question 35 mm vs digital

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Duke Of Earl, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. Irrelevant. Nobody has suggested otherwise. The
    distinctly different part is what is being *digitally*
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 23, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Duke Of Earl

    Rob Morley Guest

    It does, but the two scenarios are quite different. Think about it some
    Rob Morley, Dec 24, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Duke Of Earl

    Marvin Guest

    The significant difference, as I see it is, that in film the
    information is encoded in silver particles, which are
    distributed irregularly in the emulsion. That introduces a
    different kind of noise than there is an digital
    representation. I'm familiar with that kind of noise from
    measuring line spectra on photographic films and plates. It
    is embedded in a trade-off of resolutions vs. precision in
    intensity measurement. But it doesn't change the rule that
    you must measure twice as many points in the image as there
    are resolution intervals.

    It would be more productive for you to tell me your analysis
    than just to say "think about it", which I read as "I don't
    agree with you. Perhaps we can have a real dialog.
    Marvin, Dec 24, 2007
  4. Duke Of Earl

    Noons Guest

    I think you're confusing Bit Torrent with reality
    of film projection in movie theatres...
    Noons, Dec 28, 2007
  5. Duke Of Earl

    Noons Guest

    Not really. Pros will buy that type of camera
    to make sure they can address speed when needed.
    But folks who do corporate reports and such couldn't
    be bothered with time: film is still very much
    used there. I know one who uses his blad and arca swiss
    regularly, although of course he owns a 1ds2.
    Not really. It never was a hot item to start with.
    Mostly, pros used it. Nowadays many more amateurs
    use it as well: the holga and diana brigades
    as well as the panorama crowd.

    In fact, it is now possible to get a local mall
    shop to sell and develop 120 film. Something I'd
    never have dreamt of in the 80s ("120? wazzat?")
    Much of it. Not all of it. And what has that
    got to do with 120? You see, you can't just bring
    in MF at will to justify a 35mm point. Keep
    both separate: they got nothing to do with
    each other and are used for totally different

    The 1ds2 and 3 are used by folks who can afford
    them, for the purpose mainly of saving time.
    Which, together with higher isos, is what dslrs
    can do well.

    It's got nothing to do with quality, no matter
    how many crap "comparison" sites are setup
    to "prove" the opposite. And most of them are,
    indeed, total crap.

    Once film is processed into digital there is no difference
    between what can be done with it and any other dslr images:
    they are all digital and capable of the same processing.

    It's how well it is processed by the scanning workflow
    that defines the quality one ultimately gets. Much can
    go wrong there. Same with the sensors used in the dslr
    and the raw workflow. Much can go wrong there as well.
    And does!
    Noons, Dec 28, 2007
  6. Duke Of Earl

    Noons Guest

    Have you priced a 1ds2 or 1ds3 lately and the lenses to
    make full use of them? Many, many thousands.
    Have you priced a top of the line film slr of 5 years
    ago, on which you can use any lenses you got from 35mm
    film? Even with a top of the line scanner added, you got
    so much change from the cost of those two dslrs it will
    last you hundreds of film spools and their processing.
    Noons, Dec 28, 2007
  7. Duke Of Earl

    Noons Guest

    Really? Last time I paid for it, film + processing is
    under 20 bucks for 36 photos. Given that I'd have
    to pay over 10 grand for one of those high end
    digital cameras (and then more for its lenses) , that's
    500 films of 36 photos each I'd have to use to make a
    dslr look cheaper. I won't ever get there. So your maths,
    as usual, are dead wrong.
    We are talking about high end dslrs. Mid range
    dsls are rubbish compared to the best film can
    do. I know: you haven't touched film in years
    and all your information is nearly 10 years old
    or second hand. Try to keep up.

    Why? Because a digital image can be manipulated?
    What is a film image then, after scan? Not digital?
    What is the difference in "flexibility" then?
    Ah yes: none.
    Noons, Dec 28, 2007
  8. Duke Of Earl

    dj_nme Guest

    No, I am not.
    There was a proposal last year to distribute movies via an encrypted
    download (presumable using some sort of VPN over the internet) directly
    to storage at the cinema for digital projection.
    There was a story in Wired Magazine about it.
    dj_nme, Dec 28, 2007
  9. Take your pick of the Nikon D2X, D300 or D3 models.
    Worst case is $5000, and best is only $1800.

    You are saying that processing costs 56 cents an image.

    It takes just under 10,000 exposures to pay for a
    D3. It takes only 3200 to pay for a D300.

    That isn't "maths", it's just simple arithmetic.
    You can bullshit all you like, but the simple fact is
    that most of the *low* end DSLR's from the likes of
    Canon and Nikon will all out perform 35mm film.
    Wrong. If you think scanning a negative gives you
    the equivalent of the RAW data from a DSLR... you
    are grossly mistaken.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 28, 2007
  10. Duke Of Earl

    Scott W Guest

    And that is not counting the time it takes to scan the film. I have
    scanned a fair bit of film and it is not a fast operation. If you
    have other do this for you it looks like the cost is in the range of
    $0.75-$1.00 per photo scanned. You are now looking at say $1.25 per
    photo. I paid $600 for my 350D, that works out to 480 photos.

    This year I have shot 29345 photos so far this year, even at your
    $20/36 photos this would come to $16,302. I could buy over 7 5D
    camera for that. You have a very hard time even matching my 350D
    with your 35mm film camera, there is no way you can even come close to
    matching a 5D, which at the rate I take photos would pay for itself in
    about 2 months. If I add in the cost of scanning then there are some
    weekends that I would have it pay for itself in two days.

    Scott W, Dec 28, 2007
  11. Duke Of Earl

    Noons Guest

    Like I said: check reality.
    I'm sure that will go down well in downtown
    Timbouctou, or some other place.
    What you are forgetting is that the rest of the world
    does not girate around the US.
    That sort of proposal has got buckley's of
    ever making it anywhere else.
    Noons, Dec 28, 2007
  12. Duke Of Earl

    Noons Guest

    Maybe where you live a D3 is 5 grand. Here, it most
    definitely isn't. As for the other ones, I said:
    high end dslrs. They are not.
    And still wrong. And still totally irrelevant:
    I don't take 10000 exposures, pros do that.
    Once again, you are mixing markets.

    Bullshit of the highest order. Then again, given
    your standards of photography, ANYTHING will
    outperform anything else.

    What you kep forgetting is that I DO use
    dslrs with RAW files. And what you said is
    just rubbish.
    Noons, Dec 28, 2007
  13. Duke Of Earl

    Noons Guest

    Here we go changing the ground rules again, Scott.
    That seems to be your fallback in any argument: the circle.
    It was very clearly stated two posts ago -and you agreed
    to it - that amateurs have time and don't care about that
    constraint. Two posts later, you bring back that cameo
    strawman. Typical.
    And of course you omitted what you spend around your
    RAW files to make them into anything presentable.
    That does not count either, does it?

    No. You have PRESSED the button that number of times.
    You have NOT shot 29345 *photos*, that is total bullshit.
    And you now exactly what I'm talking about.

    Correction: you have a very hard time showing any
    single shot from your 350D that approaches what
    I do with 35mm. And when you do, it's been
    upressed and downressed so many times it doesn't
    even make sense as an image anymore. Or it is
    a stitched image.

    Disagree. Like I said to you many times: I do have
    access to a 5D and know exactly what it can do.
    It will never replace a good 35mm film setup, provided
    the person using film knows what they are doing.
    No. At the rate you press the shutter. You do not
    produce that number of photos, far from it.
    Once again, you are confusing trigger happiness,
    typical with dslrs users, with taking photos. If you
    keep a photo out of 20 times you press the shutter,
    that will be very good indeed.
    If you use film and pay for scans, you're indeed
    asking for trouble. I said that at the very beginning,
    why are you bringing it on again?

