Camera Shake .

[bjs1]

just trying to figure out how a person could compare film to
digital for resolution.

Another completely different approach is to read the manufacturers technical data sheets for their film. Resolution for my favorites are:

Negative film:
Fuji Reala = > 140 lp/mm (ie 280 pixels/mm)
Kodak Supra 100 = 200 lp/mm (ie 400 pixels/mm)

Slide film:
Fuji Astia 100F = > 140 lp/mm (ie 280 pixels/mm)
Fuji Provia 100F = 140 lp/mm (ie 280 pixels/mm)
Fuji Velvia 50 = 160 lp/mm (ie 320 pixels/mm)

B&W film:
Tech Pan 25 = 320 lp/mm (ie 640 pixels/mm)
T-Max 100 = 200 lp/mm (ie 400 pixels/mm)

Compare this with the 300D's resolution of about 65lp/mm (130pixels/mm)

Based on this film would appear to stomp on the 300D. But in practice it isn't that noticeable since film resolution is highly dependant on contrast. Film resolution on low contrast details tends to be much closer to the 300D. Also note the resolution of the black and white films. Several times the 300D!

Oh well, probably more than you ever wanted to know...

 

[Daniella68313]

As for your example, I'm afraid I can't tell what you are trying to
do. Film is hardly being taxed at all to make a 4x6 inch print.

just trying to figure out how a person could compare film to
digital for resolution.

As I mentioned, the best way for the amater is to look at the film
with a microscope. Then compare it to the digital version
displayed at 100%. The one that shows more detail wins.

have you tried? you are more likely to see the structure of the print itself with a microscope rather than the image itself.

how about this? you scan the slide film on very high quality
professional scanner and print both film and didigal at 16 x 20
with the Lighjet 5000 process? would that be a fair comparison?

This approach is more indirect with more variables but can work if
done correctly.

Not so easy to get a good "professional scan" since most labs use
equipment that significantly limits film (people don't know/care).

The best film will take more than a 16x20 print before it runs out
of resolution. But if you aren't interested in the actual limits
and only want to see which is better the 300D will have run out of
steam by then so 16x20 is fine.

And then you have to deal with the fact the print with more
contrast at any given frequency but lower resolution looks better
than the print with less contrast at the same frequencies but
higher resolution. Also the print with less noise/grain will
look better too. So you have to be sure to look at ONLY the
resolution factor.

And you can't just take any old picture. To reach the limits of
film resolution you have to pay attention to the technical side.
Film is capable of such high resolution that good tripod, cable
release, mirror lockup, proper lens, proper aperture etc all have
to be right or they become limiting factors. Also your subject has
to have the detail to start with something many people just assume
is true. The choice of film matters too. High speed consumer color
film is several times worse than low speed black and white film for
example. Most people's results on film are limited by their
technique and not the film. That's probably even true of digital.

The pitfalls are many. That's why so many people produce
unreliable results.

Having said all that, I take a completely different approach. The
question of resolution is relatively uninteresting. What prints
better is a combination of many factors. So I print my best film
images at 13x19 and my best 300D images at the same size. I like
my 300D results better. So the 300D wins!

(Even though the 300D technically has less resolution).

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

 

[Forrest41926]

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

They say a tripod is your sharpest lens, and they're mostly right. A flash does close to the same thing, if you use it properly. No matter what else, one of these options is your best bet.

But if you won't, technique can go a long way. Lean against a wall, and pin your elbows to your chest. Even rest them against the wall, too. Get yourself as steady as possible, so there's less shake.

Use Av mode, instead of P. Open your lens to it's widest aperture ( to get a faster shutter speed ), or at least the widest you're comfortable with. Along the same lines, set your film speed to at least ISO 800 for indoors and low-lighting. Get the shutter speed up as high as possible. Ideally double your ( real ) shutter speed, but you don't have to . If need be, use RAW mode and underexpose a little to get a faster exposure.

Zoom out as much as you possibly can. This will make things smaller in the frame, and hide your camera shake. It really works wonders.

Finally, overshoot. If you like the scene you're shooting, go ahead and shoot five pictures. It's digital. Pick out the best one, and use it.

Here's an interior, at 15 mm, f/3.5 ( wide-open ) and a whopping 1/13th sec, ISO 800, which I shot hand-held, bracing myself against the wall:



It's definately not the best my camera or lens is capable of, but it's also more than sharp enough for a good 8x10.

 

[Forrest41926]

how much shutter speed do you gain by using 1.8 instead of lets say
5.6?

5.6 down to 1.8 is 3.5 stops. Each stop doubles the shutter speed.

So instead of shooting 30 @ 5.6 you can shoot 320 @ 1.8. A
significant difference.

Yup. On the other hand, the 50=80 is a bit longer than the 18-55=29-90 ... so you need faster shutter speeds. But it gives you a lot more than it takes back away.

