Canon 1Ds superior to film!!

MichaelK · Sep 25, 2002

Check out
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml

In a test comparison between the 1Ds and 35mm film and 645 film the 1Ds came out clearly superior to 35mm film in terms of resolution and freedom from noise and it even slightly edged out the 645 film. I was actually quite shocked by the degree to which the 1Ds was superior to 35mm film. No more guessing as to how many pixels you need to equal the quality of 35mm film - film has already been surpassed!

steve FL · Sep 25, 2002

i'd wait a little longer for some additional testing...especially by some digifilm guru.

MichaelK said:
Check out
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml

In a test comparison between the 1Ds and 35mm film and 645 film the
1Ds came out clearly superior to 35mm film in terms of resolution
and freedom from noise and it even slightly edged out the 645 film.
I was actually quite shocked by the degree to which the 1Ds was
superior to 35mm film. No more guessing as to how many pixels you
need to equal the quality of 35mm film - film has already been
surpassed!

Igor R. · Sep 26, 2002

MichaelK said:
Check out
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml

In a test comparison between the 1Ds and 35mm film and 645 film the
1Ds came out clearly superior to 35mm film in terms of resolution
and freedom from noise and it even slightly edged out the 645 film.
I was actually quite shocked by the degree to which the 1Ds was
superior to 35mm film. No more guessing as to how many pixels you
need to equal the quality of 35mm film - film has already been
surpassed!

Looks like those guyz from 'Landscape are paid for camera promotion. They was saying that D30 is equal to film, then after a year, they sayed, that D60 is almost equal, now they saying that 1Ds is finally better than film, wow, do you belive 'em after they sayed that D30 is equal to Velvia two years ago?

And don't forget, that this is still a camera with fake Bayer megapixels, thus, it is maybe equal to APS, or even superior, but definitely much more expensive!

Resolution of 35mm camera, is about 16-24 (different PRO film) REAL megapixels, and not changing, even if Canon decided that they've made a new digicam and resolution of the film becames 11 interpolated megapixels now.

Yes, it has the gain that getting visible on the large prints, but information is still there. Have you ever seen 8000 dpi scans?

Marshal · Sep 26, 2002

Keep an eye on the LL website for the next 5 days. Reichmann will be doing a lot of testing and will soon take it on a nature photo trip somewhere. Expect a full report on the quality and everything else. He'll also be discussing it on his next edition of the Video Journal DVD.

steve FL said:
MichaelK said:

Check out
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml

In a test comparison between the 1Ds and 35mm film and 645 film the
1Ds came out clearly superior to 35mm film in terms of resolution
and freedom from noise and it even slightly edged out the 645 film.
I was actually quite shocked by the degree to which the 1Ds was
superior to 35mm film. No more guessing as to how many pixels you
need to equal the quality of 35mm film - film has already been
surpassed!

Click to expand...

David Ellsworth · Sep 26, 2002

From doing a direct comparison, I've concluded that the 1Ds has slightly less detail, plus it has sharpening halos. Would be nice if the comparison could be done without sharpening. The 100F film has significantly more noise, however.

Michael did the comparison by shrinking the film crop to match the size of the 1Ds crop. That's not the right way to compare! The right way is to enlarge the 1Ds crop to match the size of the film crop. If he'd done it the right way, he'd have seen that the film still has a bit more detail.

I'd like to see how the Kodak 14MP offering compares with film.

Igor R. · Sep 26, 2002

David Ellsworth said:
From doing a direct comparison, I've concluded that the 1Ds has
slightly less detail, plus it has sharpening halos. Would be nice
if the comparison could be done without sharpening. The 100F film
has significantly more noise, however.
Michael did the comparison by shrinking the film crop to match the
size of the 1Ds crop. That's not the right way to compare! The
right way is to enlarge the 1Ds crop to match the size of the film
crop. If he'd done it the right way, he'd have seen that the film
still has a bit more detail.

Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced photographer can trust so rough compartion!

