Reading mode: Light Dark

When digital becomes 35mm

Go to last post
swatcop169 said:
On another forum we are discussing (fighting ) about when digital
becomes 35mm quailty. I've heard anywhere from 16-18mp it does.
Whats your take on it?
--
Check out my Online Gallery
http://jeremy2094.fotopic.net
Click to expand...
Digital pixels and film grain are completely different and can't be compared. There is no "pixel equivalent" for film. Digital and film are also percieved differently. That tiny piece of 35mm film barely gets to 11x14 without a lot of excuses. Current 6MP cameras enlarge bigger than that with much better perceived quality. Like it or not, DSLRs already surpass 35mm film, the very top-of-the-line DSLRs run neck and neck with medium format film. Large format film still trounces them all regardless of media.
.
 
If we are talking about theoretical quality then 35mm slide film would be pretty high. However this would assume you used only the finest professional scaning equipment (run by someone that knows what they are doing) and the lowest ISO films. In the real world a 1Ds at 11mp is already at 35mm film quality.

Here is a link that attempts to measure this for different cameras and films. The results table, about half way down the page, attempts to normalize the image quality and assign a "number" to the overall quality.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
swatcop169 said:
On another forum we are discussing (fighting ) about when digital
becomes 35mm quailty. I've heard anywhere from 16-18mp it does.
Whats your take on it?
--
Check out my Online Gallery
http://jeremy2094.fotopic.net
Click to expand...
--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11
Tips http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
FAQ at http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/3.html
 
16-18 MP> ?
when the canon 1Ds came out, people said it was 35mm quality.
its amazing how much better film has gotten in the last couple years. harhar

unfortunatly, your quaestion is rather vauge.
what specific quality of film are you trying to compare?
what type of film are you trying to compare?

this is too complicated to try and put a number on.

for example: i can make better enlargments with my Drebel, than a disposable camera. i think most would agree. thats 35mm.

and there is more to an image than just detail.

you have to consider the noise as well. noise is almost as important as resulution when making enlargments. once again; iw ould say that a Drebel on ISO100, would make better enlargements than say cheapo polaroid 35mm ISO400, shot with the same lens. i think it would be close, but the digi would probably win in the end.

comparing other film types:
i have shot B+W ilford HP5 for a while.

i can tell you that my drebel images converted to black and white look better at 11"X17", than HP5 on ilford Pearle RC 11X14.

even at 11"X14", i can see grain on the low contrast ares quite easily.

now this could also be due to me using rodonal, instead of a longer toe developer, but this also illistrates the problem: there is no such thing as "35mm quality". there is only a quality for a specific system of imaging, and the quality is a relfection of the process.

i think you are probably asking about color print film, using a SLR, and analog printing.

but let me throw some entirly subjective and scientifically unstable number around, just for fun.

i think a 3-4 MP camera could beat a disposable one.
i think the Drebel could beat most consumer point and shoots
i think a film SLR loaded with provia would beat the Drebel.
i think a 1ds mk2 would beat any type of 35mm, under any process
this excludes specialized applications like litho, orthocromatic, IR, etc.

when i refer to "beat", i mean to imply that if you pulled a hundred random perople off the street, and asked them which image they thought "looked better", they would indicate a preferance.

these 100 randoms would probably have a different opinon than say: a dozen photo professors.

you also need to bear in mind that probably 99% of 35mm shots never get enlaged past 8X10. thus dus to thier higher noise, the drebel could almost always make better prints at that size. say what you want, but i find it extremely hard to pick apart an 8X10 made by a drebel, and even a pro with good film, paper, and chemistry would be hard pressed to make a better 8X10.

the debate lies in larger enlargments.

also remeber that digital has WAY higher color accuracy than film.
remember that film has more detail in contrasty areas, but less in flat ones.

finally, if you really sart looking at film quality, you will inevitably come acrosss a rating of LPM, or line pairs per milimeter.

keep in mind that those ratings of 110 are for EXTREMELY high contrast subjects: a test chart. in average scene contrast (1.4:1), it is MUCH lower.

bear in mind that the Drebel is 67LPM, and the 20D is 78LPM.
also remeber that they are only APS size sensors.
but the 1Ds is same as rebel, and MK2 same as 20D.

i know i did not really answer this, but that because i dont think there is an answer.
anoyone who simply drops a blanket number is ignoring many consideratons.

the devil is in the details.

any ?s ?
 
