- This topic is empty.
How many pixels are needed to be better than film?
-
Haven’t seen this discussion in a long time. Better can be interpreted in different ways. Let’s just say that I no longer use a MF camera let alone a 35mm! Although not a scientific test, the below was a D2x and 35mm film. 50mm on the digi, 85mm on the film (so the magnification was the same. This is a tiny crop from near the centre. The film was scanned on a Nikon Coolscan V ED. I made the digi larger to see the extra details.
Si
I really dont do the film v digital vibe at all but the thing that always strikes me when I see these comparisons is why compare a scan of film with a digital file? Film was invented to be printed onto paper.
If you want to compare both I would suggest you shoot both and make a fine print from the negative, make an inkjet print from the digital file. Hang them on the wall and decide which you prefer.
I’d tend to agree Fintan. I don’t shoot film but even to query when digital is better than film is not a fair query. The variations in film, digital and processing in both does more to differentiate between them both, than to compare them. Pixel comparison compared to film receptor quality is probably comparable but that’s where the comparison, or difference ends. Better – no, but different.
All you are comparing is the levelof detail at a zoom level that nobody would ever use in real life.
Theres DR, tonal range, colour rendition etc etc etc to be taken into account.
I use film and digital – they are different even amoung the film cameras I use I get different results – and then there are the digitals – they all vary a great deal in quality of different aspects..So there is no “Better” – just differences.
Gary H
Neither are ‘better’ just different methods/material. Photography is what its all about.
Allinthemind wrote:
Although not a scientific test, the below was a D2x and 35mm film. 50mm on the digi, 85mm on the film (so the magnification was the same.
Si
Surprised at you Simon-
using different focal lengths, the magnification is quite obviously different.
The image taken with the 85mm will have almost double the magnification of the 50,
with a corresponding reduction of depth of field.Your test might be enough for you to prove to yourself why you’re happier shooting digital,
but as you mentioned, it is nothing like a scientific test-
and you might have chosen a film offering better resolution too-
or worse, if you’d like-Then the scanning setup could be questioned-
in order to conduct a proper comparison,
the best possible scan should be made by the best possible operator-In answer to the original enquiry “How many pixels are needed to be better than film?”
well, I’d be tempted to ask you how many have you got?
because film comes in many sizes and formulations,
and I’m sure you’ll find one or more which is quite clearly not as good as your digital camera-So your camera is better than film.
I did read that article once,
and that graphic should be seen in the context of it-
you can link to all the other pages from this one-http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
j
:)
I did say:
“Better can be interpreted in different ways”. :) The OP was referring to resolution I believe; “How many pixels are needed to be better than film?”
When I said magnification, I meant that the subject was the same size in the frame, both apertures the same, fields of view the same (I moved my position slightly; an 85mm on the digi and the 50mm on the 35mm were pretty similar). both good lenses. Yes I know the pictures won’t be identical but I really wanted to do a quick test and compare on resolution for myself. I’d read a lot of the comparisons on the web and felt there was a lot of “Traditional bias”, along the lines of..
“If you capture the perfect shot on film and then scan it under perfect conditions on high-end drums and then clean up the scan it has a gnat’s tooth of more detail than the digital capture (even though it is hidden behind a cloud of grain)” I don’t have a drum scanner so for me at the time, the test was a compare for walkabout shooting with a 35mm film v digi. At that time I was happy that MF would produce a more detailed and “Cleaner” image.Interestingly, my favourite shot from that day was a film capture.
I know that the test is most unscientific but after seeing the results the difference in resolution was so great that it was all I needed to see. I still use MF film (rarely; although I did shoot a roll of Across yesterday) and surprisingly 5×4 polaroids (some agency models are being asked for “real polaroids” that haven’t been photoshopped (as if we couldn’t take a polaroid of an airbrushed picture).
Fintan: The final print isn’t always what the shot is about. I love Beautifully crafted darkroom prints and watched while people, much better in the darkroom than I, did various comparisons as inkjet printers became better. (http://www.barrythornton.com/). I remember the heated discussions on which film/dev/technique gave the best fine-art B&W prints (nothing changes, hehe). I have to say that I was rubbish in the darkroom, too slow and meticulous for me. Yes, originally film was invented to make prints in the darkroom, then the research went into technologies to make moving pictures and later the manufacturers knew that they would, most likely, be scanned. At the end of his life, Barry printed his fine-art work on an Inkjet. Frankly I think this is down to personal taste; at the school we have some beautiful darkroom prints on the walls and equally beautiful inkjet prints (Lyson fine-art paper is sooo lovely) and equally beautiful dye-sub prints.
So…. I love film and digital, I love making pictures. I use digital devices for work, I sometimes use film for fun.
Si
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
