by jaapv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but overexposed areas of digital images lose color (washed out color, color cast). This could not be recovered with software.

 

And overexposed areas of film images...???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I have regarding the technique in the original article is: How were the M8 images "enlarged"? It reads as though Erwin just printed the basic 10Mpixel M8 file bigger and bigger, leaving the uprezzing to Canon's printer engineers. I think the M8 results would be better if manually uprezzed by someone competent with digital technique. Less jagged, although not necessarily a lot higher resolution.

 

I would also tend to argue that if one is working with a full-color, ISO 160 device, it really ought to be compared to a full-color, ISO 160 film.

 

But -

 

OK, Erwin is claiming that the absolute best that a film M can do (on a tripod, with moderate ISO B&W film, fine resolution developer) is better than the absolute best that an M8 (on a tripod, bayer pattern, full-color capability, ISO 160 minimum) can do. For those who only shoot ISO 100 or below B&W and do their own processing, he may be (probably is) right. It is certainly a benefit of film that one can change the "sensor" every 36 shots if one wants, and bias the camera towards resolution or towards high ISO. A digital camera is hardwired to a single balance.

 

-----------------------------------

 

I was just playing around with some Hassy negs (scanned, not silver-printed, ISO 100 FP4 in D76).

 

First, the maximum resolution was reached at about 2000 ppi scanning. Using a higher scanning resolution just delivered bigger, fuzzier images with no additional detail or clarity of detail.

 

Most (90%+) of the details didn't even hold up that well - a 1800ppi scan was just as detailed as 2000ppi for that 90% of the image.

 

If I limited the scanning resolution to the point where NO grain whatever was recorded - i.e it looked like a digital capture - that was about 1200ppi, or a 2640 x 2640 image. Exactly what I get cropping an M8 image to 6x6 aspect ratio.

 

So - IN THAT REGARD (grainless capture) - the M8 can equal a Hasselblad MF image.

 

In terms of actual detail, the Hassy will still capture at least 50% more linear detail, if I don't mind visible grain, and if I crop the M8 image square. For that film.

 

If I used Velvia, or Delta 3200, or NC160, or ISO 25 Easterneuropan the results would be all over the map. If I used chemical printing, the results would probably be all over a different map.

 

---------

 

I do agree that in the end, the final print is what counts, and that a case can be made that an all-chemical workflow may be more generous to film images than scanning them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
{snipped}

 

This is the only explanation I can come up with for the behaviour of otherwise sane and normal people once they acquire an M8 and start posting in this sub-forum...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Yes Bill, you might be right, and then it would be those pesky computers in the hands of the *film* people that overscramble brains, since they're not accustomed to nearby electrons, who leap for joy at the thought of using a future full-frame M digital as a "polaroid" for the more calming, fulfilling, and artistically satisfying smoke, er, sorry--fix.

 

It's a miracle they can post at all, especially in this section!

 

I don't think it's the digital folks here that have been overly emotional (or "wistful," to be precise).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question I have regarding the technique in the original article is: How were the M8 images "enlarged"? It reads as though Erwin just printed the basic 10Mpixel M8 file bigger and bigger, leaving the uprezzing to Canon's printer engineers. I think the M8 results would be better if manually uprezzed by someone competent with digital technique. Less jagged, although not necessarily a lot higher resolution.

{snipped}

 

 

Andy--precisely! Thanks for re-iterating that salient point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...