Reading mode: Light Dark

ds vs drum scan film pictures & digital backs

Go to last post
S

steve wilkes

Leading Member
Messages
676
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
I am very close to purchasing a 1Ds but am satisfying myself of several things before purchase !!!! I did a bit of research on 1Ds vs digital backs, and came across this 'test' which I thought showed that another £15,000 on top of a 1Ds for a back is'nt going to get £15,000 more resolution and tones etc. http://www.ampimage.com/H20%20image/Test003.html

My real question is though has anyone compared the results of a 1Ds to a 35mm/MF drum scan/print. I have come across a fair few 'tests' of the 1Ds against film scans done on 'home' scanners but none against a drum scan. I have seen criticism from film users that therefore these tests are flawed. Yeah maybe but who has a drum scanner next to their PC ? Anyway any comments appreciated....
thnx

--
Steve
If I was a horse they'd shoot me......
10D/RIP Minolta/ETRSI/5X4 & kodak Instamatic.
Some sarcasim included, may need assembly.
 
2 things to consider. Firstly, assuming your working with the camera to produce the best quality image it is capable of, you will have no grain. However good the film is, it will always have grain, and the bigger it gets, the more noticeable it is.

Secondly, a digital camera image is first generation, where as a scan is second generation so something however small will be lost.

I use a 1Ds with a Cambo Ultima and Schneider digitar lenses. The difference between this setup and MF backs in the real world (ie. not test subjects at 300%) is negligable IMHO.
--
Richard Gosler
 
nothing you can see in 35mm
MF "might" be slightly better at print sizes ABOVE 12x18

but seriously for 99% of print work the 1Ds is practicaly as good or in the case of 35mm better then scanned film.
steve wilkes said:
I am very close to purchasing a 1Ds but am satisfying myself of
several things before purchase !!!! I did a bit of research on 1Ds
vs digital backs, and came across this 'test' which I thought
showed that another £15,000 on top of a 1Ds for a back is'nt going
to get £15,000 more resolution and tones etc.
http://www.ampimage.com/H20%20image/Test003.html

My real question is though has anyone compared the results of a 1Ds
to a 35mm/MF drum scan/print. I have come across a fair few 'tests'
of the 1Ds against film scans done on 'home' scanners but none
against a drum scan. I have seen criticism from film users that
therefore these tests are flawed. Yeah maybe but who has a drum
scanner next to their PC ? Anyway any comments appreciated....
thnx

--
Steve
If I was a horse they'd shoot me......
10D/RIP Minolta/ETRSI/5X4 & kodak Instamatic.
Some sarcasim included, may need assembly.
Click to expand...
--
CPS # AUS02*
'Stop it now or you will go blind'
 
steve wilkes said:
I am very close to purchasing a 1Ds but am satisfying myself of
several things before purchase !!!! I did a bit of research on 1Ds
vs digital backs, and came across this 'test' which I thought
showed that another £15,000 on top of a 1Ds for a back is'nt going
to get £15,000 more resolution and tones etc.
http://www.ampimage.com/H20%20image/Test003.html

My real question is though has anyone compared the results of a 1Ds
to a 35mm/MF drum scan/print. I have come across a fair few 'tests'
of the 1Ds against film scans done on 'home' scanners but none
against a drum scan. I have seen criticism from film users that
therefore these tests are flawed. Yeah maybe but who has a drum
scanner next to their PC ? Anyway any comments appreciated....
Click to expand...
I think the question you should ask isnt about the resolution, but if the dynamic range and tonality matches MF-film.
--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
 
