Digital at what cost?

cookedraw said:

Reilly Diefenbach said:

cookedraw said:

It is strange. If you did shoot so much film you should know that film can be virtually grain free at low ISO .

Click to expand...

Show us one of your "grain free" film shots, by all means.

cookedraw said:

How large do you project the positives and how close do you view them ?

Click to expand...

Doesn't take much:


David Muench

Click to expand...

A 2MP digital image ?!

How large do you project your slides and what film do you use ?

You can't proove anything by posting a 2MP digital image . I guess you did not project positive film the last 20 years with the top of the range ISO100 or ISO50 film but it is just a guess. If you did you would know that it looks pretty fantastic.

--

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Click to expand...

I get grain free 40x50 from 4x5 Astia. He is clueless

Wrong. It isn't. Digital camera are low bit with Bayer interpolated color. A scanner is true color. Like I said, you are wrong.

cookedraw said:

Reilly Diefenbach said:

cookedraw said:

It is strange. If you did shoot so much film you should know that film can be virtually grain free at low ISO .

Click to expand...

Show us one of your "grain free" film shots, by all means.

cookedraw said:

How large do you project the positives and how close do you view them ?

Click to expand...

Doesn't take much:


David Muench

Click to expand...

A 2MP digital image ?!

How large do you project your slides and what film do you use ?

Click to expand...

I guess you missed the fact that I haven't shot film in quite a long time, and have no interest in digging through my boxes to prove my point :^)

cookedraw said:

You can't proove anything by posting a 2MP digital image .

Click to expand...

You can search high and low on the internet but most images, especially those taken with film are limited to 650-1000 long side, no doubt because of fear of "theft." If you can't see the heavy grain in the two shots I've uploaded already then you are in the wrong hobby altogether.

cookedraw said:

I guess you did not project positive film the last 20 years with the top of the range ISO100 or ISO50 film but it is just a guess. If you did you would know that it looks pretty fantastic.

Click to expand...

Again, put up or shut up. Show us all a couple of your immaculate film scans, full size. Note well, it should be without the aid of any noise reduction of the digital scan. I have no doubt you will refuse to do this.

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

You can't proove anything by posting a 2MP digital image . I guess you did not project positive film the last 20 years with the top of the range ISO100 or ISO50 film but it is just a guess. If you did you would know that it looks pretty fantastic.

--

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Click to expand...

I get grain free 40x50 from 4x5 Astia. He is clueless

Click to expand...

And you're gutless. Show us just one of these paragons, please. Full size. No noise reduction of the scan, please.

Ansel Adams couldn't get grain free with an 8X10 at ISO 100 direct to print, therefore we need not worry much about Dave with his little phantom 4X5.

The Davinator said:

Wrong. It isn't. Digital camera are low bit with Bayer interpolated color. A scanner is true color. Like I said, you are wrong.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on the type of scanner you are using.

Some scanners use a moving line of RGB scanning elements. As with a Bayer Patterns sensor, the three primary colors are sampled in different locations.

I hate to be Mr. Obvious, but having been doing photography at work and play during the film to digital move I can certainly attest to the fact that at the moment one switched over it was certainly more expensive; digital cameras were intially pretty pricey. And film and its processing still very common.

The BIG factor for me and my colleagues was time. Maybe hobbyists don't factor that in, but the ease of moving images to those who needed them alone, and quickly after they were generated, was huge.

And apparently most photographers agreed, which is why film died out. Doesn't the current situation rather speak for itself? even aside from the ubiquity of virtually free smartphone photos? And what about video? I don't think you should separate that out; it's a side benefit of most every digital camera. Got 8mm in that old Pentax?

I never talked about digital scans . Why do you talk about digital scans when you talk about image quality of analog film ?

Film is made for projection (negative for projection on paper) . It's not the simple way of pressing a button on the remote but anyone that say digital is far superior did not project slides the last 20 years . It can't be superior cause above that limit it is all subjective. Positive film is very good at ISO50-100 , accept it.

cookedraw said:

I never talked about digital scans . Why do you talk about digital scans when you talk about image quality of analog film ?

Click to expand...

A high res scan will give us a very good idea of what virtues or vices are in the source, as I'm sure you well know. Or should know.

We'll just wait right here for your example.

cookedraw said:

Film is made for projection (negative for projection on paper) . It's not the simple way of pressing a button on the remote but anyone that say digital is far superior did not project slides the last 20 years .

Click to expand...

Really? You dragged out the Kodak Carousel and the floppy old screen on the rickety stand?

cookedraw said:

It can't be superior cause above that limit it is all subjective. Positive film is very good at ISO50-100 , accept it.

Click to expand...

The only thing I accept is that film is a fun and completely harmless thing with which to play, providing a certain look and some possibly interesting if wildly incorrect colors. As a representation of reality (reality has no grain,) it falls well short of 24-54MP digital.

The Davinator said:

Wrong. It isn't. Digital camera are low bit with Bayer interpolated color. A scanner is true color. Like I said, you are wrong.

Click to expand...

Tim Parkin did a great test showing what can happen with Bayer vs film scan. But of course you must be right...even though tests like this, and the one I posted earlier in the thread show you are wrong.

Where did the red go? Lost to Bayer.

Reilly Diefenbach said:

Reilly Diefenbach said:

It can't be superior cause above that limit it is all subjective. Positive film is very good at ISO50-100 , accept it.

Click to expand...

The only thing I accept is that film is a fun and completely harmless thing with which to play, providing a certain look and some possibly interesting if wildly incorrect colors. As a representation of reality (reality has no grain,) it falls well short of 24-54MP digital.

Click to expand...

If you're talking 35mm, I'd say that digital can match and surpass most anything that I've seen at a much lower number of mp. I saw some 8 mp photos printed on 11" x 14" paper that were to my eyes at least as sharp as any print made from a 35mm negative that I've seen of that size.

I will also say that at least for me the idea of a "representation of reality" isn't the be all end all of photography and that film certainly does have it's own look and even when it's really grainy and lacking detail it can have a very worthwhile look. For that alone, I think that it's worth using, but I just don't see that smaller format film is really competitive with digital as far as IQ goes...

The scanning part is really key with analog, if you're converting to digital. The vast majority of film images that I see online are pretty muddy looking and look like they were shot with either a very old digital camera or a cell phone. It seems that if you really want to get the most out of the process you either need to spend a lot getting the negatives scanned or spend a lot on a very good scanner and then really learn how to use it...

cookedraw said:

Clearly the curve shows that Tarantino will make the jump . . .

Click to expand...

Did you somehow forgot to post the portion of the chart that shows Tarantino ...? If you did, I would appreciate if you could add that article. :-|

cookedraw said:

to ff and shoot everything at f1.2 and ISO one million year 2017.

Click to expand...

for FF and shoot at f/1.2 and . . . do you realized that you just contradicted your initial post? I do not know the type of camera the movie industry? Having watch several documentaries, those camera does not resemble any traditional DSLR FF.

Shall I take you went to Delphi and The ORACLE is your source for your 2017 prediction?;-)

cookedraw said:

The reason is cost and the image quality of film was never good anyway.

Click to expand...

I have no idea about the cost, however, IQ is debatable. Regardless of those two, this statement CONTRADICTED YOUR initial post.:-D