MichaelK · Sep 26, 2002

Igor R. said:
Igor R. said:

From doing a direct comparison, I've concluded that the 1Ds has
slightly less detail, plus it has sharpening halos. Would be nice
if the comparison could be done without sharpening. The 100F film
has significantly more noise, however.
Michael did the comparison by shrinking the film crop to match the
size of the 1Ds crop. That's not the right way to compare! The
right way is to enlarge the 1Ds crop to match the size of the film
crop. If he'd done it the right way, he'd have seen that the film
still has a bit more detail.

Click to expand...

Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

Maybe you could have squeezed a little more resolution from the 35mm film, but would you want to? At that degree of magnification the 3200 dpi scan is already so noisy that compared to the 1Ds image it is unpleasant to look at. You would really be scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to get more out of that grainy 35mm shot. If further testing comfirms this initial test then I still say that the 1Ds is superior to 35mm film.

Stefan Klein · Sep 26, 2002

BTW,

a 8000dpi scan is not superior to 4000dpi with 35mm film.I've done some comparison scans on a Heidelberg Topaz (max.res. without interpolation 8000dpi) with some tack sharp slides.The 8000 dpi scan did not give me ANY more detail compared to 4000dpi.IMO 4000 is the limit for 35mm film.But right,3200dpi is not.
Stefan

MichaelK said:
Igor R. said:

MichaelK said:

From doing a direct comparison, I've concluded that the 1Ds has
slightly less detail, plus it has sharpening halos. Would be nice
if the comparison could be done without sharpening. The 100F film
has significantly more noise, however.
Michael did the comparison by shrinking the film crop to match the
size of the 1Ds crop. That's not the right way to compare! The
right way is to enlarge the 1Ds crop to match the size of the film
crop. If he'd done it the right way, he'd have seen that the film
still has a bit more detail.

Click to expand...

Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

Click to expand...

Maybe you could have squeezed a little more resolution from the
35mm film, but would you want to? At that degree of magnification
the 3200 dpi scan is already so noisy that compared to the 1Ds
image it is unpleasant to look at. You would really be scraping
the bottom of the barrel trying to get more out of that grainy 35mm
shot. If further testing comfirms this initial test then I still
say that the 1Ds is superior to 35mm film.

Michael Brown · Sep 26, 2002

Igor R. said:
Igor R. said:

From doing a direct comparison, I've concluded that the 1Ds has
slightly less detail, plus it has sharpening halos. Would be nice
if the comparison could be done without sharpening. The 100F film
has significantly more noise, however.
Michael did the comparison by shrinking the film crop to match the
size of the 1Ds crop. That's not the right way to compare! The
right way is to enlarge the 1Ds crop to match the size of the film
crop. If he'd done it the right way, he'd have seen that the film
still has a bit more detail.

Click to expand...

Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

Right from when he did his first D30 vs. film thing he has gone into great detail about why he didn't use an 8000dpi drum scan and how his 3200dpi scanner is more than sufficient for the purpose of the test (ie film wouldn't come out looking any better if he used a drum scan).

He also explains this again at the end of the 1Ds article - maybe you didn't read to the end...

Michael.
--
http://www.luacheia.com/photos/

DavidMillier · Sep 26, 2002

Don't for get Michael uses a Flextight. This is a pseudo drum scanner and probably offers superior quality to a ccd based 8000dpi scanner...

Igor R. said:
Igor R. said:

From doing a direct comparison, I've concluded that the 1Ds has
slightly less detail, plus it has sharpening halos. Would be nice
if the comparison could be done without sharpening. The 100F film
has significantly more noise, however.
Michael did the comparison by shrinking the film crop to match the
size of the 1Ds crop. That's not the right way to compare! The
right way is to enlarge the 1Ds crop to match the size of the film
crop. If he'd done it the right way, he'd have seen that the film
still has a bit more detail.

Click to expand...

Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

DavidMillier · Sep 26, 2002

DMillier said:
Igor R. said:

DavidMillier said:

From doing a direct comparison, I've concluded that the 1Ds has
slightly less detail, plus it has sharpening halos. Would be nice
if the comparison could be done without sharpening. The 100F film
has significantly more noise, however.
Michael did the comparison by shrinking the film crop to match the
size of the 1Ds crop. That's not the right way to compare! The
right way is to enlarge the 1Ds crop to match the size of the film
crop. If he'd done it the right way, he'd have seen that the film
still has a bit more detail.

Click to expand...

Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

Click to expand...

ResIpsaLoquitur · Sep 26, 2002

There is no 8000dpi Nikon Scanner available. The scanner you are referring to is a 4000dpi unit.

And the scanner used by Michael Reichmann in the test was an Imacon Flextight Photo, one of the best CCD scanners available.

A drum scanner would have caught fractionally more information, but not enough to invalidate the comparison.

I know: I used to own the very same Imacon scanner used in the tests, and I now own a drum scanner.

ResIpsaLoquitur

Igor R. said:
Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

David Ellsworth · Sep 26, 2002

Igor R. said:
Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

That's irrelevant, and not what I was talking about at all. Even at 3200 dpi the film is better in terms of resolution, and cleaner looking because it wasn't put through a sharpening filter. (Although it is noisier).

Michael Long · Sep 26, 2002

David Ellsworth said:
That's irrelevant, and not what I was talking about at all. Even at
3200 dpi the film is better in terms of resolution, and cleaner
looking because it wasn't put through a sharpening filter.
(Although it is noisier).

I hope you're talking about the 6x4.5 crop, because the 1Ds crop seems to beat the 35.

Forgeting the film grain noise (which, although I'd like to, I can't as the entire image seems dirty, especially the sky) the 1Ds seems to have captured quite a bit more detail.

It managed, for example, to capture the vertical lines in the paneling on the red building, something the 35 sample only hints at, and which is shown clearly in the 6x4.5 image, especially on the broad, shadow side.

The 1Ds shows distinct folds in the drapes in the windows, which the 35 resolves as muddy at best.

It also distinctly shows the horizontal rails in the second group of railings behind the first (left edge, where red building meets white cooling tower), whereas the 35 image barely shows the vertical ones.

Finally, just to hit on the 35 grain again, I could uprez the 1Ds image quite a bit and still maintain a clean image; but with the 35 image I'm soon going to reach a point where I'm trying to decide if I'm seeing detail -- or just grain pretending to be detail.

At least in the 1Ds image most of the glass looks like glass. The grain in the film images makes the glass look like the window washer needs to get to work -- now!

Michael Long · Sep 26, 2002

Igor R. said:
Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

A) The Nikon is 4000dpi, not 8000dpi

B) The Imacon was a $10,000 scanner (currently about $5000), vs the $3000 Nikon. As in cameras, there's more to a scanner than just pixels, dmax for one.

C) He explained why in the article, had you read it, and has explained why in many other articles on the site, INCLUDING one that compares directly against the Nikon, had you looked for it.

Finally, HE IS an experienced photographer, who's produced a good body of work, and who shares his knowledge and experiences with the photo community.

I would suggest that if you believe his methodology to be incorrect, and that the Nikon would have done better, that you perform your own experiments and present us with FACTS, and not just uninformed (given the above a, b, and c) opinion.

DavidMillier · Sep 26, 2002

Michael claims to be just about the only site free from commercial pressures as it is a purely amateur site that receives no funding from vendors.

Also, his assessments of the D30 and D60 v film seemed to me to be very similar. He basically assessed the digitals against film on the basis of what print sizes showed equal quality.

And what he said was that the D30 was as good as film up to about A4, the D60 up to A3, 35mm wins for a little larger prints and medium format for much larger still.

Now he seems to be saying that the 1Ds offers superior resolution to 35mm and 645 up to 19" prints. Beyond that medium format makes a come back. I don't see any inconsistency here and at least he making the comprision by examing real prints instead of arguing theory like a lot of film supporters on these forums love to do!

His consclusions seems to accord more or less with my own experiments.

