When did digital surpass film in IQ?

[Saint 112]

Hi all

I recently had a conversation with people maintaining that film was still superior to digital.

IMHO, one may consider that each type of film, depending on the brand, had something special (a color cast, a grain, a dynamic range, etc.) and that some people may appreciate it for its effects. Yet all of them are some sort of artifact. No film was perfectly neutral.

Do you agree with me that digital IQ is nowadays vastly superior to film in resolution, WB, neutrality (little color cast if any), dynamic range, etc. If you agree at what period of time, roughly, did this happen?

Nick

 

[Lance B]

Hi all

I recently had a conversation with people maintaining that film was still superior to digital.

IMHO, one may consider that each type of film, depending on the brand, had something special (a color cast, a grain, a dynamic range, etc.) and that some people may appreciate it for its effects. Yet all of them are some sort of artifact. No film was perfectly neutral.

Do you agree with me that digital IQ is nowadays vastly superior to film in resolution, WB, neutrality (little color cast if any), dynamic range, etc. If you agree at what period of time, roughly, did this happen?

Nick

By most metrics, digital is superior to film. When this happened in the time scale of digital sensors I am not sure. However, film has certain qualities that do make it attractive in certain ways to some people. It's not always about resolution, WB, neutrality, noise and DR etc.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution. Except for extremely low ISO film, I suppose, and there are high-resolution digital scanning backs for large format.

Film and film cameras still have distinct properties and advantages, however.

 

[graybalanced]

The argument isn't even worth having unless it's said which digital and which film we are talking about.

Lots of famous movies were shot in 16mm or Super 35mm on fast film. It would be hard to prove that those fast, grainy stocks had "superior image quality." They might look retro and dirty in an endearing hipster kind of way, but they're not technically better than the amazing low light video coming out of current digital cameras.

But then you have a film like Baraka exposed with meticulous care on 65mm frames that was restored at nothing less than 8K digital scans to preserve all the quality of the film.

I've also heard it said that film has wide range than video, but that nothing beats video for going down into the shadow detail. Again, no clear win for either medium.

If the argument is that film "looks better" than digital then it's wandering into the realm of personal aesthetic preference, and that's not an area everyone will agree on either.

 

[Kung Fu]

Hi all

I recently had a conversation with people maintaining that film was still superior to digital.

IMHO, one may consider that each type of film, depending on the brand, had something special (a color cast, a grain, a dynamic range, etc.) and that some people may appreciate it for its effects. Yet all of them are some sort of artifact. No film was perfectly neutral.

Do you agree with me that digital IQ is nowadays vastly superior to film in resolution, WB, neutrality (little color cast if any), dynamic range, etc. If you agree at what period of time, roughly, did this happen?

Nick

Digital cameras certainly matured by 2005, with reliable metering, white balance, and jpeg rendering in the Canon 5D.

I think some people who prefer film are responding to the look of a "full frame" image and lenses, bokeh, dof, etc. It's not really fair to compare it to tiny digital formats.

I don't prefer one over the other, so film loses. It's just too much of a pain, too expensive, too time-consuming.


Kodak Portra 160, Canon FD 50/1.4

 

[Mark Blauhoefer]

35mm in a professional sense, has always been an odd one, because it was much smaller than the negative film that came before it (apart from Kodak Brownie film, which could have been used professionally if it was the effect you were after, but it was also mostly B&W). In the days of 8x10 glass plates the ISO was a standard 5!

Five whopping ISO if you can get your brain around it, on a negative as large as a standard print. No grain, the most natural HDR, perfectly exposed shadows.

Of course that was mostly B&W too.

--
Painting with light

 

[digidog]

When? How's this look, back in 1999!

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[The Davinator]

Depends upon the film and format. For 35mm, Ektar and Velvia top out around 18mp to 20mp. For b&w films like Adox 20 go beyond 30mp.

For medium format 6x7, fine grain b&w can exceed 80mp depending upon contrast. For color, around 35mp to 40mp tops.

For 4x5, there is no digital yet that can surpass the rez.

Dynamic range depends on film type as well. Most chromes are between 6 to 8 stops. Color neg materials average between 10 and 14 stops. B&w materials can exceed 16 to 18 stops depending upon film and developing method.

 

[digidog]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution.

4x5 film vs. a Betterlight scanning back circa 1999 (page 35):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[The Davinator]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution.

4x5 film vs. a Betterlight scanning back circa 1999 (page 35):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

 

[digidog]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution.

4x5 film vs. a Betterlight scanning back circa 1999 (page 35):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

 

[The Davinator]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution.

