Reading mode: Light Dark

starting the squable anew, film vs. digital

Go to last post
D

dino19723

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
Location
Anchorage USA, AK, US
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27. Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of crystals to give a 512 level gray scale. Cells (pixels) in CCDs and CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive them this time.

Yes it is possable to capture a bright reflection off a thin wire that would show up in a 35mm film, but you could not tell much from it because you would not have enough information about the wire, only that it was there. In the digital world, you wouldn't see the wire until the number of pixels went up 2 or 3 fold, but when you did, you would know more than that it was just there.

Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
 
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale.
Click to expand...
This strange theory seems funny & interesting to me, film to my knowledge is analog, I have definite knowledge to distinguish analog and digital since my major study is electronics. First, The RGB colour sensitive crystal is layered, so it is not matrix, so each grain (if alligned perfectly) can reproduce any colour, while each pixel of ccd only read one colour & need some interpolate algorithm to decode the actual colour of it. Second, the chemical change of each grain vs light intensity is analog, that is, continuously, while the A-D converter in prosumer digicam only convert the analog signal from the ccd to 256 levels which is digital, with dicrete steps.

Film print is also analog as oppose to inkjet print which use half tone, or matrix method to reproduce actual colour. This is why digital print still have somewhat lack of depth & reallity as compare to film print.

Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
dino19723 said:
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.

Yes it is possable to capture a bright reflection off a thin wire that
would show up in a 35mm film, but you could not tell much from it because
you would not have enough information about the wire, only that it was
there. In the digital world, you wouldn't see the wire until the number
of pixels went up 2 or 3 fold, but when you did, you would know more
than that it was just there.

Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
I hope the article don't spread wrong concept to the public. Digital is good enough for us today but still some way to go to be perfect. Film & digital has different strength & in the pro field, they are combined already. Just simply say which one wins is a too simple conclusion.

Just my 2 cents.

Francis C.F.P.
 
You guys can forget about the film versus digital issue - it will be decided in the future (and I can even tell you when).

When Playboy shoots the centerfold with a digital camera instead of an 8x10 view camera, digital will have arrived. My yardstick for equality is quite high - it seems to make sense - I have yet to hear anyone from work argue the criteria with me.

Joe Kurkjian
Francis C.F.P. said:
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale.
Click to expand...
This strange theory seems funny & interesting to me, film to my knowledge
is analog, I have definite knowledge to distinguish analog and digital
since my major study is electronics. First, The RGB colour sensitive
crystal is layered, so it is not matrix, so each grain (if alligned
perfectly) can reproduce any colour, while each pixel of ccd only read
one colour & need some interpolate algorithm to decode the actual colour
of it. Second, the chemical change of each grain vs light intensity is
analog, that is, continuously, while the A-D converter in prosumer
digicam only convert the analog signal from the ccd to 256 levels which
is digital, with dicrete steps.

Film print is also analog as oppose to inkjet print which use half tone,
or matrix method to reproduce actual colour. This is why digital print
still have somewhat lack of depth & reallity as compare to film print.

Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
Member said:
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.

Yes it is possable to capture a bright reflection off a thin wire that
would show up in a 35mm film, but you could not tell much from it because
you would not have enough information about the wire, only that it was
there. In the digital world, you wouldn't see the wire until the number
of pixels went up 2 or 3 fold, but when you did, you would know more
than that it was just there.

Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
I hope the article don't spread wrong concept to the public. Digital is
good enough for us today but still some way to go to be perfect. Film &
digital has different strength & in the pro field, they are combined
already. Just simply say which one wins is a too simple conclusion.

Just my 2 cents.

Francis C.F.P.
Click to expand...
 
And even if this ISN'T some crackpot theory (which flies in the face of all real, physical understanding of the way film and digital work) or some deep misunderstanding on your part, what exactly is your point? Why do digital "true believers" feel that film is some misbegotten enemy to be vanquished? (and, yes, "true believer" film people feel the same way about digital...)

They both got strengths, they both got weaknesses, baby cakes. Deal with it.
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale. Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.

