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

 

[Jack Dumbbell]

They look about the same, save for one area: why does the digital version show false color over the radiator? Is only digital susceptible to such artifacting?

 

[digidog]

It would be useful to know about the scanner; it plays a HUGE role.

All I know is that it's a Noritsu. All the processing and scanning was done by The Darkroom.

Nothing special. Ideally, you'd use a very high quality PMT drum scanner for this kind of comparison. And run by someone who knows how to make good scans!

 

[D Cox]

Ilford PanF 50:

What size film, and how was it scanned ?

35mm, Canon flatbed.

Thanks. My feeling is that the scan doesn't do justice to the original film image.

"Scan" done with a camera. Film is Panatomic-X. I think this does show everything that is on the film. Digital is much better.

 

[D Cox]

It has not even come close to Kodachrome.

I get higher resolution and better colours from an APS-C digital camera than I ever did on 35mm Kodachrome.

The balance of tones from highlights to shadows may be better (or preferred) on film, but I find that is easily emulated with the Curves tool.

 

[D Cox]

Here's a simple comparison...

Kodak Portra 160

Sony Alpha A7

Let the pixel peeping commence!

Are you comparing 6x9 film with 35mm digital ?

The colour moire on the radiator is bad in the A7 example. However, not all digital cameras use Bayer sensors.

Otherwise, the two are very similar. I wonder what a 6x9cm digital camera would do ?

 

[D Cox]

They look about the same, save for one area: why does the digital version show false color over the radiator? Is only digital susceptible to such artifacting?

Yes, it's caused by the Bayer colour mosaic. You don't get this on film.

 

[Kung Fu]

Ilford PanF 50:

What size film, and how was it scanned ?

35mm, Canon flatbed.

Thanks. My feeling is that the scan doesn't do justice to the original film image.

I'm sure you're right. My scans were "good enough" (I aim high), and my point was more that when viewed on my phone, iPad, or hdtv, I don't think oh that's film! or oh that's digital! I don't zoom in to 100% ever, and I can enjoy either medium equally. It's just the delayed gratification and extra work of film that I didn't care for. Plus the rabbit hole of film scanning, as you pointed out.

 

[The Davinator]

They look about the same, save for one area: why does the digital version show false color over the radiator? Is only digital susceptible to such artifacting?

Yes, it's caused by the Bayer colour mosaic. You don't get this on film.

No, it is caused by lack of anti-aliasing filter.

 

[The Davinator]

It has not even come close to Kodachrome.

I get higher resolution and better colours from an APS-C digital camera than I ever did on 35mm Kodachrome.

The balance of tones from highlights to shadows may be better (or preferred) on film, but I find that is easily emulated with the Curves tool.

Kodachrome 64 was a fairly grainy. Modern films like Astia, Provia, Velvia, etc are much less grainy, and resolve quite well outwards of 18mp or so.

 

[tonybelding]

They look about the same, save for one area: why does the digital version show false color over the radiator? Is only digital susceptible to such artifacting?

Yes, it's caused by the Bayer colour mosaic. You don't get this on film.

No, it is caused by lack of anti-aliasing filter.

I believe the Sony A7 does have an anti-aliasing filter, although it may be a weak one.

I've seen false colors with other digital cameras going all the way back to my first Pentax K100D. It's rarely noticeable, yet under certain circumstances (as with that radiator) it can become a problem.

 

[The Davinator]

They look about the same, save for one area: why does the digital version show false color over the radiator? Is only digital susceptible to such artifacting?

Yes, it's caused by the Bayer colour mosaic. You don't get this on film.

No, it is caused by lack of anti-aliasing filter.

I believe the Sony A7 does have an anti-aliasing filter, although it may be a weak one.

I've seen false colors with other digital cameras going all the way back to my first Pentax K100D. It's rarely noticeable, yet under certain circumstances (as with that radiator) it can become a problem.

Yes..you are correct. It is the A7r that doesn't have the AA filter....which considering the 24mp of this sensor....is really poor moire.

 

[tonybelding]

Are you comparing 6x9 film with 35mm digital ?

The colour moire on the radiator is bad in the A7 example. However, not all digital cameras use Bayer sensors.

Otherwise, the two are very similar. I wonder what a 6x9cm digital camera would do ?

Yeah, I think 6x9 film and FF digital makes a fair comparison. I feel like FF more-or-less fills the role today that medium format film used to. Back in the film days, 35mm was always a compromise, and most pros shot medium format when circumstances allowed.

 

[lightandaprayer]

Comparing 35mm DSLR with film 2005 is a good answer. My D200 was plainly superior to my FM2n with Kodachrome 64 with the same lenses (55mm f2.8 Micro was my most used).

Colleagues with Canon of the same vintage also got much "better" prints than using film.

So the simple answer to when is "about 2005".

I know you can dissect this much more, but for the sort of camera most of us think of for the sort of output we go in for, looking at the whole image, 2005 remains, for me, a good answer.

--
Andrew Skinner

That's interesting. . . I switched to serious digital (other than a Nikon 8400 digicam) when the D80 came out. (My primary film camera was the FM2 and K64 my fave film. I shot a wide-range of slide, color neg and B&W film as a freelancer/contract photographer.) But I disliked the D80 and traded up to the D200 within a few months.

I knew nothing about res tests and the like; I just thought that the image quality had gotten to the point where it equaled or surpassed film for the kind of work I usually did at the time. (Digital camera prices had also dropped to the point where I could justify the expense.)

 

[kodakrome]

According to Canon, digital surpassed film in 2004.

 

[lightandaprayer]

Here's a simple comparison...

Kodak Portra 160

Sony Alpha A7

Let the pixel peeping commence!

Forget the freakin' pixels. . . That's a cool looking Power Wagon! What year is it? Where was the pic made?

 

[Jack Dumbbell]

They look about the same, save for one area: why does the digital version show false color over the radiator? Is only digital susceptible to such artifacting?

Yes, it's caused by the Bayer colour mosaic. You don't get this on film.

No, it is caused by lack of anti-aliasing filter.

Does the film camera have an anti-aliasing filter?

 

[brycesteiner]

They look about the same, save for one area: why does the digital version show false color over the radiator? Is only digital susceptible to such artifacting?

Yes, it's caused by the Bayer colour mosaic. You don't get this on film.

No, it is caused by lack of anti-aliasing filter.

Does the film camera have an anti-aliasing filter?

Film does not need an anti-aliasing filter. The light-sensitive grain is an irregular pattern in film, whereas a digital sensor is itself a pattern and it can get moire when it takes pictures of other patterns when they overlap.

 

[brycesteiner]

Here's a simple comparison...

Kodak Portra 160

Sony Alpha A7

Let the pixel peeping commence!

This was a very cool post with the pictures.

My take on this: I think the Sony was clearly sharper and to me it looks like it has a better dynamic range than the film. Did you use the same lens? If not, that may be the difference. It may also be what caused the Sony to have such awful moire in the grill. If it was the same lens then I wonder why the film wasn't as sharp. If different lens, I wonder if that would have taken care of the moire on the Sony even if it doesn't have the AA filter.

--
Make it a Great day!

 

[Jack Dumbbell]

They look about the same, save for one area: why does the digital version show false color over the radiator? Is only digital susceptible to such artifacting?

Yes, it's caused by the Bayer colour mosaic. You don't get this on film.

No, it is caused by lack of anti-aliasing filter.

Does the film camera have an anti-aliasing filter?

Film does not need an anti-aliasing filter. The light-sensitive grain is an irregular pattern in film, whereas a digital sensor is itself a pattern and it can get moire when it takes pictures of other patterns when they overlap.

 

[lightandaprayer]

Does the film camera have an anti-aliasing filter?

Nope. That's strictly a digital camera technology.

Anti-Aliasing Filter/Wikipedia