35mm film vs digital? which has higher resolution?

[Billx08]

Yes, but for situations such as this even a relatively inexpensive film camera might not be the most cost effective.

How so? I bought a Pentax Optio for 50p last week loaded with a film and one process per year total cost £10 ish it would take 10 years to buy a cheap digicam at that rate.

Now you're true colors are shown. You're just going to argue endlessly, whether it requires specious arguments or not. Older digicams can also be bought for pennies on the dollar (or pound). I didn't realize though that there were also film Optios.

Disposable cameras might be better solution, and they come in both film and digital varieties!

Too expensive, for most a film dispoable is OK but a waste compared to a re-usable camera like the pentax with 28-80 zoom or her existing Sureshot which has a 35-70 zoom

Not at all. It depends on how many shots a person takes per year. You've been implying that your mother takes very few. Now you're talking about most people. I'll wouldn't be at all surprised if she cares little for 28-80mm or 35-70mm zoom lenses. You know her best but I don't get the sense that you're being straightforward in describing her camera usage.

Oops. I just realized that these shops that don't accept negative strips probably also don't accept CDs for making reprints, so it's a wash . . .

Not really I see her using £10 max per year of film and processing she already has a camera so why buy a disposable? What would the advantage be?

Get serious. Well, I'm probably asking for too much. You should have understood that what was meant was that it might have been better had she used a few disposable cameras rather than getting an F10 in the first place, not that any existing cameras should be scrapped, whether they're film or digital. I should have realized much earlier that you were one of the forum's film diehards that will forever stick up for film at all costs , in all senses of that word. Reply if you wish, as I assume that you must, but don't expect me to take your replies seriously anymore.

 

[Brunobl]

bill henry wrote:

Computers, monitor calibrators, inkjet printers . . . they are NOT requirements for shooting digital images.

They are if you want to see the stuff you supposedly took.

Not really.

You can get your memory card straight from the camera and have the desired photos printed at most any photo lab these days, many of which even have self-service kiosks that allow you to do it yourself.

And this is no far-fetched scenario just to prove a point, either. I actually see it as convenient option for trips, enabling you to print the best photos as you go, without the need to carry notebooks or display devices to see or show them.

Saying that you need computers, monitor calibrators and inkjet printers to see your photos is akin to saying you need a home photo lab to see your film photographs. Neither is true.

--
Best regards,

Bruno Lobo.



http://www.pbase.com/brunobl

 

[Erik Magnuson]

My Lab does a 120 to 8x8" for £7,50 in 2 hours (optical prints) 35mm in 1 hr for £3.99

Labs that do optical printing are very rare these days outside of a few major markets.

Well that is true , yet it must be remembered that you can buy a full frame 35mm with resolution (with the right film) that is capable of matching a very expensive DSLR for £20.

The problem is getting the film processed/scanned/printed to match that resolution.

Seriously a 1970's Nikon with lens can be found for that sort of money and if you just shoot at holidays and birthdays etc it will give you better results than your iPhone for say £50 per year (so how many pics you take is crucial).

If you are just shooting holidays and birthdays etc, then you probably need convenience more than ability to make large prints. For snapshot and web display, the iPhone will do better in the hands of most users (there is a reason 70's Nikons are so cheap - even in the 70's most preferred something smaller and easier to use hence the development of 80's and 90's Nikons that add AE/AF/auto advance, etc.)

Another reason for shooting film is you like the aesthetic, gritty grain– wide DR B&W the unique and difficult to replicate Velvia colour palette.

You can create a large variety of color palettes with digital. Why do you need to match Velvia's limitations except name recognition and snob appeal?

--
Erik

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Too many variables and the only one that really counts is the "personal one"
[...]
That film is very good at resolving very fine details.

Exactly. And one of the variables is the definition of "resolution". Film has higher extinction resolution (e.g. can resolve some differences but at very low contrast) while digital has much higher acuity where it does resolve (of course Foveon has the highest acuity of all -- which puzzles me when people claim it's "film like.")

There is no obvious 35mm film = (xyx resolution)

Exactly. And film advocates like to switch films in mid argument (e.g. talk about the detail grain of low ISO slide film but the DR of negative film.) Alas for 35mm users, it's less easy to switch rolls in mid-shoot than in mid-argument.

But both mediums are different.

Amen and viva la differance!

--
Erik

 

[RedFox88]

When you get film in a digital form it needs to be sharpened properly.

No amount of sharpening brings the Minolta 5400 sample up to the 7D's IQ. With the Imacon sample you can apply heavy sharpening and get comparable sharpness of high contrast details but with excessive noise.

But your globe example looks horrible - trust me. I took it into LR and made it look much better. And it needs to be sharpened and much contrast added. Your version made it look like mush. And film has grain, not noise.

Also applying proper contrast to the film example helps a bit in the perception. You're intentionally trying to make film look bad by showing and "over exposed" film scan against a good contrast digital shot.

I didn't produce the film sample. Les Sarile did ( http://www.fototime.com/inv/E0D372FC8001820 ). I don't think anyone would ever accuse him of trying to make film look bad.

But you passed it along in a comparison. You can make the viewer think anything you want if you skew the visuals enough.

There also seems to be a DOF or focus issue on the film example towards the upper left portion.

There are no DoF or focus issues. It's a flat map and Les shot it stopped down. The softness is the same across the frame and is what one would expect from desktop scanned 35mm color film displayed at this magnification.

Not to my eyes. I've scanned a lot of film and without DOF issues. Parts of that scan are in better focus than others.

So a film scan can look a lot better than you are depicting there.

These are actually relatively high quality film scan samples. They look poor because they are at high magnification against a digital sensor which can simply out perform them in terms of resolution (at normal detail contrast),

How can you say it's high quality when it's put next to a properly developed image that makes the scan look like crap?

 

[Erik Magnuson]

But your globe example looks horrible - trust me. I took it into LR and made it look much better. And it needs to be sharpened and much contrast added. Your version made it look like mush.

You should show us the "much better" version and describe the exact changes you made.

And film has grain, not noise.

Either way, it's an artifact of the process that limits resolution.

Not to my eyes. I've scanned a lot of film and without DOF issues. Parts of that scan are in better focus than others.

At this magnification, it may not be the scan. The film plane/flatness in the camera may be imperfect. They often are.

--
Erik

 

[RobertSigmund]

What I often ask myself: what is the technological potential of both media? Is there considerable progress to be expected or possible with film, maybe even quantum leaps? Or is only digital becoming better and better, until film is hopelessly behind?

 

[Erik Magnuson]

What I often ask myself: what is the technological potential of both media?

Hard to say. Film is still getting better (witness Ektar) However:

• the market for affordable scanners that can get the most from film is almost dead.

• the market for new 35mm system cameras is dead. Too many used ones flooding the market.

• the number of labs is steadily declining; I used to be able to get 2-hr E-6 but not for several years. Even the local Walmart has pulled the local film processing machines and just does prints.

The pace has really slowed.

--
Erik

 

[photog7320]

RedFox88 - if you can buy the map (it's cheap), shoot it, and produce better scan samples, by all means do so and document your work flow so that others may compare and learn. I will be happy to use better samples in future comparisons if you provide them. I'm sure Les will be happy to host them as well.

Until then I'm not going to continue to debate the point.

When you get film in a digital form it needs to be sharpened properly.

No amount of sharpening brings the Minolta 5400 sample up to the 7D's IQ. With the Imacon sample you can apply heavy sharpening and get comparable sharpness of high contrast details but with excessive noise.

But your globe example looks horrible - trust me. I took it into LR and made it look much better. And it needs to be sharpened and much contrast added. Your version made it look like mush. And film has grain, not noise.

Also applying proper contrast to the film example helps a bit in the perception. You're intentionally trying to make film look bad by showing and "over exposed" film scan against a good contrast digital shot.

I didn't produce the film sample. Les Sarile did ( http://www.fototime.com/inv/E0D372FC8001820 ). I don't think anyone would ever accuse him of trying to make film look bad.

But you passed it along in a comparison. You can make the viewer think anything you want if you skew the visuals enough.

There also seems to be a DOF or focus issue on the film example towards the upper left portion.

There are no DoF or focus issues. It's a flat map and Les shot it stopped down. The softness is the same across the frame and is what one would expect from desktop scanned 35mm color film displayed at this magnification.

Not to my eyes. I've scanned a lot of film and without DOF issues. Parts of that scan are in better focus than others.

So a film scan can look a lot better than you are depicting there.

These are actually relatively high quality film scan samples. They look poor because they are at high magnification against a digital sensor which can simply out perform them in terms of resolution (at normal detail contrast),

How can you say it's high quality when it's put next to a properly developed image that makes the scan look like crap?

 

[photog7320]

But that is the point, because at some lower magnification Les Sarile's Ektar sample won't look that much different from his Velvia sample. So you can't just point to another test and say "see, they're equal." At the very least we have to know the relative magnification, and we have to know how the test relates in terms of fine detail.

I disagree, if you compare 2 film samples shot at the SAME magnificaion side by side and one shows itself to be better than that test is valid- so we can see if Velvia nd Ektar are roughly equal then the maps should also look similar.

Basically you're claiming that if a 10x view looks equal between two films, on a test which is less challenging, then a 100x view with a more challenging target which shows one film to be better must be invalid. This is incorrect, and it should be obvious why. (I just tossed those numbers out there as an example. They're not actual measurements of the samples provided.)

unless one test is borked?

You're free to submit your own samples if you think it's borked.

It may very well be that Sarile's Ektar sample is sub par for the film for some unknown reason. I'm willing to accept that if evidence is presented to that point.

Why does anyone need evidence from a silly map test?

Why should anyone believe you instead of their own eyes?

Yes but that indeed is my whole point, rather than counting line per mm why not you know actually use the films?

Why would you assume that I do not?

 

[photog7320]

That even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that Ektar can match the resolution of Velvia, that the Canon 7D would still out resolve it in 35mm at normal detail contrast levels.

So arguing about Ektar vs Velvia doesn't change much unless you can demonstrate that it in fact has much higher resolution than Velvia.

 

[photog7320]

135 Film (the genre) (still) out resolves all but two-three production DSLRs.

That's not true. Most color films cannot out resolve a 12 MP DSLR. It probably takes about a 15 or 16 MP DSLR to match Velvia on higher end scanners. But that still leaves more than 2 or 3 production DSLRs which can out resolve 35mm Velvia, and Velvia is not representative of 35mm color film in general. It's comfortably at the top of the heap in resolution and sharpness.

It is thus highly disingenuous to invidiously compare the output of a very few DSLRs ( which can perform up to film standards ) and thus assert that those paltry few DSLRs stand 100% for digital's so-called ability to sometimes make an equal showing against film; it's a lie: at least as of May-2010.

It's equally disingenuous to impart the resolution characteristics of a few films to film as a medium. Velvia resolves 80 lpmm and is the only color film I know of that is able to do this. The next best color films resolve around 60-65 lpmm. The next step down is in the 40-50 lpmm range. Most 35mm films are matched or out resolved by 10-12 MP sensors. Though one could make the point that any 35mm body can load and use Velvia or an 80-90 lpmm B&W film. (Note: most B&W films also do not reach these levels of performance, though some certainly do.)

Likewise DR is often brought up as a film advantage, and there are certainly films which have greater DR than digital sensors. But in color, wide latitude films also tend to be lower resolution films. (Ektar being a notable exception.) Yet you will often hear "film has more DR." No, not all film does, and you often have to make trade offs to get that DR. If you have one of the bodies that can out resolve Velvia, you also have a body that has much more DR than Velvia.

So it's not always as simple as "this medium has this" or "that medium has that."

 

[graybalanced]

Sorry, but you cannot compare scanned film to a digital image. For a fair comparrison, you must compare prints.

I strongly disagree with this. Paper and ink have so much less dynamic range and color range compared to both film and digital capture than when you are comparing prints, you are actually comparing print makers . Prints are always a certain slice of the original image, after heavy decisions have been made by the printmaker as to what to include in or exclude from the print.

Optical prints are often beautiful because film is matched to chemicals and paper, especially for color. That gives film a head start. For a fair comparison, you would at least want top-class digital processing to a profiled paper, and you could probably meet or beat the optical print then. Personally my switch to digital was in large part because I could control printing variables more precisely, and much faster, than in a darkroom, and proper color printing was much more practical in digital.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

My Lab does a 120 to 8x8" for £7,50 in 2 hours (optical prints) 35mm in 1 hr for £3.99

Labs that do optical printing are very rare these days outside of a few major markets.

Sure but I have a lab near me and I can develop my own B&w for pennies, my own use is all I care about.

Well that is true , yet it must be remembered that you can buy a full frame 35mm with resolution (with the right film) that is capable of matching a very expensive DSLR for £20.

The problem is getting the film processed/scanned/printed to match that resolution.

No Problem at all I can make prints pretty easily, not sure about others-I can do it.

Seriously a 1970's Nikon with lens can be found for that sort of money and if you just shoot at holidays and birthdays etc it will give you better results than your iPhone for say £50 per year (so how many pics you take is crucial).

If you are just shooting holidays and birthdays etc, then you probably need convenience more than ability to make large prints. For snapshot and web display, the iPhone will do better in the hands of most users (there is a reason 70's Nikons are so cheap - even in the 70's most preferred something smaller and easier to use hence the development of 80's and 90's Nikons that add AE/AF/auto advance, etc.)

You can get an F5 for £200 too, a Rollei 35 for £50 etc, these won't suit everyone and I personally rarely use 35mm I use a Rolleiflex and Mono film.

Another reason for shooting film is you like the aesthetic, gritty grain– wide DR B&W the unique and difficult to replicate Velvia colour palette.

You can create a large variety of color palettes with digital. Why do you need to match Velvia's limitations except name recognition and snob appeal?

Velvias limitations? I'd never thought of it like that Erik,. I'd look at it more like if you like it's unique colour balance then just use it, digital faux Velvia isn't very impressive. No snobbery just personal preference?

More often than not I hear digital can do anything film can, repeated as a Mantra and I think for some they may be satisfied with faux mono inkjets.

I shoot digital for 90% of my work but if I used it for B&W I'd just be kidding myself.

This is a personal thing but having been a handprinter for 18 years I've never found an inkjet print that can give the translucent blacks that a good paper like Foma Varient gives.

They can look good in their own right but the technologies are different, silver images come from under the surface and can look wonderful.

Inkjets have a very good D-Max but somehow lack something they look dull, the ink kind of sinks down into the paper and if you look at the best inks/Baryta vs a good silver paper there is no contest.

Of course I don't expect people here to agree, and in a way I'm glad they don't or even bother to compare, personally I love mono films and paper and will use them until they no longer become available

 

[Mark Smith145430]

That even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that Ektar can match the resolution of Velvia, that the Canon 7D would still out resolve it in 35mm at normal detail contrast levels.

Of course I'm not talking about the 7d I am comparing the films the digital is as good or better than 35mm depending on films (see my first post)

So arguing about Ektar vs Velvia doesn't change much unless you can demonstrate that it in fact has much higher resolution than Velvia.

I disagree, what I'm saying is I use both films I find Ektar to be a higher resolution film.

I don't go on what data sheets tell me, I can see it Ektar has a less obtrusive grain pattern which I find means that it can resolve detail better.

To the untrained eye Velvia looks sharper because of inherently higher contrast, but because of its dye tech (and the position in the stack of extension layers) often results in 'clumpy' blues.

The way to look is though a microscope or grain focus scope with the enlarger cranked up-Velvias grain structure is less fine than Ektar.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Basically you're claiming that if a 10x view looks equal between two films, on a test which is less challenging, then a 100x view with a more challenging target which shows one film to be better must be invalid. This is incorrect, and it should be obvious why. (I just tossed those numbers out there as an example. They're not actual measurements of the samples provided.)

No that's not what I'm saying AT ALL what I am saying is that if you test two emulsions with the same modus and get one result and then test the same emulsions with another modus and get opposite results then possibly those tests may not be empirical!

You're free to submit your own samples if you think it's borked.

Why? surely I can buy the material I like and find most acceptable for my own use?

What someone 8000 miles away finds is of no real interest (except for general reference) if it flies in the face of my experiences I don't feel the need to disprove them-I just get on and use what I know to work.
.

Why does anyone need evidence from a silly map test?

Why should anyone believe you instead of their own eyes?

EH? I'm not asking them to 'believe me' I'm asking them to look for themselves to ignore other peoples maps and use what they want-digital, film combinations whatever etc.

I think there is far to much p* ing match arguments of people trying to prove this or that, my point (in case you haven't got it yet) is not to believe anyone, not me not you, not Les just use the material you find suit your needs and stop obsessing like someone who needs 'confirmation' they are on the side of truth.

 

[RedFox88]

But your globe example looks horrible - trust me. I took it into LR and made it look much better. And it needs to be sharpened and much contrast added. Your version made it look like mush.

You should show us the "much better" version and describe the exact changes you made.

Just applying proper contrast and sharpening with LR. A low contrast image can be seen as being soft since contrast invokes a feeling of well defined edges. No it doesn't match the resolution of the 7D, but this looks a hell of a lot better than what was posted as film's representative

 

[lensman57]

But your globe example looks horrible - trust me. I took it into LR and made it look much better. And it needs to be sharpened and much contrast added. Your version made it look like mush.

You should show us the "much better" version and describe the exact changes you made.

Just applying proper contrast and sharpening with LR. A low contrast image can be seen as being soft since contrast invokes a feeling of well defined edges. No it doesn't match the resolution of the 7D, but this looks a hell of a lot better than what was posted as film's representative

Unfortunately in my experience the weakest link in the digital chain of film to print has always been the scanner. Even a decent scanner such as Nikon Coolscan is not free from leaving its signature on the final scan. In scanning very fine grain, ultra high resolution emulsions what is actually perscieved to be the grain is in fact mostly made up of the scanners electronic noise. It is very difficult IMHO to compare digital prints of film to DSLR using the hybrid methodes.

 

[ktownbill]

I thought I left film in the dust when I got my 40D and 7D cameras.

After reading all these posts about film I'm inclined to brush the dust off my 6x7mf camera. I was going to sell it thinking nobody would buy it.

My question is should I keep it and get some Velvia for it?

What's cool about shooting 6x7 is there is something like 40% more useable film for printing when compared to 6x6 when making rectangular prints. I expect to get some "your wrong" on that statement.
Bill

135 Film (the genre) (still) out resolves all but two-three production DSLRs.

That's not true. Most color films cannot out resolve a 12 MP DSLR. It probably takes about a 15 or 16 MP DSLR to match Velvia on higher end scanners. But that still leaves more than 2 or 3 production DSLRs which can out resolve 35mm Velvia, and Velvia is not representative of 35mm color film in general. It's comfortably at the top of the heap in resolution and sharpness.

It is thus highly disingenuous to invidiously compare the output of a very few DSLRs ( which can perform up to film standards ) and thus assert that those paltry few DSLRs stand 100% for digital's so-called ability to sometimes make an equal showing against film; it's a lie: at least as of May-2010.

It's equally disingenuous to impart the resolution characteristics of a few films to film as a medium. Velvia resolves 80 lpmm and is the only color film I know of that is able to do this. The next best color films resolve around 60-65 lpmm. The next step down is in the 40-50 lpmm range. Most 35mm films are matched or out resolved by 10-12 MP sensors. Though one could make the point that any 35mm body can load and use Velvia or an 80-90 lpmm B&W film. (Note: most B&W films also do not reach these levels of performance, though some certainly do.)

Likewise DR is often brought up as a film advantage, and there are certainly films which have greater DR than digital sensors. But in color, wide latitude films also tend to be lower resolution films. (Ektar being a notable exception.) Yet you will often hear "film has more DR." No, not all film does, and you often have to make trade offs to get that DR. If you have one of the bodies that can out resolve Velvia, you also have a body that has much more DR than Velvia.

So it's not always as simple as "this medium has this" or "that medium has that."

--
img7d

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Just applying proper contrast and sharpening with LR.

Your image shows less actual detail. Some of the details have been lost. For example, did you realize there is topo shading on this map?

but this looks a hell of a lot better than what was posted as film's representative

Only if you like obvious grain and don't like subtle shades.

--
Erik