Yes it is possable to capture a bright reflection off a thin wire that
would show up in a 35mm film, but you could not tell much from it because
you would not have enough information about the wire, only that it was
there. In the digital world, you wouldn't see the wire until the number
of pixels went up 2 or 3 fold, but when you did, you would know more
than that it was just there.

Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
 
why compare digicams to 35mm? Why not to APS or 8x10" sheet film, for that matter? And as long as the digicam yields a satisfactory shot at the print size I want, who cares?
regards
Robert Jeantet
 
Ed Leys said:
They both got strengths, they both got weaknesses, baby cakes. Deal with
it.
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale. Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.

Yes it is possable to capture a bright reflection off a thin wire that
would show up in a 35mm film, but you could not tell much from it because
you would not have enough information about the wire, only that it was
there. In the digital world, you wouldn't see the wire until the number
of pixels went up 2 or 3 fold, but when you did, you would know more
than that it was just there.

Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The 3x3 matrix of crystal to give a gray scale? Oh no, don't confuse the half tone technology used in OFF-SET printing & inkjet printing with the layered emulsion technology of film. There are a lot of books of both film & digital technology in public library, have to read them in depth before drawing your own conclusion.

Francis C.F.P.
 
Well, Joe. That got everyone quiet.
JoeK said:
When Playboy shoots the centerfold with a digital camera instead of an
8x10 view camera, digital will have arrived. My yardstick for equality
is quite high - it seems to make sense - I have yet to hear anyone from
work argue the criteria with me.

Joe Kurkjian
Francis C.F.P. said:
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale.
Click to expand...
This strange theory seems funny & interesting to me, film to my knowledge
is analog, I have definite knowledge to distinguish analog and digital
since my major study is electronics. First, The RGB colour sensitive
crystal is layered, so it is not matrix, so each grain (if alligned
perfectly) can reproduce any colour, while each pixel of ccd only read
one colour & need some interpolate algorithm to decode the actual colour
of it. Second, the chemical change of each grain vs light intensity is
analog, that is, continuously, while the A-D converter in prosumer
digicam only convert the analog signal from the ccd to 256 levels which
is digital, with dicrete steps.

Film print is also analog as oppose to inkjet print which use half tone,
or matrix method to reproduce actual colour. This is why digital print
still have somewhat lack of depth & reallity as compare to film print.

Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
JoeK said:
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.

Yes it is possable to capture a bright reflection off a thin wire that
would show up in a 35mm film, but you could not tell much from it because
you would not have enough information about the wire, only that it was
there. In the digital world, you wouldn't see the wire until the number
of pixels went up 2 or 3 fold, but when you did, you would know more
than that it was just there.

Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
I hope the article don't spread wrong concept to the public. Digital is
good enough for us today but still some way to go to be perfect. Film &
digital has different strength & in the pro field, they are combined
already. Just simply say which one wins is a too simple conclusion.

Just my 2 cents.

Francis C.F.P.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I've got a slightly different analogy, compared to yours with the thin wire:

With a slightly larger wire, or a tree limb, the 35mm camera would show the actual color of the wire or limb.

With a digital camera, it'll probaby be purple.

That's my biggest complaint. I've now tried 3 digital cameras (Epson 3000z, Olympus 2500L, Nikon 990), and I can't seem to take outdoor photos that include treetops against a bright sky, without seeing blue/purple leaves and limbs. Same thing for powerlines against a bright sky -- lots of purple.

Although I don't plan on taking photos of thin wires or powerlines, so I could care less about them. However, I do care about taking photos of landscapes, and the quality of the existing digicams is not up to my expecations.

When digital cameras get around this blue/purple problem, give you the same exposure/focus capabilities of 35mm cameras, at a reasonable price, letting me print an 11x14 or larger print, then I'll be happy....

The 3.3MP images are detailed enough for me, with the exception of the blue/purple fringing... That's my biggest complaint, and they all seem to have this problem now.
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale. Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.

Yes it is possable to capture a bright reflection off a thin wire that
would show up in a 35mm film, but you could not tell much from it because
you would not have enough information about the wire, only that it was
there. In the digital world, you wouldn't see the wire until the number
of pixels went up 2 or 3 fold, but when you did, you would know more
than that it was just there.

Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
 
robert jeantet said:
why compare digicams to 35mm? Why not to APS or 8x10" sheet film, for
that matter? And as long as the digicam yields a satisfactory shot at the
print size I want, who cares?
regards
Robert Jeantet
Click to expand...
I compared my Nikon 990 to a Minox Titanium TLX (roughly the same price) and it beat the ever livin' crap out of that little film camera.

Next I'm going to compare its images to the LX Gold I, 24 Carat Gold model ($3150.00) just to see if money talks.

So there.

-iNova
 
Francis C.F.P. said:
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale.
Click to expand...
This strange theory seems funny & interesting to me, film to my knowledge
is analog, I have definite knowledge to distinguish analog and digital
since my major study is electronics. First, The RGB colour sensitive
crystal is layered, so it is not matrix, so each grain (if alligned
perfectly) can reproduce any colour, while each pixel of ccd only read
one colour & need some interpolate algorithm to decode the actual colour
of it. Second, the chemical change of each grain vs light intensity is
analog, that is, continuously, while the A-D converter in prosumer
digicam only convert the analog signal from the ccd to 256 levels which
is digital, with dicrete steps.

Film print is also analog as oppose to inkjet print which use half tone,
or matrix method to reproduce actual colour. This is why digital print
still have somewhat lack of depth & reallity as compare to film print.

Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
Member said:
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
-- -- -- --
Member said:
Member said:
Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
I hope the article don't spread wrong concept to the public. Digital is
good enough for us today but still some way to go to be perfect. Film &
digital has different strength & in the pro field, they are combined
already. Just simply say which one wins is a too simple conclusion.

Just my 2 cents.

Francis C.F.P.
Click to expand...
I think the gist of the article is that in order to represent tonality with anything like reliability one must consider a field of view that includes a minimum of 3 x 3 crystal grains because grain-perfect isn't perfect at all. Each crystal is a different size, orientation and sensitivity. It takes a statistical average to get any kind of repeatable, reliable results with grain.

I mean, after all is said and done, the whole Universe only looks analog above a certain statistical view. At heart it is quantum mechanical. Which IS digital. Film grains don't respond to every photon, which would make them appear more analog than their actual behavior, but jump states based on which molecule did the change thing. Most photons pass right by, but when a crystal takes a direct hit of the threshold level it cascades the phenomenon into other, crystal-linked molecules in a manner that is very digital in effect.

Of course, a similar grain thing happens in the current CCD's. Interestingly this digital grain phenomenon leads me to being able to push-process some of the Sony-chip using 3.34 megapixel cameras to ISO's of 800 and 1600 with relatively good results. Here's a grain-based rescue from a 990:



Underexposed shot got you down? Times could be tougher. That top image is the original purposely made at -2.3 EV in full manual mode.

-iNova
 
Martin Rosol said:
Well, Joe. That got everyone quiet.
Click to expand...
Cute, but no cigar. The Playboy Centerfold has been digitally manipulated for a looooong time. Maybe not at the film plane, but in the Photoshop.

But is the real question about a 3 page, gatefold image? Count the number of those that appear in print every month worldwide. Couple of hundred, maybe? Let's be generous and say a thousand.

Now count the number of photographs reproduced in all publications in the same time period.

Now count the number of those that are digital.

Bye, bye film. You had a great run. I don't expect to see you around much after 2005.

-iNova
 
I don't know if a cigar represents a worthy wager - how about one can of Coca Cola in January 2005? I volunteer to call the January issue centerfold girl and ask her what camera they used for the shoot. You may send me the can of Coke via UPS ground to save on shipping charges.

All joking aside, and I can't really speak for Playboy, but what is available today as a digital camera with a 3X zoom is VERY close to good enough for me. However, don't discount the possibility that you may purchase film in 2005 just for the thrill of trying out "something new".