This is not an easy question to answer. Most of the comparisons I have seen compare images from a digital camera with those from scanned 35mm film. The latter can be plagued by scanning artifacts. I have often been tempted to do a real comparison of large blow-ups from my drebel with color images taken on various speed films professionally printed the old fashioned way. The cost of the experiment has deterred me. I might try doing the experiment with black and white however, just to see how things compare. I just have to overcome the laziness barrier.

Jim
swatcop169 said:
On another forum we are discussing (fighting ) about when digital
becomes 35mm quailty. I've heard anywhere from 16-18mp it does.
Whats your take on it?
--
Check out my Online Gallery
http://jeremy2094.fotopic.net
Click to expand...
 
Personally, I don't thik it is wise to use megapixel count as a unit of quality or "goodness" in photograpy.

Comparing DSLR capture with 35mm film is very difficult because of all the varaibles involved. Consider:

What film? Neg? Slide? Tech-Pan 25 B&W?
What is the final medium? Print, screen, transparency?

Application--will photoshop be used? If yes film must be scanned--eliminating the possilbity of wet-darkroom or cibachrome

Certainly the digital vs. film has become a heated debate on the internet. On the one end of the spectrum, Michael Reichman, for example, has argued that the 3MP D30 can procuce better prints (mid-siized) than Provia 100 scanned with an Imacom. On the other end are those who claim that only when DSLRs reach 22MP or higher will film quality be achived. Still others have declared that digital will never, ever match film -- that film has a nearly infinite resolution.

From my personal experience, a 6MP DSLR, like the 300D exceeds film quality for most applications. Though I do believe film has the upper-hand in absolute resolution it is not by huge margin. Digital, on the other hand has no grain and better tonality. A 6MP first generation image can easily be compared with a 22MP 2nd generation capture from a slide scanner scanning even fine-grained film. Granted more detail can always be squeezed out of film using an extremely expensive drum scanner--but is this practical?

A good place to start is here:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

My belief is that, for most practical purposes 6MP digital had eclipsed 35mm film--especially for those who don't print above 11x14 or 12x18. For those needing really large prints with high detail, 135 wont suffice anyway 6x7 or 4x5 would be better options.
Many wedding photgraphers have gone to DSLR--this tells you something.

Furthermore, digital gives you the flexibility to easily stich together several shots--a 6MP DSLR can be easily used to produce a 20MP landscape.

Finally when you say "digital" you refer to more than just 35mm -based DSLRs there are 22MP digital backs available for medium format cameras which easily eclipse 35mm. Also, for still-life applications, there are 140 MP and greater backs for 4x5 cameras which, IMHO have even eclipsed larger format film.

Steven
swatcop169 said:
On another forum we are discussing (fighting ) about when digital
becomes 35mm quailty. I've heard anywhere from 16-18mp it does.
Whats your take on it?
--
Check out my Online Gallery
http://jeremy2094.fotopic.net
Click to expand...
 
One thing I'm sick of hearing from older photographers is that digital photography isn't "real" photography. It's just a different medium, that's all. Digital and Film will always be around, each has it unique features and effects. But digital is REAL photography! I do think digital has created more people who think they are photographers, which is of course a matter of opinion. I'm trying to say being able to use a digital camera, doesn't mean you have an eye for photography. I mean I know how to use a paint brush, but I am not a painter. It has also opened new doors for the use of photography in other work. As well as totally new artforms, just as the computer has done.

A digital camera, computer and printer are just brushes and canvas for a new genertion of artists.
 
chocolate said:
Digital pixels and film grain are completely different and can't be
compared. There is no "pixel equivalent" for film. Digital and film
are also percieved differently. That tiny piece of 35mm film barely
gets to 11x14 without a lot of excuses. Current 6MP cameras enlarge
bigger than that with much better perceived quality. Like it or
not, DSLRs already surpass 35mm film, the very top-of-the-line
DSLRs run neck and neck with medium format film. Large format film
still trounces them all regardless of media.
.
Click to expand...
I agree that the answer is surprisingly low in terms of straight resolution, possibly even as low as 6MP.

The difference between film and a digital sensor is in what happens when the image breaks down. Blow up a image beyond its resolution and you get a grain pattern that can be quite pleasing. Overexpose an image and you usually pull a lot back. Underexpose and... well even film has its weaknesses.
 
swatcop169 said:
On another forum we are discussing (fighting ) about when digital
becomes 35mm quailty. I've heard anywhere from 16-18mp it does.
Whats your take on it?
Click to expand...
If you are willing to shoot 25 ISO film, then you can beat digital resolution (for now).

If you need speed, or lack of noise; digital has already won.

If you need more than 2" 2" of area, digital will never compete.
--
Mitch
 
MitchAlsup said:
If you need more than 2" 2" of area, digital will never compete.
--
Mitch
Click to expand...
can you further elaborate on this?
are you refering to medium format negatives?

even so, a blanket statement like that is bound to be foolish.

look how far digital has come in 15 years compared to how far analog has come in the last 150.

what do you think is evolving more quickly.
the biggest limiting factor in digital is fabrication expense.
canon could make a 60X60 76LPM CMOS sensor.

i think this would compete very favorably with medium format, but alas the production cost would be astronomical.

are are you getting at something else?

in my reasearch, digital is starting to pass glass in the resolution department.

i think better lenses will be required to really milk digital for all it is worth.

-$0.02
 
For me the Digital SLR is already better than 35mm film. I say this only because I have some of the best photo's I ever took with my 35mm camera on the wall in front of me. I look at them every day when I'm sitting here at one of the computers. They are all 8x10 prints of my wife in Florida on the Clearwater beach. The colors are near perfect, the subject is perfect and the prints look fantastic. It took me almost 2 weeks of shooting and many more days of processing to get the "few" I truly liked enough to hang up. But, In the few days that I've had the 300D I can see that this is my medium. It's going to save me money, save me time and give me awesome shots and I can take more of for future use. Editing can be done right here as well as printing. I guess special prints can always be sent out for printing but for what we do with our pictures why? This is just my opinion and as such is not based on any numbers or hard data.

Jon.
 
A few of you old-timers might remember this article from Luminous Landscape over four years ago:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

Michael Reichmann shook up the world of photography with his conclusions about that 3 MP camera, quoted in part below:

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

I was not prepared for this result. While I expected that the D30 would account itself well I never anticipated that it would actually produce an image that in most ways is superior to film. I'm drawn to the unavoidable conclusion that the Canon D30, when shooting in RAW mode, is able to produce comparable images to Provia 100F scanned on a high-end scanner.

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

That was just the start of the firestorm in the digital vs. film debate and it appears that the end of that debate is nowhere in sight.
purfectimage said:
16-18 MP> ?
when the canon 1Ds came out, people said it was 35mm quality.
its amazing how much better film has gotten in the last couple
years. harhar

unfortunatly, your quaestion is rather vauge.
what specific quality of film are you trying to compare?
what type of film are you trying to compare?

this is too complicated to try and put a number on.

for example: i can make better enlargments with my Drebel, than a
disposable camera. i think most would agree. thats 35mm.

and there is more to an image than just detail.
you have to consider the noise as well. noise is almost as
important as resulution when making enlargments. once again; iw
ould say that a Drebel on ISO100, would make better enlargements
than say cheapo polaroid 35mm ISO400, shot with the same lens. i
think it would be close, but the digi would probably win in the end.

comparing other film types:
i have shot B+W ilford HP5 for a while.
i can tell you that my drebel images converted to black and white
look better at 11"X17", than HP5 on ilford Pearle RC 11X14.

even at 11"X14", i can see grain on the low contrast ares quite
easily.
now this could also be due to me using rodonal, instead of a longer
toe developer, but this also illistrates the problem: there is no
such thing as "35mm quality". there is only a quality for a
specific system of imaging, and the quality is a relfection of the
process.

i think you are probably asking about color print film, using a
SLR, and analog printing.

but let me throw some entirly subjective and scientifically
unstable number around, just for fun.

i think a 3-4 MP camera could beat a disposable one.
i think the Drebel could beat most consumer point and shoots
i think a film SLR loaded with provia would beat the Drebel.
i think a 1ds mk2 would beat any type of 35mm, under any process
this excludes specialized applications like litho, orthocromatic,
IR, etc.

when i refer to "beat", i mean to imply that if you pulled a
hundred random perople off the street, and asked them which image
they thought "looked better", they would indicate a preferance.

these 100 randoms would probably have a different opinon than say:
a dozen photo professors.

you also need to bear in mind that probably 99% of 35mm shots never
get enlaged past 8X10. thus dus to thier higher noise, the drebel
could almost always make better prints at that size. say what you
want, but i find it extremely hard to pick apart an 8X10 made by a
drebel, and even a pro with good film, paper, and chemistry would
be hard pressed to make a better 8X10.

the debate lies in larger enlargments.

also remeber that digital has WAY higher color accuracy than film.
remember that film has more detail in contrasty areas, but less in
flat ones.

finally, if you really sart looking at film quality, you will
inevitably come acrosss a rating of LPM, or line pairs per
milimeter.

keep in mind that those ratings of 110 are for EXTREMELY high
contrast subjects: a test chart. in average scene contrast (1.4:1),
it is MUCH lower.