steve wilkes said:
I am very close to purchasing a 1Ds but am satisfying myself of
several things before purchase !!!! I did a bit of research on 1Ds
vs digital backs, and came across this 'test' which I thought
showed that another £15,000 on top of a 1Ds for a back is'nt going
to get £15,000 more resolution and tones etc.
http://www.ampimage.com/H20%20image/Test003.html
Click to expand...
That was about as bogus of a photo test as there gets. Why? A prime lens was used in comparison against a zoom lense. If you want validity in your question of quality, go with a prime against a prime. It does make a difference in the final image quality. The example test you listed was an invalid comparison.
steve wilkes said:
My real question is though has anyone compared the results of a 1Ds
to a 35mm/MF drum scan/print. I have come across a fair few 'tests'
of the 1Ds against film scans done on 'home' scanners but none
against a drum scan. I have seen criticism from film users that
therefore these tests are flawed. Yeah maybe but who has a drum
scanner next to their PC ? Anyway any comments appreciated....
thnx
Click to expand...
The tests have been done and the jury is not out on the issue. But the point about having a drum scanner and the cost per single image scan, should be your focus as if you don't plan on taking the time to run down and have images scanned, then why ask the hypothetical question?

Michael Richman of Luminous Landscape fame has done many expensive drum scanned comparisons and other then having larger files, there's not more usable info.

A quote below from an article by Michael on the 1Ds.

Of course there will now be a chorus of those who say, "Ya, but a drum scan would have really shown a bigger difference in favour of film." Humm. Maybe. But here are my thoughts on this recurring topic. I have had drum scans made from my 35mm and medium format film on several occasions. Yes, an 8000 ppi scan is impressive, and can make bigger prints. But, I'm also convinced that while they give me more pixels, I don't get a whole lot more real data. There simply isn't that much more information on film than about 4,000 PPI. Above that we get bigger files, but not much more information. Maybe, 20% more than the 3200 PPI scans that my Imacon Flextight Photo scanner is capable of, but not 2 or 3 times as some inexperienced people presume from the numbers. Also, such scans are huge, 500 or 600MB and almost impossible to work with. Oh yes, these scans cost hundreds of dollars each. How many of these are you going to make on a regular basis?

Link to the full article below.

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

Hopefully the above will help give you some insight and understanding to the issues that you asked about and some that you didn't:-)

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Thomas Gardner said:
steve wilkes said:
I am very close to purchasing a 1Ds but am satisfying myself of
several things before purchase !!!! I did a bit of research on 1Ds
vs digital backs, and came across this 'test' which I thought
showed that another £15,000 on top of a 1Ds for a back is'nt going
to get £15,000 more resolution and tones etc.
http://www.ampimage.com/H20%20image/Test003.html
Click to expand...
That was about as bogus of a photo test as there gets. Why? A
prime lens was used in comparison against a zoom lense. If you
want validity in your question of quality, go with a prime against
a prime. It does make a difference in the final image quality.
The example test you listed was an invalid comparison.
Click to expand...
Yes, its flawed but there is nothing else on this subject showing actual scans that I can find. As it was I felt there was not enough difference between the scans (not £15,000) in any case to start splitting hairs.....
Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:
My real question is though has anyone compared the results of a 1Ds
to a 35mm/MF drum scan/print. I have come across a fair few 'tests'
of the 1Ds against film scans done on 'home' scanners but none
against a drum scan. I have seen criticism from film users that
therefore these tests are flawed. Yeah maybe but who has a drum
scanner next to their PC ? Anyway any comments appreciated....
thnx
Click to expand...
The tests have been done and the jury is not out on the issue. But
the point about having a drum scanner and the cost per single image
scan, should be your focus as if you don't plan on taking the time
to run down and have images scanned, then why ask the hypothetical
question?
Click to expand...
Its not hypothetical, there will be times in the future I will need to provide something like a MF or even 5x4 neg for scanning this way. Not up to 100's of MB's though. My current thoughts are the 1Ds with a prime & with genuine fractals or similar may be able to produce something similar up to reasonable sizes. I am not however selling my MF/LF kit off yet.
Thomas Gardner said:
Michael Richman of Luminous Landscape fame has done many expensive
drum scanned comparisons and other then having larger files,
there's not more usable info.

A quote below from an article by Michael on the 1Ds.

Of course there will now be a chorus of those who say, "Ya, but a
drum scan would have really shown a bigger difference in favour of
film." Humm. Maybe. But here are my thoughts on this recurring
topic. I have had drum scans made from my 35mm and medium format
film on several occasions. Yes, an 8000 ppi scan is impressive, and
can make bigger prints. But, I'm also convinced that while they
give me more pixels, I don't get a whole lot more real data. There
simply isn't that much more information on film than about 4,000
PPI. Above that we get bigger files, but not much more information.
Maybe, 20% more than the 3200 PPI scans that my Imacon Flextight
Photo scanner is capable of, but not 2 or 3 times as some
inexperienced people presume from the numbers. Also, such scans are
huge, 500 or 600MB and almost impossible to work with. Oh yes,
these scans cost hundreds of dollars each. How many of these are
you going to make on a regular basis?

Link to the full article below.

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

Hopefully the above will help give you some insight and
understanding to the issues that you asked about and some that you
didn't:-)

Yes, thnx. Someone mentioned I should also consider dynamic range of digital also, I shoot in RAW so find If I need to I can do the shifts in photoshop to get the most out of each picture. I dont feel constrained by digital dynamic range. I understand the 1Ds is pretty respectable in the digital SLR world regarding this anyway.
--
Click to expand...
--
Steve
If I was a horse they'd shoot me......
10D/RIP Minolta/ETRSI/5X4 & kodak Instamatic.
Some sarcasim included, may need assembly.
 
steve wilkes said:
Its not hypothetical, there will be times in the future I will need
to provide something like a MF or even 5x4 neg for scanning this
way.
Click to expand...
You're comparing a 35mm size sensor to a 5X4 neg? I think you're expecting too much from the little digital sensor at this point:-) And as to MF and a 1Ds, again you're presenting a possible maybe, sometime in the future as opposed to daily use. Now if you want to go out and buy a MF system for some scanning, in the future, then go for it but it sounds very hypothetical at this time and point.
steve wilkes said:
Not up to 100's of MB's though. My current thoughts are the
1Ds with a prime & with genuine fractals or similar may be able to
produce something similar up to reasonable sizes. I am not however
selling my MF/LF kit off yet.
Click to expand...
Don't sell it off but based upon what I've read, you'd be in good company if you did:-)

Hope your decision is too agonizing of a process.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
As a professional commercial shooter of thirty nine years, I've shot well over a hundred thousand rolls of 2-1/4 chrome and probably that many sheets of 4x5 and 8x10 too (lost count years ago). Now I shoot 99.999% of my work with my 1D and 1Ds, L primes and zooms.

1) the test is really a joke. I own a 120 s-planar like used in the test and the 70-200 isn't as good, no question. The 120 s-planar is in many shooters view, the best of the Hasselblad / Rollei lenses. The 70-200 is fantastic but not as good as the s-planar. Stack the 120 up against the 85 f1.2 and you have a real comparison.

2) I've been shooting digital since the days of the Dicomed scanning back (139 meg files) and know transparency film better than the back of my hand. There is no question in my view that the 1Ds will beat the pants of 6x7 50 or 100 iso transparency film. Raw files, properly processed, give the ultimate in flexability and control. Up to some pretty big enlargements, the 1Ds is sharper, it has better tonality, and is equal or better dynamic range. All of this is dependent on using the finest glass, properly processed raw files and great technique. There's no room for slop in film or digital.

Virtually every chome that I've shot since drum scanners have existed have been scanned on either a Hell or Crossfield drum scanner. These are the finest machines in the industry and they will extract every last bit of information from your film. Still, I feel that the 1Ds is better than 6x7 transparency film and wouldn't trade my 1D/1Ds bodies and lenses for any film system today.
 
Thomas Gardner said:
steve wilkes said:
Its not hypothetical, there will be times in the future I will need
to provide something like a MF or even 5x4 neg for scanning this
way.
Click to expand...
You're comparing a 35mm size sensor to a 5X4 neg? I think you're
expecting too much from the little digital sensor at this point:-)
And as to MF and a 1Ds, again you're presenting a possible maybe,
sometime in the future as opposed to daily use. Now if you want to
go out and buy a MF system for some scanning, in the future, then
go for it but it sounds very hypothetical at this time and point.
Thomas Gardner said:
Not up to 100's of MB's though. My current thoughts are the
1Ds with a prime & with genuine fractals or similar may be able to
produce something similar up to reasonable sizes. I am not however
selling my MF/LF kit off yet.
Click to expand...
Don't sell it off but based upon what I've read, you'd be in good
company if you did:-)