Joe Kurkjian
Peter iNova said:
Martin Rosol said:
Well, Joe. That got everyone quiet.
Click to expand...
Cute, but no cigar. The Playboy Centerfold has been digitally
manipulated for a looooong time. Maybe not at the film plane, but in the
Photoshop.

But is the real question about a 3 page, gatefold image? Count the
number of those that appear in print every month worldwide. Couple of
hundred, maybe? Let's be generous and say a thousand.

Now count the number of photographs reproduced in all publications in the
same time period.

Now count the number of those that are digital.

Bye, bye film. You had a great run. I don't expect to see you around
much after 2005.

-iNova
Click to expand...
 
Peter,

You wouldn't happen to have one of those 72-inch-square Polaroid cameras, would you? That would make for a truly informative comparison.
regards
Robert Jeantet
 
robert jeantet said:
Peter,
You wouldn't happen to have one of those 72-inch-square Polaroid cameras,
would you? That would make for a truly informative comparison.
regards
Robert Jeantet
Click to expand...
That big Pola costs $300 a shot AFTER you paid for the rental ($1,800/day) and you have to leave the technician INSIDE the camera to use it. Truly a camera with a brain! Plus two arms, two legs, eyelashes, nose hair... I wonder, is it air conditioned? Do you bracket the shots? Where is that viewfinder? Is the flash so close to the lens that it produces red eye? Is the CF card slot robust? Do you have to take it off the tripod to change the batteries? How many shots to a roll?

And does it, too, beat the ever livin' crap out of that Minox? It could be a fellow traveler (except for the portability factor).

-iNova
 
I kind of get a kick out of all the techie explanations for why I should throw my film camera away. Rather than reading Discovery, why not perform a simple test. Get a good digital camera and a good film camera (with good film) and take a picture of the sky. Print both images at 8X10. Which has more subtle variation?

I love my S-10, and ALWAYS have it with me. I even take it when I go out with the express purpose of shooting film. I have shot almost 3,000mb worth of digital pics in the last year (and about 150 rolls of film).

Nobody is more eager than I am for digital to match film (in some ways it is already better). When a D-1 costs a thousand dollars, I will likely put my film camera away, as the d-1 appears to have the amount of control I desire, and the amount of quality my eye finds pleasing.
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale. Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.

Yes it is possable to capture a bright reflection off a thin wire that
would show up in a 35mm film, but you could not tell much from it because
you would not have enough information about the wire, only that it was
there. In the digital world, you wouldn't see the wire until the number
of pixels went up 2 or 3 fold, but when you did, you would know more
than that it was just there.

Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
 
I would still go with Digital. I have just loved getting back into photography with Digital. My old problems with film are the same now as they were 15 years ago. You don't know what you got until later. You are dependent on someone else developing your film, unless you are professional. I have sent countless 35mm negatives in for enlargements only to find Kodak or any other lab, didn't take the time to dust the negative or they scatched the negative, I could go on and on.

Color in your own darkroom not being a professional, is a mess and way to expensive. I love the digital darkroom.

Yes I know you can scan in, and I have debated this over and over, going with a film scanner over a D1 or Kodak 330 or the upcoming Canon.

The net to me is simple, I have taken way too many shots from either a D1 or 990 or Sony 505 up to 11 x 14 and way too many people have looked at them and said they look great. I am the final critic and love them my self. I stopped at medium format and feel that it is still the best solution, but still more than I want to spend.

16 x 20 is still out there, but I can't imagine what will be available to two years.
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale. Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.

Yes it is possable to capture a bright reflection off a thin wire that
would show up in a 35mm film, but you could not tell much from it because
you would not have enough information about the wire, only that it was
there. In the digital world, you wouldn't see the wire until the number
of pixels went up 2 or 3 fold, but when you did, you would know more
than that it was just there.

Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
 
Barry Ward said:
I kind of get a kick out of all the techie explanations for why I should
throw my film camera away. Rather than reading Discovery, why not
perform a simple test. Get a good digital camera and a good film camera
(with good film) and take a picture of the sky. Print both images at
8X10. Which has more subtle variation?