My own tests using a D100 v film scanned on a 2700dpi consumer scanner have showed that for colour neg film, digital seems better at any size print (the scans are noisy), for slide film digital is good up to A3 (teh scans still have too much noise and no obvious superiority in detail). Black and white negs seems to work well with my scanner and I get good results.

Large format film still wins though. Even with my little Epson 1640 flatbed with TPU, scanned 4*5 B&w wins hands down. A3 prints have about the same detail as 4*5 prints from the digital cameras...

Igor R. said:
Igor R. said:

Check out
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml

In a test comparison between the 1Ds and 35mm film and 645 film the
1Ds came out clearly superior to 35mm film in terms of resolution
and freedom from noise and it even slightly edged out the 645 film.
I was actually quite shocked by the degree to which the 1Ds was
superior to 35mm film. No more guessing as to how many pixels you
need to equal the quality of 35mm film - film has already been
surpassed!

Click to expand...

Looks like those guyz from 'Landscape are paid for camera
promotion. They was saying that D30 is equal to film, then after a
year, they sayed, that D60 is almost equal, now they saying that
1Ds is finally better than film, wow, do you belive 'em after they
sayed that D30 is equal to Velvia two years ago?
And don't forget, that this is still a camera with fake Bayer
megapixels, thus, it is maybe equal to APS, or even superior, but
definitely much more expensive!
Resolution of 35mm camera, is about 16-24 (different PRO film) REAL
megapixels, and not changing, even if Canon decided that they've
made a new digicam and resolution of the film becames 11
interpolated megapixels now.
Yes, it has the gain that getting visible on the large prints, but
information is still there. Have you ever seen 8000 dpi scans?

Ken Phillips · Sep 26, 2002

than the 35mm film samples. It's painfully obvious. And 2820 dpi scans from my DiMage Scan Multi II look as good as 4000 dpi scans from the lower-end units, so I wouldn't fault the scanner he used. It's a good one.

But I print very fine dog portraits at 12 x 18 from 1D files ... I won't be getting in line for the 1Ds very soon ... although it would make a great toy!
Ken

--

All kinds of old camera and motion picture bodies, lenses, tripods, enlargers, mostly gathering dust, because digital is immediate! NO Canon 1200mm f/5.6.

David Kieltyka · Sep 26, 2002

Michael Long said:
Forgeting the film grain noise (which, although I'd like to, I
can't as the entire image seems dirty, especially the sky) the 1Ds
seems to have captured quite a bit more detail.

Remember you're looking at full-res (AKA "actual pixels") crops in Michael Reichmann's comparison. Provia 100F's grain pretty much disappears at an inkjet print size of 13x19" and smaller. Nonetheless it's clear that the IDs image captures more detail than the 35mm film scan. A 4000dpi scan might improve the film's performance a bit, but IMO at this point that's just picking nits.

It's clear to me we're at the point where 24x36mm digital outperforms 24x36mm film in terms of sheer resolution. I say this as a film user who has no intention of switching to digital in the near future. I prefer film over digital (for now) for other reasons. But the days of film's technical superiority are fast drawing to a close.

As a film fan I see no reason to be concerned about this! Keep using film if you like the results. If digital floats your boat then go for it.

-Dave-

Bernie Ess · Sep 26, 2002

Igor R. said:
Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

Which Nikon are you talking about? I hope not the LS-8000, because this one is only 4000dpi - and various comparisions have showed that the Imacon - probably the best affordable Scanner available - is clearly superior to any Nikon.

But noone seems to mention here that above 3200dpi you will enlarge mainly grain. Saying 35mm has 16 or 20 or even more MP is useless, because even Fuji Provia clearly shows grain here. However Provia is very expensive, so lets see real world film, like negative colour or b&w film...

I say: grain grain grain...

David Ellsworth · Sep 26, 2002

I just realized, I was comparing the medium format with the 1Ds... ;-)

The 35mm scan is clearly inferior in every respect to the 1Ds crop! Though I'd be curious to see what it would look like multi-scanned at 4000 dpi.

Canon 1Ds superior to film!!

Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts