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

 

[The Davinator]

Some more test photos.



Digital compared to MF 6x7



Velvia 50 in MF 6x7







I have no issues with digital or film. I use digital in various formats, as I do with film from 110 through 4x5....and paper negs and Tin Types.

I use the tool that creates the look I want. Film is still a viable option and is used by many of us.

 

[The Davinator]

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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

MP3 triumphed over CD...with vastly imferior quality. McDonalds triumphs over high quality restaurants. Your point exactly?

 

[fishy wishy]

I remember my unpleasant surprise at seeing a scan of Kodak 800 C41 film in the early 2000s. It was so bad... I'm thinking iso 12800 of modern FF was as good or perhaps better than it, a difference of at least 4 stops. So, just how slow a film are we going to have to resort to in order to match up to digital in a comparison? You could try iso/asa 25 I suppose. But it's academic. Nobody wants to shoot at iso 25 nowadays.

 

[Fazal Majid]

Digital eclipsed 35mm film sometimes between the Canon D30 (late 2000, 3MP, better noise and color than film but slightly worse resolution) and the Canon D60 (early 2002, 6MP, clearly outclassing most 35mm film).

Medium format and large film still has an edge because of the cost of MF digital cameras (and the fact even the expensive ones have sensors smaller than 645 format).

 

[digidog]

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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

MP3 triumphed over CD...with vastly imferior quality. McDonalds triumphs over high quality restaurants. Your point exactly?

You're talking about a subjective quality of at the very least, hamburgers.

I believe his point was simply the fact shown in the graph; not a quality metric of the movie. Which like rating hamburgers, is subjective. Don't you think a similar graph would be shown for images captured on film vs. digital? Got nothing to do with the quality of the photography from either.

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

Home

 

[Jack Dumbbell]

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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

MP3 triumphed over CD...with vastly imferior quality. McDonalds triumphs over high quality restaurants. Your point exactly?

You're talking about a subjective quality of at the very least, hamburgers.

I believe his point was simply the fact shown in the graph; not a quality metric of the movie. Which like rating hamburgers, is subjective. Don't you think a similar graph would be shown for images captured on film vs. digital? Got nothing to do with the quality of the photography from either.

Yes, that's exactly right.

Although, when it comes to quality, can film shoot at 960fps or higher like some of the RED Epic cameras?

 

[Saint 112]

Thank you all for your very interesting input.

I should have have been more specific: comparing same size film and sensors, full frame for example.
Nick

 

[PerL]

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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

...Quentin Tarantinos latest and Star Wars Rouge One was shot on film.

 

[The Davinator]

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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

...Quentin Tarantinos latest and Star Wars Rouge One was shot on film.

Actually, I think the most recent Star Wars was digital based. The next installment however is indeed back to film. The look was different.

 

[DenWil]

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

MF67 film has not been surpassed in IQ but there are many functional and operational advantages to many digital formats which a vast majority of photographers are far more interested in than having access to than that bit of IQ and the look that comes with a larger film original through larger lenses.

Fact of the matter is younger folks likely have no working knowledge to take on film nor the time resources or interest to take a few (haha) years to master the medium.

Older people who may have worked in film 10 or 15 years ago have no interest in the pace or demands of wet. Mixing chemistry, processing, drying, cutting, scanning ... before they have a file to post to their grandkids. Not a chance.

Artisans, folks who have already successfully merged analog and digital methodologies, and pros who have a clientele who are on board with the inconveniences although when you are working 3 months ahead a few days more for film production is a non issue- are the only photographers that film is suited to now.

 

[PerL]

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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

...Quentin Tarantinos latest and Star Wars Rouge One was shot on film.

Actually, I think the most recent Star Wars was digital based. The next installment however is indeed back to film. The look was different.

Yes, the first of the recent series was film, next digital, and the coming will be film again.

 

[Peter Jonas]

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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

MP3 triumphed over CD...with vastly imferior quality. McDonalds triumphs over high quality restaurants. Your point exactly?

You're talking about a subjective quality of at the very least, hamburgers.

I believe his point was simply the fact shown in the graph; not a quality metric of the movie. Which like rating hamburgers, is subjective. Don't you think a similar graph would be shown for images captured on film vs. digital? Got nothing to do with the quality of the photography from either.

The subject of the OP's original post was the image quality of digital VS film. A graph showing the market share of those respective technologies, while interesting, has very little relevance to the original topic as it hardly has any correlation to their respective IQs.

And while the quality of food (or more specifically hamburgers) is subjective, the sound quality of CD and MP3 technologies can be measured and objectively quantified. It is objectively evident that the more prevalent technology produces a clearly inferior sound. Often, a new technology will be more popular than the old one because practical advantages are more important to their users than the lost quality.

Although, when it comes to quality, can film shoot at 960fps or higher like some of the RED Epic cameras?

RED Epic cameras can do amazing things. Yet, their ability to shoot at very high speeds has nothing to do with the quality of digital imaging.

--

Cheers,
Peter Jonas

 

[Kung Fu]

Ilford PanF 50:

What size film, and how was it scanned ?

35mm, Canon flatbed.

 

[Jack Dumbbell]

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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

MP3 triumphed over CD...with vastly imferior quality. McDonalds triumphs over high quality restaurants. Your point exactly?

You're talking about a subjective quality of at the very least, hamburgers.

I believe his point was simply the fact shown in the graph; not a quality metric of the movie. Which like rating hamburgers, is subjective. Don't you think a similar graph would be shown for images captured on film vs. digital? Got nothing to do with the quality of the photography from either.

The subject of the OP's original post was the image quality of digital VS film. A graph showing the market share of those respective technologies, while interesting, has very little relevance to the original topic as it hardly has any correlation to their respective IQs.

And while the quality of food (or more specifically hamburgers) is subjective, the sound quality of CD and MP3 technologies can be measured and objectively quantified. It is objectively evident that the more prevalent technology produces a clearly inferior sound. Often, a new technology will be more popular than the old one because practical advantages are more important to their users than the lost quality.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I know that sheer volume can't be used as a proxy for IQ.

Is digital becoming more popular in Hollywood because it is more convenient? Cheaper?

Or has it actually surpassed film in terms of quality or ability in some areas--like for instance, the ability to shoot at very high fps?

Can film video cameras shoot at 1000 fps? Is there an upper limit?

Although, when it comes to quality, can film shoot at 960fps or higher like some of the RED Epic cameras?

RED Epic cameras can do amazing things. Yet, their ability to shoot at very high speeds has nothing to do with the quality of digital imaging.

Is the Arri Alexa a film camera?

Is BlackMagic Design a film camera?

Along with red epics, thse most come to mind with high speeds.

--

Cheers,
Peter Jonas

 

[Axel114]

I understand the stated criteria, but for me it's kind of irrelevant because it's a little like asking when did a telephone/telegraph surpass riding a horse 30 miles to ask someone a question. The answer would be, as soon as I had access to one. The minute I no longer had to buy film and limit myself to a small number of exposures and travel/pay for processing for small prints, I was done with film.

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?

 

[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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

MP3 triumphed over CD...with vastly imferior quality. McDonalds triumphs over high quality restaurants. Your point exactly?

Poor McDonald's... used by every snobby elitist as an example of junk.

 

[Peter Jonas]

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

Many high profile film directors prefers film,

Truth be told, film has long since been subjugated by digital in Hollywood. But don't take my word for it:

MP3 triumphed over CD...with vastly imferior quality. McDonalds triumphs over high quality restaurants. Your point exactly?

You're talking about a subjective quality of at the very least, hamburgers.

I believe his point was simply the fact shown in the graph; not a quality metric of the movie. Which like rating hamburgers, is subjective. Don't you think a similar graph would be shown for images captured on film vs. digital? Got nothing to do with the quality of the photography from either.

The subject of the OP's original post was the image quality of digital VS film. A graph showing the market share of those respective technologies, while interesting, has very little relevance to the original topic as it hardly has any correlation to their respective IQs.

And while the quality of food (or more specifically hamburgers) is subjective, the sound quality of CD and MP3 technologies can be measured and objectively quantified. It is objectively evident that the more prevalent technology produces a clearly inferior sound. Often, a new technology will be more popular than the old one because practical advantages are more important to their users than the lost quality.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I know that sheer volume can't be used as a proxy for IQ.

Is digital becoming more popular in Hollywood because it is more convenient? Cheaper?

It could be both those reasons. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that in some aspects digital recording cannot yet produce the same results as film. There is desire amongst film makers (especially those who can afford it) to shoot movies on film again.

But just what aspect exactly that is, is difficult to define. It's often referred to as "the film look". This is extremely subjective and quite elisive, but it is obvious film can offer something digital cannot yet.

And that something (whatever that is), may not mean technical superiority, it may simply mean something that is more pleasant or desirable for the human senses' point of view.

In fact it may well be some of the film's imperfections that lend it a pleasant viewing experience. There a number of analogous situations where our senses find the presence imperfections more desirable. The likes of tube audio amplifiers, analogue records and their turntables, guitar amplifiers or in fact some camera lenses make themselves distinguished by their imperfections.

So to me, the discussion about the IQ of digital vs film is not a simple one. I do participate in discussions about it, but I do so in an attempt to shape my views on it rather than to push a preset agenda.

Or has it actually surpassed film in terms of quality or ability in some areas--like for instance, the ability to shoot at very high fps?

Digital has many advantages, and being able to record at high speeds is surely one of them.

Can film video cameras shoot at 1000 fps? Is there an upper limit?

There are limits of course. I think digital has already surpassed film in that respect, and time is also on digital's side.

But again, I do not believe speed is a relevant consideration when it comes to comparing image quality of digital vs film.

--

Cheers,
Peter Jonas

 

[SmilerGrogan]

Lenses are so much sharper than they were in film days so we need to retest with a Zeiss Otus in a Nikon F6 using whatever fine-grain film is available.

I've recently seen prints from the 1970s made with Vivian Maier's 6x6 film and it's pretty amazing.

Highlight rolloff is still better in film.... Digital pictures, the highlights hit a wall and just get ugly after that.

On the other hand, does anyone remember how to process, scan, and print film for highest resolution? Maybe that's a lost art.

 

[Miike Dougherty]

I was a happy Nikon F100 film shooter in 2003 until one day I picked up a D2H (4MP) in a local camera store and have never shot a single roll of film since then.

 

[Peter Jonas]

I was a happy Nikon F100 film shooter in 2003 until one day I picked up a D2H (4MP) in a local camera store and have never shot a single roll of film since then.

I also had the Nikon F100 until in Dec 2002 I changed over to a 5MP Minolta Dimage 7 Hi. I have never shot a single frame of film since either.

Image quality was what it was, but it has always been good enough. For me, from day 1 the the advantages of digital have always outweighed the disadvantages.

For the average user (amateur and professional) digital is a boon.

But it cannot be denied that for those, who want to, and do not mind to put in the (significant) effort, the time and resources film, especially medium and large format, do have their rewards.