I love my S-10, and ALWAYS have it with me. I even take it when I go out
with the express purpose of shooting film. I have shot almost 3,000mb
worth of digital pics in the last year (and about 150 rolls of film).

Nobody is more eager than I am for digital to match film (in some ways it
is already better). When a D-1 costs a thousand dollars, I will likely
put my film camera away, as the d-1 appears to have the amount of control
I desire, and the amount of quality my eye finds pleasing.
Click to expand...
Which is film and which is digital:











You have ten seconds.

Is that your final answer?

If you got it right, you win.

-iNova

Hint: The clear sky. Look for clarity in the sky.
Now what would film grain look like in a clear sky?

Hint2: Three of them are film.

Hint3: Run the cursor over the image and the data line
at the bottom of your browser may contain another clue.
 
One problem with film is that it's actual resolution is indeterminate. When the photosensitive chrystals are applied to the paper they are not lined up in neet rows like in a CCD. The chrystals are randomly distributed. The result of a random distribution is clumpyness. Some areas have extra chrystals and other areas have fewer or none. This affect is clearly visible when looking a photo of a blue sky. Some of my 35mm prints have really blotchy sky's.

I suppose the actual resolution of film would be the resolution at which this clumpyness was averaged out and was not visible. In a picture of just a blue sky the actual pixel equivelent may be only about 1M. It would be better in areas of colours other than blue and higher detail.

Perhaps the real question to ask is what is the real pixel resolution of 35mm?
And how much longer will we care?
Peter iNova said:
Francis C.F.P. said:
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale.
Click to expand...
This strange theory seems funny & interesting to me, film to my knowledge
is analog, I have definite knowledge to distinguish analog and digital
since my major study is electronics. First, The RGB colour sensitive
crystal is layered, so it is not matrix, so each grain (if alligned
perfectly) can reproduce any colour, while each pixel of ccd only read
one colour & need some interpolate algorithm to decode the actual colour
of it. Second, the chemical change of each grain vs light intensity is
analog, that is, continuously, while the A-D converter in prosumer
digicam only convert the analog signal from the ccd to 256 levels which
is digital, with dicrete steps.

Film print is also analog as oppose to inkjet print which use half tone,
or matrix method to reproduce actual colour. This is why digital print
still have somewhat lack of depth & reallity as compare to film print.

Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
Member said:
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
-- -- -- --
Member said:
Member said:
Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
I hope the article don't spread wrong concept to the public. Digital is
good enough for us today but still some way to go to be perfect. Film &
digital has different strength & in the pro field, they are combined
already. Just simply say which one wins is a too simple conclusion.

Just my 2 cents.

Francis C.F.P.
Click to expand...
I think the gist of the article is that in order to represent tonality
with anything like reliability one must consider a field of view that
includes a minimum of 3 x 3 crystal grains because grain-perfect isn't
perfect at all. Each crystal is a different size, orientation and
sensitivity. It takes a statistical average to get any kind of
repeatable, reliable results with grain.

I mean, after all is said and done, the whole Universe only looks analog
above a certain statistical view. At heart it is quantum mechanical.
Which IS digital. Film grains don't respond to every photon, which would
make them appear more analog than their actual behavior, but jump states
based on which molecule did the change thing. Most photons pass right
by, but when a crystal takes a direct hit of the threshold level it
cascades the phenomenon into other, crystal-linked molecules in a manner
that is very digital in effect.

Of course, a similar grain thing happens in the current CCD's.
Interestingly this digital grain phenomenon leads me to being able to
push-process some of the Sony-chip using 3.34 megapixel cameras to ISO's
of 800 and 1600 with relatively good results. Here's a grain-based
rescue from a 990:



Underexposed shot got you down? Times could be tougher. That top image
is the original purposely made at -2.3 EV in full manual mode.

-iNova
Click to expand...
 
David S said:
One problem with film is that it's actual resolution is indeterminate.
When the photosensitive chrystals are applied to the paper they are not
lined up in neet rows like in a CCD. The chrystals are randomly
distributed. The result of a random distribution is clumpyness. Some
areas have extra chrystals and other areas have fewer or none. This
affect is clearly visible when looking a photo of a blue sky. Some of my
35mm prints have really blotchy sky's.

