Canon 1Ds superior to film!!

Marshal · Sep 30, 2002

Capital Man wrote:
.> That makes sense, because there's a lot of desert pictures on

Capital Man said:
there. The guy who runs the site must live in the American
Southwest.

Michael Reichmann lives outside Toronto, ON. He makes frequent trips to the S.W. because he likes it, and also because he has friends like landscape photographer Alain Briot living in that area that he likes to visit and go shooting with. Some of his pics taken with the 1Ds were taken in Fla, where he has family and visits once or twice a year. He's currently on a short nature trip somewhere in Ontario, where he'll use the 1Ds and also film video for use on the Video Journal DVD, which will include a review of the 1Ds and show the prints he made from those images. It'll start shipping in November.

IamJacksBrain · Sep 30, 2002

Thom,

Last I checked Kodak and Fuji were still releasing new types of film.

Thomas Karlmann said:
IF film were thought to have the potential to still compete,
wouldn't filmakers be running around improving their product to
compete with digital?

Capital Man · Sep 30, 2002

Marshal said:
Michael Reichmann lives outside Toronto, ON. He makes frequent
trips to the S.W. because he likes it, and also because he has
friends like landscape photographer Alain Briot living in that area
that he likes to visit and go shooting with. Some of his pics
taken with the 1Ds were taken in Fla, where he has family and
visits once or twice a year. He's currently on a short nature trip
somewhere in Ontario, where he'll use the 1Ds and also film video
for use on the Video Journal DVD, which will include a review of
the 1Ds and show the prints he made from those images. It'll start
shipping in November.

That's cool that he can spend all his time travelling around and visiting people and taking picture.

Marshal · Oct 1, 2002

Capital Man said:
That's cool that he can spend all his time travelling around and
visiting people and taking pictures.

No kidding!

Igor R. · Oct 2, 2002

DavidMillier said:
Please remember that Michael Reichmann's site is not a dedicated
hardware review site. Also Micheal is an avowed Medium Format film
landscape photographer who only uses digital where he feels it is
appropriate. If Michael feels that the 1DS is good enough to
replace his medium format stuff for his personal work then it
probably is.

It is definitely not good enough to replace any medium format SLR.

Igor R. · Oct 2, 2002

Bernie Ess said:
However Provia
is very expensive, so lets see real world film, like negative
colour or b&w film...

B&W film usually has better resolution and dynamic range, there is even a special film, called Gigabit, that has 800 lp/mm (or something near that)
http://www.gigabitfilm.de/

Bernie Ess said:
I say: grain grain grain...

Hell, I like gain! It looks natural!

Igor R. · Oct 2, 2002

Igor R. said:
http://www.gigabitfilm.de/

700 lp/mm to be exact http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/products.htm

Igor R. · Oct 2, 2002

Capital Man said:
It would have been interesting if a scan from Fuji Reala (a
negative film that many praise for being very fined grained and
good for scanning) was also compared.

And what about ISO 50 Reala or Velvia? BTW, looks like he didn't say, wht lens did he use! And did he use a tripod, hood, filters?

DarrenH · Oct 3, 2002

I'm in agreement with that. I think that his testing is thorough and credible, and it clearly shows that this digital camera produces images consistently equal to or superior to most film.

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!

Frostfrog · Oct 3, 2002

Go to the sample 1Ds images on dpreview, click on the image of the cat, then download the full size version. Next, scroll the 100 percent image until the lower eyeball dominates your screen. I did this and what I saw in the eye was detail and image quality of a like that no 35 mm film that I am aware of can match. It does not matter if you scan it at 8000 dpi or 100,000 dpi - such large scans will crank in more pixels to allow larger printing but will not add resolution to the original image and will never match the detail in that eye, because the 35 mm film can not capture that kind of detail. If you want to add pixels in to the 1Ds images for larger printing, then get Genuine Fractals.

budhines · Oct 3, 2002

Frostfrog, I saw that image, I thought it was pretty soft, but then I shoot a lot of medium format. Remember that this camera is still using a diffusion filter over it's sensor and then it's literally making up a large percentage of color and detail. For these reasons ccd/cmos images can never hope to be as sharp as film. But dream on!
Bud

Frostfrog said:
Go to the sample 1Ds images on dpreview, click on the image of the
cat, then download the full size version. Next, scroll the 100
percent image until the lower eyeball dominates your screen. I did
this and what I saw in the eye was detail and image quality of a
like that no 35 mm film that I am aware of can match. It does not
matter if you scan it at 8000 dpi or 100,000 dpi - such large scans
will crank in more pixels to allow larger printing but will not add
resolution to the original image and will never match the detail in
that eye, because the 35 mm film can not capture that kind of
detail. If you want to add pixels in to the 1Ds images for larger
printing, then get Genuine Fractals.

Frostfrog · Oct 3, 2002

Go to the eyeball, Bud - that is where the focus is and it must have been shot wide open for the depth of field is thin, but the point of focus... ah, yes! (Check out the blowup and discussion titled "Serious artifact problem on the 1Ds..."

I shoot a lot of 6x7 (Mamiya RZ) and have been living off my cameras for 30 years, so you got nothing on me there. For those of your mindset as regards film vs. digital, I would recall the phrase that was so popular in the early days of the 2Oth century: "get a horse."

Bud Hines said:
Frostfrog said:

Go to the sample 1Ds images on dpreview, click on the image of the
cat, then download the full size version. Next, scroll the 100
percent image until the lower eyeball dominates your screen. I did
this and what I saw in the eye was detail and image quality of a
like that no 35 mm film that I am aware of can match. It does not
matter if you scan it at 8000 dpi or 100,000 dpi - such large scans
will crank in more pixels to allow larger printing but will not add
resolution to the original image and will never match the detail in
that eye, because the 35 mm film can not capture that kind of
detail. If you want to add pixels in to the 1Ds images for larger
printing, then get Genuine Fractals.

Click to expand...

Louis · Oct 3, 2002

Yes, but one without blinders.

Louis

Frostfrog said:
I shoot a lot of 6x7 (Mamiya RZ) and have been living off my
cameras for 30 years, so you got nothing on me there. For those of
your mindset as regards film vs. digital, I would recall the phrase
that was so popular in the early days of the 2Oth century: "get a
horse."

Bud Hines said:

Frostfrog said:

Go to the sample 1Ds images on dpreview, click on the image of the
cat, then download the full size version. Next, scroll the 100
percent image until the lower eyeball dominates your screen. I did
this and what I saw in the eye was detail and image quality of a
like that no 35 mm film that I am aware of can match. It does not
matter if you scan it at 8000 dpi or 100,000 dpi - such large scans
will crank in more pixels to allow larger printing but will not add
resolution to the original image and will never match the detail in
that eye, because the 35 mm film can not capture that kind of
detail. If you want to add pixels in to the 1Ds images for larger
printing, then get Genuine Fractals.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Louis · Oct 3, 2002

Don't ask us .. ask him ... an email to him is just a click away.

BTW I had sent several emails to him regarding questions
I had ... he always responsed to me.

Right now he is on a photographic trip so there may be
a delay to your question.

Louis

Igor R. said:
Igor R. said:

It would have been interesting if a scan from Fuji Reala (a
negative film that many praise for being very fined grained and
good for scanning) was also compared.

Click to expand...

And what about ISO 50 Reala or Velvia? BTW, looks like he didn't
say, wht lens did he use! And did he use a tripod, hood, filters?

Bernie Ess · Oct 4, 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.

Lets stay exact after all: It shows that digital is superior to scanned film. That might make a whole difference. It has often been said that the scanning process emphathises film grain. THis i smore the case with cheaper consumer scanners than with the highEnd Imacon scanner, but nevertheless the scanning process breaks up the analogue process.

doctor digi · Oct 4, 2002

Bud Hines said:
Frostfrog, I saw that image, I thought it was pretty soft, but then
I shoot a lot of medium format. Remember that this camera is still
using a diffusion filter over it's sensor and then it's literally
making up a large percentage of color and detail. For these reasons
ccd/cmos images can never hope to be as sharp as film. But dream on!
Bud

"making up colour and detail" - yeah, right. As if film doesn't "make up colour and detail".

More misinformation... but dream on Bud.

dd

DavidMillier · Oct 4, 2002

According to Norman Koren http://www.normankoren.com a 2700dpi scan from a quality scanner retrieves about the same level of detail and sharpness as you would get from enlarging film in a conventional darkroom. He calims a scan from a good 4000dpi scanner is sharper than darkroom enlargements.

I have no way of verifying his claims but norman is a former Kodak engineer and the extremely detailed and technical discussions on his website are impressive, useful, inspiring and very difficult for the layman to refute!

Bernie Ess 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.

Click to expand...

Lets stay exact after all: It shows that digital is superior to
scanned film. That might make a whole difference. It has often
been said that the scanning process emphathises film grain. THis i
smore the case with cheaper consumer scanners than with the highEnd
Imacon scanner, but nevertheless the scanning process breaks up the
analogue process.

Bernie Ess · Oct 4, 2002

DMillier said:
According to Norman Koren http://www.normankoren.com a 2700dpi scan
from a quality scanner retrieves about the same level of detail and
sharpness as you would get from enlarging film in a conventional
darkroom.

Maybe, but as I said, many users of good film scanners complain about heavy film grain problems in their scans... Thats what luminous- landscape said was a major problem.

But anyway: even if the digital image has only "almost" the same resolution as 645 film, most photographers would prefer digital, because its so much more direct. Only problem at this time is the price, but it will come down in a forseeable future - Also should one not forget film and processing costs plus a hiEnd film scanner - very expensive for Medium format!

Bernhard

Michael Long · Oct 4, 2002

Bernie Ess said:
Maybe, but as I said, many users of good film scanners complain
about heavy film grain problems in their scans... Thats what
luminous- landscape said was a major problem.

I believe if you'll check, most of those issues seem to be in regard to scanning slide films like Velvia with lower-resolution 2700 DPI scanners.

Higher end 4000 DPI scanners, scanners like the Imacon, and drum scans made by systems such as the Aztec, don't seem to have the same "grain-enhancing" features.

They do tend to reach a point of diminishing returns, however. Though an Aztec can do better, my local lab doesn't recommend scanning 35mm above 4000 DPI.

Capital Man · Oct 4, 2002

Bernie Ess said:
But anyway: even if the digital image has only "almost" the same
resolution as 645 film ...

Not "almost".. the 645 film has significantly more resolution.

Some of the resolution in the 1Ds photo is fake... a creation of a clever sharpenning algorithm. (I guess the engineers/programmers who designed those algorithms did a pretty good job, huh?) The 645 films shows more real resolution, which you can bring out much better with some image manipulation.

Reichman even admits something like this in part 5 of his review.

Canon 1Ds superior to film!!

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Louis

Guest

Louis

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts