why do digital supporters compare it to digitized film?

I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
comparison. This is an example...

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
"My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
the DSLR cameras"

I mean, seriously, what's the point of comparing digital to digitized
film? What's the point of comparing a digital camera output to a 35mm
film *scan*?

Why *not* compare a digital camera print to a *purely analog* 35mm
film print? you know, not a 35mm film that is *scanned* and then
printed, but one printed the regular way 35mm had been printed for
decades.

 

[cross posting to rec.photo.digital removed for my benefit!]

Well it's easier to make such comparisons on the interweb ;-)

I tend to agree, for methe bottom line is, can I produce quality prints?

I find the answer to be yes with both film 35mm and dSLR so I use both -
depending on mood and application.

As an aside, I believe that most colour 35mm prints are made digitally
now anyway. I know the store I get my stuff processed in uses an Agfa
digi lab of some description - I'm very happy with the results.

Nick

 

Because that's how professional photographers largely work these
days. The film shot is scanned, rather than having darkroom prints
made. Thus, those are the terms that they're most familiar with, and
that's the process they need to match the quality of.

There are two main reasons why professionals have mostly moved to
digital darkroom.

One is that for publication work, the result has to be in digital form
anyway when it goes to the printer; by producing that digital form
themselves, the photographer keeps more control and also more of the
money.

The other is that they get better prints that way. There was an
article by Galen Rowell from a year or two before his death explaining
how and why he was moving into digital darkroom; dunno if it's still
available on the web, but if so, he gives quite a good explanation of
his thought processes and the evidence that convinced him to move.

 

Kibo informs me that (Mike Henley) stated that:

Basically, because it's pretty much impossible to compare the two on the
Internet. I agree with you that it'd be a much fairer comparison, but
how the hell do you do it? - The only practical way would be to print
two equally sized, identical shots from each technology & hang them on
the wall side by side, but then the only people who'll be able to do a
comparison will be those who can actually see the two prints in person.

 

Basically it's done that way cuz there just ain't no other way to do
it except on a one to one basis at some ones house, or mail the
prints. On the web... well... <)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

This is true....Once you have passed your work through a digitization
process, it's resolution will be reduced to digital from that time on. This
is why discussing the difference on Usenet is such a waste of time. The only
way to compare prints on the net is by digitizing them and sending them thru
cyberspace, and so all resolutions from that time on are digital. The only
way to really compare is to bring your work down to the local camera store
or camera club meeting, where you can show others the film product
completely un-digitized.

 

I have always asked the same question myself.
My pure analog prints have more information than my scanned and printed
prints.

I noticed some "color noise" on the 1Ds image ...........

Max

 

Just because these comparisons are biased!Everybody thinks that digital
*must* be better.

 

You're biased, too!

 

How can resolution be "reduced to digital"? Digitizing a slide or
negative doesn't "reduce" anything, it merely converts it to a fixed
size determined by the user. When you scan at a high enough resolution
to reproduce film grain, you've basically maxed out whatever usable
detail the film had.

And it won't make a difference! A good print is a good print, and top-
end digital SLRs like the 1Ds make prints every bit as good as film
prints! Of course, they have better color accuracy and are easier to
manipulate, but hey, if you want to be a Luddite, I'm not going to stop
you!

 

Maybe it is YOU who are biased!

I accused you, it must be true.

 

Well made points Brian!

Why should anyone seek to impose a restriction on what and how consumers
choose to spend their dosh?

It beats me!

On the other hand it is good to see someone's view and opinion but in the
context that it is as valid as anyother contributors view

FWIW I rate digital imagery - the few shots and prints I have taken convince
me I could not achieve the same quality at similar price using any other
media (in fact, digital is marginally less expensive in terms of
out-of-pocket dosh



bagal


ps - i suppose i did make a comparison but what else could i compare it to?
A bunch of grapes?

B

 

I think it's safe to say no one here thinks that.

Digital has certain advantages over film, most notably color accuracy.
It is already more versatile and convenient to use than film. However,
it should be noted you need to drop about $5,000-7,000 to match 35mm
film in terms of raw resolution.

If these high-end digital SLRs truly didn't deliver the goods, you
wouldn't see professional photographers adopting them so readily.

 

Kibo informs me that "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

<grin> That depends on who you ask. In RPD, people assume that digital
will be better, in RPE.35mm, people will assume that film is better.

 

Then I would say your scans are not very good. Get a drum scan.
My experience is that good scans get more information than
you get from traditional professional enlarger printing. See:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital_advantage.html

Roger Clark

 

And those of us who inhabit both......?

As for me, well, I think the one that is better is the one of which I am
trying to justify a forthcoming purchase to my wife.

 

All digital recordings are approximations of the analog. Say you get
256 discrete levels of red. How do you record level 128.3? Round it to
128 and record it. That .3 is lost. Say you scan film at 4000 dpi.
What happened to position 2000.5? Is it important enough to care about.
For many it is not. The ability to get it good enough with less
effort is powerful. Gathering content for print or web where work flow
efficiency is paramount and the images are approximated in DPI anyway,
nothing else makes sense. However, The media you used to record with is
all you ever will have. If you shoot digital, you have what you are
going to have. Same for film but film shooters have the option to use
larger film. Here is the rub. I have read in several sources that in
order to get a digital approximation to resolve the same as 35mm film,
25Mp is required. In practice is 25Mp necessary? Most often it is not.
So 6Mp is good enough for the task at hand. Faster and cheaper too.
You shoot it at 6Mp and it is what it is. Consider using film for the
shot. Then approximate it down to 6Mp with a scanner at greater expense.
You get the same 6Mp. What if at a later time your needs for the image
change which exceed the 6Mp it was captured in. To a point, with film
you can rescan it at a higher resolution. What are the options for your
6Mp image? Give it a run through some image expansion software? That
takes care of the digital aliasing but can't replace the details which
were approximated out of the image when it was captured. Although it
does allow the image to get large without the grain you mentioned. I
prefer the random grain pattern to what you get with a over done digital
image. The end of the story for me is to know what resources are
available and choose the right tool for the job. Getting back to the
intent of the original poster, I agree, it is not fair to compare
scanned film (scanned on consumer scanners most of the time) to what is
available to a photographer who still uses a wet lab to make his images.
Its just that this medium (web) only supports a digitized image. So
in this sense, perhaps a thousand words is better than one picture.

 

Which includes me, too. Personally, I think it depends on what you're
trying to do, & with which equipment you're doing it.

You think /you've/ got it bad? - I have to justify my spending to my
*accountant*!

 

This is not new. As prev. mentioned by another poster, the
tendancy of film-scanners is to compare their scanned digital
images against digital images from digital cameras... case of
convenience. Where it really counts is in a print of a given
size. And BTW, prints from a good film scan are very, very good
indeed.

 

It's the right comparison if you want to end up with a digital image,
for whatever reason (e.g. to do digital manipulation, to put it in a
document, put it on a web page).

That's the right comparison if what you care about is a photographic
print to hang on your wall.

Not everyone wants the same final result.

Dave