Hope your decision is too agonizing of a process.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
Click to expand...
--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
The only way to find out is to try it yourself. I jotted down my own notes here: http://www.rockgarden.net/download/11MP_from_35mm/ but it's limited to my own types of uses and film preferences in 35mm. For other uses I prefer 6x7 (Mamiya 7II) or 4x5. It's to scan those that I have an Imacon to begin with. But it makes 6000 ppi scans from 35mm, and I wanted to know whether film scans would be competitive with the 1Ds; my conclusion is until the prices come down there's no point in buying a 1Ds. From scanning 6x7 and 4x5 it's pretty obvious the 1Ds is not a MF camera but strictly a high-quality 35mm SLR. You can get a lot more out of 35mm by scanning it and using tools like NeatImage than you could expect from wet prints, so in many ways the advantages are more related to the digital workflow and printmaking more than the source, as long as it's pro/prepress grade gear.

Keep in mind that a lot of people who replace 645 with digital 35mm think 11x17 is a big print...
 
As a medium format (Pentax 67) user for many years and thousands of transparencies later, I am very familiar with film. I shoot landscapes and I have 50 or so of my best transparencies drum scanned by a wonderful Pro lab here in Nashville (Chromatics). I have been using the 1Ds for about 8 months now and absolutely love the camera and the digital workflow! Although I have not done any testing to prove my point, I just don't see that the 1Ds files are near as good as a well scanned 6x7 transparency. When I look at foliage detail (especially distant) the 1Ds images just don't hold up. Again, I have not done any testing to prove my point.

I too, am of the opinion that the 1Ds files are more like high quality 35mm. So unless a person is needs a much more efficient workflow, I think that all the people trading their high quality medium format cameras in for1Ds's thinking that they are going to have the same quality output as their medium format cameras may be dissapointed.

J. Paul
DDP-YLS said:
As a professional commercial shooter of thirty nine years, I've
shot well over a hundred thousand rolls of 2-1/4 chrome and
probably that many sheets of 4x5 and 8x10 too (lost count years
ago). Now I shoot 99.999% of my work with my 1D and 1Ds, L primes
and zooms.

1) the test is really a joke. I own a 120 s-planar like used in the
test and the 70-200 isn't as good, no question. The 120 s-planar is
in many shooters view, the best of the Hasselblad / Rollei lenses.
The 70-200 is fantastic but not as good as the s-planar. Stack the
120 up against the 85 f1.2 and you have a real comparison.

2) I've been shooting digital since the days of the Dicomed
scanning back (139 meg files) and know transparency film better
than the back of my hand. There is no question in my view that the
1Ds will beat the pants of 6x7 50 or 100 iso transparency film. Raw
files, properly processed, give the ultimate in flexability and
control. Up to some pretty big enlargements, the 1Ds is sharper, it
has better tonality, and is equal or better dynamic range. All of
this is dependent on using the finest glass, properly processed raw
files and great technique. There's no room for slop in film or
digital.

Virtually every chome that I've shot since drum scanners have
existed have been scanned on either a Hell or Crossfield drum
scanner. These are the finest machines in the industry and they
will extract every last bit of information from your film. Still, I
feel that the 1Ds is better than 6x7 transparency film and wouldn't
trade my 1D/1Ds bodies and lenses for any film system today.
Click to expand...
 
J. Paul said:
near as good as a well scanned 6x7 transparency. When I look at
foliage detail (especially distant) the 1Ds images just don't hold
up. Again, I have not done any testing to prove my point.
Click to expand...
L.L. states in his test, and I agree in mine, that the 1Ds is roughly comparable to scanned 6x4.5. It's not 6x7. (After all, 6x7 is what, about 40% larger than 6x4.5?)

Maybe the next generation...
 