The lens takes in so much more light that you can even stop it down, instead of having to shoot wide-open, and get a sharper picture because of a faster exposure and less shake, and a sharper picture because the lens is closer to it's sweet spot.

The 50 mm primes are fantastic lenses.

 

[Daniella68313]

interesting, thanks for posting this. Amazing that the black and white film is so high res.

I wonder about the infrared film...any idea?

just trying to figure out how a person could compare film to
digital for resolution.

Another completely different approach is to read the manufacturers
technical data sheets for their film. Resolution for my favorites
are:

Negative film:
Fuji Reala = > 140 lp/mm (ie 280 pixels/mm)
Kodak Supra 100 = 200 lp/mm (ie 400 pixels/mm)

Slide film:
Fuji Astia 100F = > 140 lp/mm (ie 280 pixels/mm)
Fuji Provia 100F = 140 lp/mm (ie 280 pixels/mm)
Fuji Velvia 50 = 160 lp/mm (ie 320 pixels/mm)

B&W film:
Tech Pan 25 = 320 lp/mm (ie 640 pixels/mm)
T-Max 100 = 200 lp/mm (ie 400 pixels/mm)

Compare this with the 300D's resolution of about 65lp/mm
(130pixels/mm)

Based on this film would appear to stomp on the 300D. But in
practice it isn't that noticeable since film resolution is highly
dependant on contrast. Film resolution on low contrast details
tends to be much closer to the 300D. Also note the resolution of
the black and white films. Several times the 300D!

Oh well, probably more than you ever wanted to know...

--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918

 

[fotochop]

good suggestions there about shake, but what I'd like to know is how you did the frame. photoshop? something else?

I like the frame (apart from the overdone shadows), and would like to make something similar. One thing however, that I would do differently to yours is the inner most shadow. Yours has a very big shadow between the image and first yellow matte. Apart from intruding on the image, the shadow is too soft because it suggests that the matte is 'floating' at quite a distance above the "print". Maybe this is intended?

Anyway, thanks, you've given me the idea to have a go at making a realistic frame in photoshop.

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

They say a tripod is your sharpest lens, and they're mostly right.
A flash does close to the same thing, if you use it properly. No
matter what else, one of these options is your best bet.

But if you won't, technique can go a long way. Lean against a
wall, and pin your elbows to your chest. Even rest them against
the wall, too. Get yourself as steady as possible, so there's less
shake.

Use Av mode, instead of P. Open your lens to it's widest aperture
( to get a faster shutter speed ), or at least the widest you're
comfortable with. Along the same lines, set your film speed to at
least ISO 800 for indoors and low-lighting. Get the shutter speed
up as high as possible. Ideally double your ( real ) shutter
speed, but you don't have to . If need be, use RAW mode and
underexpose a little to get a faster exposure.

Zoom out as much as you possibly can. This will make things
smaller in the frame, and hide your camera shake. It really works
wonders.

Finally, overshoot. If you like the scene you're shooting, go
ahead and shoot five pictures. It's digital. Pick out the best
one, and use it.

Here's an interior, at 15 mm, f/3.5 ( wide-open ) and a whopping
1/13th sec, ISO 800, which I shot hand-held, bracing myself against
the wall:



It's definately not the best my camera or lens is capable of, but
it's also more than sharp enough for a good 8x10.

--
'°¤¸,ø¤°'°ø,¸

 

[tom kern155840]

thank you.

thomas

 

[bill greene]

good advice

 

[Mark Marshall]

There are several free PS actions for this. Email me rhodeymark at cox dot net and I'll send you a few. ~ m²

I like the frame (apart from the overdone shadows), and would like
to make something similar. One thing however, that I would do
differently to yours is the inner most shadow. Yours has a very big
shadow between the image and first yellow matte. Apart from
intruding on the image, the shadow is too soft because it suggests
that the matte is 'floating' at quite a distance above the "print".
Maybe this is intended?

Anyway, thanks, you've given me the idea to have a go at making a
realistic frame in photoshop.

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

They say a tripod is your sharpest lens, and they're mostly right.
A flash does close to the same thing, if you use it properly. No
matter what else, one of these options is your best bet.

But if you won't, technique can go a long way. Lean against a
wall, and pin your elbows to your chest. Even rest them against
the wall, too. Get yourself as steady as possible, so there's less
shake.

Use Av mode, instead of P. Open your lens to it's widest aperture
( to get a faster shutter speed ), or at least the widest you're
comfortable with. Along the same lines, set your film speed to at
least ISO 800 for indoors and low-lighting. Get the shutter speed
up as high as possible. Ideally double your ( real ) shutter
speed, but you don't have to . If need be, use RAW mode and
underexpose a little to get a faster exposure.

Zoom out as much as you possibly can. This will make things
smaller in the frame, and hide your camera shake. It really works
wonders.

Finally, overshoot. If you like the scene you're shooting, go
ahead and shoot five pictures. It's digital. Pick out the best
one, and use it.

Here's an interior, at 15 mm, f/3.5 ( wide-open ) and a whopping
1/13th sec, ISO 800, which I shot hand-held, bracing myself against
the wall:



It's definately not the best my camera or lens is capable of, but
it's also more than sharp enough for a good 8x10.

--
'°¤¸,ø¤°'°ø,¸

--

'Brothers and sisters, we've learned that there's some bad bokeh going around out there. So like, just be careful man, alright?' (If Wavy Gravy emceed PMA) http://rhodeymark.instantlogic.com

 

[milehog]

That's interesting. When you show your photos to friends and family, do you say "Just a minute, I'll get the microscope out and you can really enjoy this picture" A little bit of reality please!

I'm curious too how you compare film "directly," without printing.
With a loupe & light-table?

That's the idea, but a loupe doesn't have enough magnification.
Use a microscope.

Good point there. But I think it's counter-balanced by the fact
that you use a shorter-focal-length lens to compensate for the crop
factor.

Hmmm, good point too. I've never tested this so have no direct
results to prove or disprove our theories.

 

[bjs1]

have you tried? you are more likely to see the structure of the
print itself with a microscope rather than the image itself.

See my earlier posts...done it many times...or I wouldn't be posting about it. And as I said earlier a 30x microscope works fine. Also not sure why you refer to the "print"...I'm talking about looking at the film.

 

[bjs1]

I wonder about the infrared film...any idea?

I've never used infrared film so I don't know. But most manufacturers provide technical data sheets for their films (you may have to search for them) and may list that info.

 

[bjs1]

That's interesting. When you show your photos to friends and
family, do you say "Just a minute, I'll get the microscope out and
you can really enjoy this picture" A little bit of reality please!

It's called education and general knowledge my friend. You may take pride in ignorance but I don't find it a virtue.

 

[jvkvijay]

Harry,

I was looking at the pictures in the LCD on the 300D and I tries taking photos in all speeds. From 100 to 1600 .. I used to use 200 speed films on my rebelG.

So my comparision was with that.

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

This is a common complaint.

I have two theories for it. One is that people are comparing their
4x6 prints from film to full-screen enlargements with digital,
effectively looking closer at their digital pictures. The other is
that people are accustomed to using ASA400 speed film, but are
using their digital cameras set to ASA100.
-harry

 

[Dick Campbell19]

I have contemplated using the RC-1 remote release even when hand holding the camera. It does seem to be dificult to hold the camera still while pressing the release button although I doubt that this is a specific 300D problem.

**** Campbell

Hi Everyone,
I recently graduated from a Rebelg to a 300D and have been shooting
lot of indoor pictures ( unfortunately it has been raining since
then to shoot outdoor pictures). While taking pictures with my
300D, what I observed was that while shooting pictures in low
light, with out the flash and with out a tripod, I find it really
tough to get the photo with out any shake. I took similar shots
with my rebelg and felt it was much easier to take such shots. I am
using similar settings.
On my rebelg, I was using the lens that comes with the camera, 200
speed film and in the "P" mode. On my 300D, I am using the "P" mode
and I tried various ISOs and the lens that came with the camera.

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

thank you
Vijay

--
**** Campbell

 

[xvrbx]

Standard 35mm film: 24x36 mm
Translated to inches: 0.94x1.72 in

Imagine that you scan a 24x36 mm negative. With a real 1200 dpi scanner (not interpolated) you will get a pixel resolution of 1700x1133 (far less than EOS 300D 3072x2048).

With a real 2400 dpi scanner you'll get 2268x3401 (a bit better, but not a lot than 2048x3072).

And now, about the original question to this post:

I'd need to know more information about how did you detect that the digital photos were more "soft". Here are some posible explanations:

• Maybe you are comparing 4x6" prints with a zoomed photo of your digital photos. Try to print the digital ones in 4x6" and compare both printed results.

Regards,
xvrbx

 

[Alexey]

Hi Everyone,
I recently graduated from a Rebelg to a 300D and have been shooting
lot of indoor pictures ( unfortunately it has been raining since
then to shoot outdoor pictures). While taking pictures with my
300D, what I observed was that while shooting pictures in low
light, with out the flash and with out a tripod, I find it really
tough to get the photo with out any shake. I took similar shots
with my rebelg and felt it was much easier to take such shots. I am
using similar settings.
On my rebelg, I was using the lens that comes with the camera, 200
speed film and in the "P" mode. On my 300D, I am using the "P" mode
and I tried various ISOs and the lens that came with the camera.

Have anyone else experienced this ? or is it just me with an
unstable hand.

thank you
Vijay

Try one of the IS lenses. I think you will be blown away by the results you get. I have great very sharp hand-held shots with over 1 second exposure! And that happens more than 40% of the time! I now just cannot shoot with any other lens.