    If I had time to waste arguing around your circles,
    it might be amusing. I don't, I have a very busy
    life outside of the crap that Usenet has turned
    into. As such, your circles are now broken.
    Noons, Dec 28, 2007
  14. What's the point of making up false claims? You can get
    a D3 shipped to you just as easily as I can, for right
    at $5000. And yes, all three mentioned are indeed high
    end DSLRs.
    Of course you don't hit 10000 exposures! At the cost of
    film, who would do that just for fun????

    Get a DSLR and see of you don't!
    You won't convince anyone of anything with that
    sort of tripe.
    Okay, it isn't that you are mistaken, just that you are
    apparently an idiot...

    Whether you use RAW files or not has nothing to do with
    the fool idea that scanning a negative is the
    equivalent. It isn't even close.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 29, 2007
  15. Duke Of Earl

    Noons Guest

    When will you get through your thick head
    that I don't live in the US? The D3 costs just under
    8 grand here, the 1ds2/3 is 10 grand. Got it?
    I quoted my dollars, not yours. And my prices
    for film were in my dollars, not yours.
    Nope. High end dslrs have FF sensors.
    APS-C sensors are just crap. Well dressed,
    but essentially crap.
    Actually, 500 films of 35 exposures each is more
    than that. But the point is still the same: these
    comparisons of "I can shoot 100000 photos with
    digital therefore it is cheap" are completely moronic:
    NO amateur shoots that many photos, be it digital or
    otherwise. And if the purpose of photography was to
    shoot lots and lots, then a video is much better:
    it shoots at 50 images per second!
    Of course you can click that many times,
    if you want. But you won't be taking photos.

    (sigh) when will you wake up?
    I DO HAVE a dslr, man. Stop being stupid!
    Neither will you. So far, all you've put forward is the
    usual cheap marketing bull.
    Debatable. And apparent, too...

    Scanning a film image is what is close. Or more
    appropriately: better. What makes you think that
    all film is "negative"? Os is this one of those
    subliminal, cheap marketing things? Like the
    "clean, grainless image" and other utter crap?
    Haven't you noticed we are not talking about
    washing powders?

    Apparently it doesn't down with you that
    very few people give a toss about what is
    on the Usenet: all the ones that have photography
    as a hobby have moved on somewhere else ages ago,
    The only ones left are cheap marketeers like you
    and those who have been around since the start.
    Wasted effort for your kind, but what the heck: keep
    claiming all sorts of false statements,
    you might find some sucker who listens:
    they are born every minute.

    Noons, Dec 29, 2007
  16. Ah, you *are* an idiot...
    A *real* idiot.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 29, 2007
  17. Duke Of Earl

    Chris H Guest

    In message
    Be sensible. What is the conversion rate?

    BTW Usually unless stated otherwise $ is USD... (no, I am not an
    Chris H, Dec 29, 2007
  18. Duke Of Earl

    Chris H Guest

    In message
    As it happens I developed some of the technology for the first
    generation version about 10 years ago in the UK (and it wasn't for a US

    Video On Demand has been around a long time... an answer looking for a
    question. Currently several of the cable companies who do phone,
    broadband and TV down the same wire (very common in the UK) are using
    Chris H, Dec 29, 2007
  19. Duke Of Earl

    krishnananda Guest

    You can get a D3 in Alaska? Wow, that's amazing. I live 2.5 miles from
    B&H and I can't get one -- but only because Nikon hasn't released it
    yet. You must have a secret supplier. Please inform us: where in Alaska
    can I go to get a D3? I'll catch a plane tomorrow.

    krishnananda, Dec 30, 2007
  20. What do you mean "only because Nikon hasn't released it
    yet"??? The D3 was released a month ago today.

    Stewart's Photo in Anchorage (one of the largest single
    store retailers of Nikon cameras in the country, BTW)
    had their initial allotment of D3's in and on Friday
    afternoon, November 30th.

    Stewart's sold out before opening on Monday morning. I
    have no idea when they, or anyone else, will get another
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 30, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.