4x5 film vs. a Betterlight scanning back circa 1999 (page 35):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Even medium format exceeds the current IQ180 at 80mp. The 1999 Betterlight was what, 48mp? Not even a contest.

The proof is in the output. It's far more than just the number of MPs! Not all are created equally.

Sure even the IQ180 loses to MF. 4x5 trounces it.

This is of course comparing absolute rez. In real world situations, I find 4x5 to hold its own out to 60 to 70mp.

Got samples of the two to show us (and if so, film scanned with what?).

Tango Hell and Scitex. Digital lost. But like I said, under normal contrast shooting, the results are far closer. But it is a mistake to claim digital beat film in this case....digital still falls behind now, let alone 1999

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[digidog]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution.

4x5 film vs. a Betterlight scanning back circa 1999 (page 35):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Even medium format exceeds the current IQ180 at 80mp. The 1999 Betterlight was what, 48mp? Not even a contest.

The proof is in the output. It's far more than just the number of MPs! Not all are created equally.

Sure even the IQ180 loses to MF. 4x5 trounces it.

This is of course comparing absolute rez. In real world situations, I find 4x5 to hold its own out to 60 to 70mp.

Got samples of the two to show us (and if so, film scanned with what?).

Tango Hell and Scitex. Digital lost. But like I said, under normal contrast shooting, the results are far closer. But it is a mistake to claim digital beat film in this case....digital still falls behind now, let alone 1999

Well I at least your testing methodology seems sound. On the Tango, was the film oil/gel mounted?

My scanner was a mere ScanMate 5000 and yes, gel mounted in the examples I provided.

Another example, real world image:

To me, Film loses.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog

Home

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution.

4x5 film vs. a Betterlight scanning back circa 1999 (page 35):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Even medium format exceeds the current IQ180 at 80mp. The 1999 Betterlight was what, 48mp? Not even a contest.

The proof is in the output. It's far more than just the number of MPs! Not all are created equally.

Sure even the IQ180 loses to MF. 4x5 trounces it.

This is of course comparing absolute rez. In real world situations, I find 4x5 to hold its own out to 60 to 70mp.

Got samples of the two to show us (and if so, film scanned with what?).

Tango Hell and Scitex. Digital lost. But like I said, under normal contrast shooting, the results are far closer. But it is a mistake to claim digital beat film in this case....digital still falls behind now, let alone 1999

Well I at least your testing methodology seems sound. On the Tango, was the film oil/gel mounted?

My scanner was a mere ScanMate 5000 and yes, gel mounted in the examples I provided.

Another example, real world image:

To me, Film loses.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Dave has been trotting out those phony chart pics for years now, provided by a lab which wants to sell you a drum scan. He doesn't believe in film grain.

 

[digidog]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution.

4x5 film vs. a Betterlight scanning back circa 1999 (page 35):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Even medium format exceeds the current IQ180 at 80mp. The 1999 Betterlight was what, 48mp? Not even a contest.

The proof is in the output. It's far more than just the number of MPs! Not all are created equally.

Sure even the IQ180 loses to MF. 4x5 trounces it.

This is of course comparing absolute rez. In real world situations, I find 4x5 to hold its own out to 60 to 70mp.

Got samples of the two to show us (and if so, film scanned with what?).

Tango Hell and Scitex. Digital lost. But like I said, under normal contrast shooting, the results are far closer. But it is a mistake to claim digital beat film in this case....digital still falls behind now, let alone 1999

Well I at least your testing methodology seems sound. On the Tango, was the film oil/gel mounted?

My scanner was a mere ScanMate 5000 and yes, gel mounted in the examples I provided.

Another example, real world image:

To me, Film loses.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Dave has been trotting out those phony chart pics for years now, provided by a lab which wants to sell you a drum scan. He doesn't believe in film grain.

Well this is the first I've seen them so I'll plead ignorance. What I can say, despite what (is it Dave?) shows, my results above indicate to me, with real images, the film isn't even close to the same image quality as these 15+ year old cameras. I agree, it would be useful to see something other than the examples (Dave?) provided that appears like an image we'd actually produce, as I tried to do. Line Pair's like those shown above do provide some useful data. But if (Dave?) and provide actual examples of something a photographer would capture, he should show us!

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog

Home

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution.

4x5 film vs. a Betterlight scanning back circa 1999 (page 35):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Even medium format exceeds the current IQ180 at 80mp. The 1999 Betterlight was what, 48mp? Not even a contest.

The proof is in the output. It's far more than just the number of MPs! Not all are created equally.

Sure even the IQ180 loses to MF. 4x5 trounces it.

This is of course comparing absolute rez. In real world situations, I find 4x5 to hold its own out to 60 to 70mp.

Got samples of the two to show us (and if so, film scanned with what?).

Tango Hell and Scitex. Digital lost. But like I said, under normal contrast shooting, the results are far closer. But it is a mistake to claim digital beat film in this case....digital still falls behind now, let alone 1999

Well I at least your testing methodology seems sound. On the Tango, was the film oil/gel mounted?

My scanner was a mere ScanMate 5000 and yes, gel mounted in the examples I provided.

Another example, real world image:

That will never happen, trust me.

 

[The Davinator]

Reilly is a stalker of mine. Notice how he magically appears in these threads after I do.

Here is a link to this "fake" test. Tim actaully has run through the testing method numerous times for people kind enough to ask. It gets tiring whenever proof is offered to just have some ignoramus chime in with the mindless "fake" comments that it's all a lie....while not seeming to be able to find fault.

The test is proof simple...digital lost....no matter how much trolls like Reilly kick and scream every time they appear to prove he is wrong.

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

The discussion is over...the test proves the final result. He can feel free to share tests showing someone only ran a 10 minute mile...so anyone showing a four minute mile is a liar.

 

[digidog]

Large format film still beats digital in terms of resolution, but usually, when we consider equal areas of film and sensor, digital often has superior resolution.

4x5 film vs. a Betterlight scanning back circa 1999 (page 35):

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Even medium format exceeds the current IQ180 at 80mp. The 1999 Betterlight was what, 48mp? Not even a contest.

The proof is in the output. It's far more than just the number of MPs! Not all are created equally.

Sure even the IQ180 loses to MF. 4x5 trounces it.

This is of course comparing absolute rez. In real world situations, I find 4x5 to hold its own out to 60 to 70mp.

Got samples of the two to show us (and if so, film scanned with what?).

Tango Hell and Scitex. Digital lost. But like I said, under normal contrast shooting, the results are far closer. But it is a mistake to claim digital beat film in this case....digital still falls behind now, let alone 1999

Well I at least your testing methodology seems sound. On the Tango, was the film oil/gel mounted?

My scanner was a mere ScanMate 5000 and yes, gel mounted in the examples I provided.

Another example, real world image:

But if (Dave?) and provide actual examples of something a photographer would capture, he should show us!

That will never happen, trust me.

Trust but verify.

So Dave, let's see some other examples of actual images as I've shown.

Reilly (and I too) are kind of calling you out for additional proof of concept.

OK, Reilly; he's been put on notice. As I said, I've got no history with Dave or these examples but I agree, we need more data!

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[digidog]

Reilly is a stalker of mine. Notice how he magically appears in these threads after I do.

I've got no dog in that fight.

Do you have other examples, actual images as I've shown?

Here is a link to this "fake" test. Tim actaully has run through the testing method numerous times for people kind enough to ask. It gets tiring whenever proof is offered to just have some ignoramus chime in with the mindless "fake" comments that it's all a lie....while not seeming to be able to find fault.

The test is proof simple...digital lost....no matter how much trolls like Reilly kick and scream every time they appear to prove he is wrong.

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

The discussion is over...the test proves the final result.

I don't think it does. I have to wonder about the OP.

He can feel free to share tests showing someone only ran a 10 minute mile...so anyone showing a four minute mile is a liar.

I'm not going there. However, I've shown some real world examples of 16+ year old technology and to my eye, film loses big time. Do you disagree with either the examples provided or the testing methodology? Does the film in any of the examples APPEAR to have a higher IQ? Have you done your own testing?

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[The Davinator]

Reilly is a stalker of mine. Notice how he magically appears in these threads after I do.

I've got no dog in that fight.

I know Rodney...just gets tiring whenever proof is offered, to be called a liar....but when he shows a horrible scan in an attempt to debate, one better not question him.

Do you have other examples, actual images as I've shown?

He mentions the test method on his site. I dont really need other images. That is kind of like asking again and again for more proof once amverified test has been completed. Like I said, I'm done with this. The test shows the rez...done by a working pro who knows how to handle film, digital, and scanning...not some forum webexpert like Reilly.

Here is a link to this "fake" test. Tim actaully has run through the testing method numerous times for people kind enough to ask. It gets tiring whenever proof is offered to just have some ignoramus chime in with the mindless "fake" comments that it's all a lie....while not seeming to be able to find fault.

The test is proof simple...digital lost....no matter how much trolls like Reilly kick and scream every time they appear to prove he is wrong.

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

The discussion is over...the test proves the final result.

I don't think it does.

He can feel free to share tests showing someone only ran a 10 minute mile...so anyone showing a four minute mile is a liar.

I'm not going there. However, I've shown some real world examples of 16+ year old technology and to my eye, film loses big time. Do you disagree with either the examples or testing methodology?

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net