bear in mind that the Drebel is 67LPM, and the 20D is 78LPM.
also remeber that they are only APS size sensors.
but the 1Ds is same as rebel, and MK2 same as 20D.

i know i did not really answer this, but that because i dont think
there is an answer.
anoyone who simply drops a blanket number is ignoring many
consideratons.

the devil is in the details.

any ?s ?
Click to expand...
--
Curtis Clegg
Belvidere, IL
[email protected]
 
A professional photographer friend of my family had a great 30x40" print made from a picture taken on a 3MP FugiFilm S1. Granted there was a little help from Photoshop, but with the right no how these images can be enlarged a lot farther than a lot of people think. That's what pushed him over the edge to switch to digital.
swatcop169 said:
On another forum we are discussing (fighting ) about when digital
becomes 35mm quailty. I've heard anywhere from 16-18mp it does.
Whats your take on it?
--
Check out my Online Gallery
http://jeremy2094.fotopic.net
Click to expand...
 
This discussion is purely academic not because of the vanishing 35mm negatives is going to be for real soon but also because overall comparisons about image quality are necessarily reduced to generalisations.

Sharpness might be the only area where some comparisons can be done. Norman Koren and william castleman have good reviews about this on their sites. Basically if you have a B&W film examined under a microscope when only a thin layer is examined the film's sharpness would be greater than any dSLR around. Does that matter on the field? No. For most purposes a 4000dpi scan of the negative shows similar detail to the 8.2MP image. 8000dpi doesnt make much of a difference. In the sites above it is also argued that 50% MTF curves are the best way to judge sharpness.

Digital wins easily in usability (instant ISO adjustment and digital file), cost and noise but as we all know lacks in dynamic range. The digital file is controlled much more easily and photography becomes more accessible.

--
Yiannis

'The Northern star, will bring the starry night, but before the sail appears through the pelagos. I ll become wave and fire to embrace you foreign land. And you my lost homeland, a tender stroke and a scar, once the sun rises in another land. Now I fly for my life's celebration. The same old moon and you newly met birds, push the sun and day away from the mountain to see me cross the sky like a lightning. ' Nikos Gatsos
 
Are you people not bored of this yet? I rather go and take some more photos and make myself a better photo-taker, than just talk, talk, talk, which is better, digi or film, your camera or my camera, my lens or your lens,... ... ...
 
purfectimage said:
MitchAlsup said:
If you need more than 2" 2" of area, digital will never compete.
--
Mitch
Click to expand...
can you further elaborate on this?
are you refering to medium format negatives?
Click to expand...
When you change the size of the film used to image a picture, the cost is quadradic (x* 2) with the size of the film. That is you pay for the area (at least until you are imaging more than a standard 18" sheet)

When you change the size of a silicon sensor, the cost is at least quartic (x* 4) and might even be exponential (e x). Silicon goes on this kind of cost structure due to lithographic capabilities, yield, and the cost of the silicon wafer itself. In fact, you can never get a bigger single sensor than 8" 8" due to the size of the 12" wafer.
purfectimage said:
even so, a blanket statement like that is bound to be foolish.
Click to expand...
Should I add in a camera that costs less than $2000?
purfectimage said:
look how far digital has come in 15 years compared to how far
analog has come in the last 150.

what do you think is evolving more quickly.
Click to expand...
Small sensors are evolving at a much higher rate than dSLR sensors which are evolving at a faster rate than film.
purfectimage said:
the biggest limiting factor in digital is fabrication expense.
canon could make a 60X60 76LPM CMOS sensor.
Click to expand...
I happen to work in the silicon area, Canon cannot manufacture a wafer

of this size with any sense of economics, unless you are willing to take a sensor with 1% defective cells.....
purfectimage said:
i think this would compete very favorably with medium format, but
alas the production cost would be astronomical.
Click to expand...
Actually space flight would be rather inexpensive compared to these endeavors....
purfectimage said:
are are you getting at something else?

in my reasearch, digital is starting to pass glass in the
resolution department.
i think better lenses will be required to really milk digital for
all it is worth.
Click to expand...
No disagreement. A perfect optical system operating at F/4 can image a dot on a 6.4 micron sensor (size of 20D sensor cell) at the difraction limit. Operating faster than F/4 should reduce the size of the difraction dot, but almost no lenses can image at such precision and the ones that can are not in the cost structure of 99% of dSLR owners.

THis is one reason that the small digi-cams don't need an antialias filter, the lens prints the dots bigger than the sensor cells, automatically obeying the Nyquist limit without the filter.
purfectimage said:
-$0.02
Click to expand...
--
Mitch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top