Everyone only seems to be concerned with resolving power of film vs digital. If you're only comparing lines per mm then 6x7 might win. Let's be real here, drum scanning film to 600 megs and removing grain with specialty software isn't very practical or very cheap. Now, when you look at the tonal response of film vs the ability to capture detail in shadows and highlights, then you start to see a difference. Digital capture is a linear process and film capture is not. If one looks at a graph of density of a film emulsion from dark to light vs the exposure, you will notice that in the shadow are highlight areas do not capture detail in a linear manner as do the mid tones. The graph will look like a soft S curve. Digital , on the other hand, is a much more linear capture where shadows and highlights capture as much detail as the mid tones. The final result here is the ability for digital to hold more detail in the fringe exposure areas of high and low aread. Photograph white tissue on white paper with flat light and see what I'm talking about. I've also noticed that the 1Ds can render detail in a black velvet jacket with the model wearing a white shirt in bright contrast daylight. Film won't do a very good job with the tissue on white or the black velvet and white shirt either. Acutance is another factor. Acutance is the ability for film to distictly define two black lines with white inbetween. Different films have different acutance properties. A film with low acutance will have a very fine gray border between black and white edges. Acutance is caused by light scattering in the emulsion much like flare in a lens. Low acutance causes the image to look less sharpe even though it might be resolving a high number of line pairs. I don't see this happening in digital capture like I do in film. Another important factor is the ability of film and digital to produce a photograph with smooth tonality. You might be able to get a sharp image from a 600 meg 35mm file but it wont have the same tonality or smooth rendering of tones as 8x10 will. Smaller film, even 2-1/4, doesn't seem to have that smooth glass like tonality that the 1Ds does.

The idea of scanning 35mm or any film to 600 megs and removing grain in specialty doftware reminds me of the technobabble when techpan B&W started being processed to contineous tone. Yes it has no grain and is sharp but it really isn't very good.
 
DDP-YLS - Thank you for an interesting discussion. You have introduced ideas I have not seen discussed previously in the film versus digital threads. Thanks for taking the time to raise this issue and educating individuals like myself who are less familiar with the chemical/physical properties of film emulsions and the pluses and minuses of different types of film. Stefan
DDP-YLS said:
Everyone only seems to be concerned with resolving power of film vs
digital. If you're only comparing lines per mm then 6x7 might win.
Let's be real here, drum scanning film to 600 megs and removing
grain with specialty software isn't very practical or very cheap.
Now, when you look at the tonal response of film vs the ability to
capture detail in shadows and highlights, then you start to see a
difference. Digital capture is a linear process and film capture is
not. If one looks at a graph of density of a film emulsion from
dark to light vs the exposure, you will notice that in the shadow
are highlight areas do not capture detail in a linear manner as do
the mid tones. The graph will look like a soft S curve. Digital ,
on the other hand, is a much more linear capture where shadows and
highlights capture as much detail as the mid tones. The final
result here is the ability for digital to hold more detail in the
fringe exposure areas of high and low aread. Photograph white
tissue on white paper with flat light and see what I'm talking
about. I've also noticed that the 1Ds can render detail in a black
velvet jacket with the model wearing a white shirt in bright
contrast daylight. Film won't do a very good job with the tissue on
white or the black velvet and white shirt either. Acutance is
another factor. Acutance is the ability for film to distictly
define two black lines with white inbetween. Different films have
different acutance properties. A film with low acutance will have a
very fine gray border between black and white edges. Acutance is
caused by light scattering in the emulsion much like flare in a
lens. Low acutance causes the image to look less sharpe even though
it might be resolving a high number of line pairs. I don't see this
happening in digital capture like I do in film. Another important
factor is the ability of film and digital to produce a photograph
with smooth tonality. You might be able to get a sharp image from a
600 meg 35mm file but it wont have the same tonality or smooth
rendering of tones as 8x10 will. Smaller film, even 2-1/4, doesn't
seem to have that smooth glass like tonality that the 1Ds does.

The idea of scanning 35mm or any film to 600 megs and removing
grain in specialty doftware reminds me of the technobabble when
techpan B&W started being processed to contineous tone. Yes it has
no grain and is sharp but it really isn't very good.
Click to expand...
 
Stefan:

Thanks for your kind remarks. For some reason, I never have seen these issues discussed when comparing digital vs film. All of these elements plus more contribute to what makes a pleasing image. Lines per mm and the number of pixels are not the whole story.
 
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