I suppose the actual resolution of film would be the resolution at which
this clumpyness was averaged out and was not visible. In a picture of
just a blue sky the actual pixel equivelent may be only about 1M. It
would be better in areas of colours other than blue and higher detail.

Perhaps the real question to ask is what is the real pixel resolution of
35mm?
And how much longer will we care?
Click to expand...
Well, how long anyone cares is entirely up to them - I'd rather be taking pictures, and using whatever medium my mood requires at the moment (and whatever medium consumer society allows to be available to me).

On a couple of your other points...

Randomness in an imaging material is not necessarily a bad thing. It can allow a lot more realism (and be a lot easier for the eye and mind to tune out, if visible) than a nicely organized cartesian substructure.

As far as the pixel resolution of 35mm film, if you are honestly interested, and you don't mind doing a bit of open-minded reading, you can find one assessment here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pixels_vs_film.htm
David S said:
Peter iNova said:
Francis C.F.P. said:
dino said:
If you have any doubts about 3 MP camers being equal to 35MM film, read
Discovery mag, August 2000, 'The chemistry of Photography' page 24 -27.
Film is not analog, its binary digital!!. It takes at least a 3x3 matrix
of crystals to give a 'gray scale'. That's a 9 division on the number of
crystals to give a 512 level gray scale.
Click to expand...
This strange theory seems funny & interesting to me, film to my knowledge
is analog, I have definite knowledge to distinguish analog and digital
since my major study is electronics. First, The RGB colour sensitive
crystal is layered, so it is not matrix, so each grain (if alligned
perfectly) can reproduce any colour, while each pixel of ccd only read
one colour & need some interpolate algorithm to decode the actual colour
of it. Second, the chemical change of each grain vs light intensity is
analog, that is, continuously, while the A-D converter in prosumer
digicam only convert the analog signal from the ccd to 256 levels which
is digital, with dicrete steps.

Film print is also analog as oppose to inkjet print which use half tone,
or matrix method to reproduce actual colour. This is why digital print
still have somewhat lack of depth & reallity as compare to film print.

Cells (pixels) in CCDs and
David S said:
CMOS sensors are analog with more possible bits per cell (the a-d
converter resolution).

The artical is wrong about the 'best' digital cameras, but we can forgive
them this time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
-- -- -- --
David S said:
David S said:
Yes it will be another few years before digital surpass film completely
and by a wide enough margin that film is left to history buffs, but will
come and sooner, not later. We are standing on the edge now!!!
Click to expand...
I hope the article don't spread wrong concept to the public. Digital is
good enough for us today but still some way to go to be perfect. Film &
digital has different strength & in the pro field, they are combined
already. Just simply say which one wins is a too simple conclusion.

Just my 2 cents.

Francis C.F.P.
Click to expand...
I think the gist of the article is that in order to represent tonality
with anything like reliability one must consider a field of view that
includes a minimum of 3 x 3 crystal grains because grain-perfect isn't
perfect at all. Each crystal is a different size, orientation and
sensitivity. It takes a statistical average to get any kind of
repeatable, reliable results with grain.

I mean, after all is said and done, the whole Universe only looks analog
above a certain statistical view. At heart it is quantum mechanical.
Which IS digital. Film grains don't respond to every photon, which would
make them appear more analog than their actual behavior, but jump states
based on which molecule did the change thing. Most photons pass right
by, but when a crystal takes a direct hit of the threshold level it
cascades the phenomenon into other, crystal-linked molecules in a manner
that is very digital in effect.

Of course, a similar grain thing happens in the current CCD's.
Interestingly this digital grain phenomenon leads me to being able to
push-process some of the Sony-chip using 3.34 megapixel cameras to ISO's
of 800 and 1600 with relatively good results. Here's a grain-based
rescue from a 990:



Underexposed shot got you down? Times could be tougher. That top image
is the original purposely made at -2.3 EV in full manual mode.

-iNova
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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