Any sites which show comparisons between film and digital?

I'd imagine there must be...

Got in a conversation with a friend over whether either truly
outshines the other, and I asked if he had taken any identical shots,
one film, the other digital. While he had returned to a location some
time later, the lighting and time of day was completely different
(probably time of year, too), and I got to wondering if there's
objective comparison shots posted somewhere of the the identical photo
through different mediums...

In article , Beefy LaSleep
wrote:

I'd imagine there must be...

Got in a conversation with a friend over whether either truly
outshines the other, and I asked if he had taken any identical shots,
one film, the other digital. While he had returned to a location some
time later, the lighting and time of day was completely different
(probably time of year, too), and I got to wondering if there's
objective comparison shots posted somewhere of the the identical photo
through different mediums...

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...Digital%20Shoo
tout%20(Hasselblad,%2035mm,%20Canon%205D).htm

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor2.htm

Beefy LaSleep wrote,on my timestamp of 19/02/2009 4:51 PM:
I'd imagine there must be...



Ignore crap sites made 10 years ago, never updated, with deficient technique and
crap scanners, with film images taken on substandard film.

Here is what modern film can do(follow links):
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/
and here is what digital and modern film can look like, in comparison(follow links):
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/

This is what a Canon 5d2, one of the latest dslrs, can do at its best, at full
size magnification:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/.../5d2%20cap.jpg
while modern film scanned properly, at exactly the same magnification and
resolution, has this level of detail:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...20-%20crop.jpg

Nuff said.

I made a small test some years ago (Velvia against a 8 MP DSLR).
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/velvia_and_dslr

Both images was taken within a couple of minutes from each other but light
can change fast in Skotland.

It seems I can still resolve more details on 35mm Velvia / Provia than my 12
MP DSLR but
colors are more precise on DSLR and images are more "clean". But if you like
grain structure in
your prints then a 24x36 frame scanned at 4000 dpi using a good scanner can
produce very
good looking A3 / A3+ prints. Down to pure resolution 35mm Velvia / Provia
is still better than a 12MP DSLR.
If you use some of the special high res. B/W film resolution can be a lot
better. You may need 100MP or more to
beat it.

Max

"Beefy LaSleep" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I'd imagine there must be...

Got in a conversation with a friend over whether either truly
outshines the other, and I asked if he had taken any identical shots,
one film, the other digital. While he had returned to a location some
time later, the lighting and time of day was completely different
(probably time of year, too), and I got to wondering if there's
objective comparison shots posted somewhere of the the identical photo
through different mediums...

That Rich wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:00:07 +0100, "Max Perl"
wrote:

I made a small test some years ago (Velvia against a 8 MP DSLR).
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/velvia_and_dslr


It's amazing how much more pleasing the velvia shot looks compared to
the digital.
In the crop of the building, the roof shingles have almost no detail
in the digital shot.

Thanks for posting Max.

The noise in the scan gives the roof more apparent detail, [in addition
to there most likely being more detail in the original.]

However, way too many variables to knight this as proof of anything,
chief among them different lighting/tod, lens, and a large amount of NR
applied to digital image.

--
John McWilliams

"That Rich" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:00:07 +0100, "Max Perl"
wrote:

I made a small test some years ago (Velvia against a 8 MP DSLR).
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/velvia_and_dslr


It's amazing how much more pleasing the velvia shot looks compared to
the digital.
In the crop of the building, the roof shingles have almost no detail
in the digital shot.

Thanks for posting Max.

RP©

The choice of film gives you something while in digital you have to do the
work during
the RAW conversion / Photoshop. I still like film very much. But it requires
more to get
a techinical very good film image than a digital image. More can go wrong
with film. E.g.
exposure, film flatness, development etc. But sometimes you get surprised
how good a
24x36 image can be if everything is perfect.

Max

"John McWilliams" skrev i en meddelelse
...
That Rich wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:00:07 +0100, "Max Perl"
wrote:

I made a small test some years ago (Velvia against a 8 MP DSLR).
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/velvia_and_dslr


It's amazing how much more pleasing the velvia shot looks compared to
the digital.
In the crop of the building, the roof shingles have almost no detail
in the digital shot.

Thanks for posting Max.

The noise in the scan gives the roof more apparent detail, [in addition to
there most likely being more detail in the original.]

However, way too many variables to knight this as proof of anything, chief
among them different lighting/tod, lens, and a large amount of NR applied
to digital image.

--
John McWilliams

It is difficult to do these tests. I have seen tests where a 3-4 MP camera
(think
is was a Nikon D1) showed that it could resolve more details than 24x36
Velvia.
So tests can be done in many ways. This shows how difficult it can be. I
think
everybody should do their own tests and see what they like best. If no
scanner
is available the film can be watched using a good loupe or microscope.
Sometimes
I can't see all the details using a x15 loupe. But this is only the very
best of my
Velvia or Provia shots or if I used a high res B/W film.

I never do any NR to my scanned film as I think it destroys the very even
"grain noise".
Also very small details are hidden in these grains :-) ....for normal
printing sizes these very small
details may not be important.

Max

Max Perl wrote:
I made a small test some years ago (Velvia against a 8 MP DSLR).
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/velvia_and_dslr

Both images was taken within a couple of minutes from each other but light
can change fast in Skotland.

It seems I can still resolve more details on 35mm Velvia / Provia than my 12
MP DSLR but
colors are more precise on DSLR and images are more "clean". But if you like
grain structure in
your prints then a 24x36 frame scanned at 4000 dpi using a good scanner can
produce very
good looking A3 / A3+ prints. Down to pure resolution 35mm Velvia / Provia
is still better than a 12MP DSLR.
If you use some of the special high res. B/W film resolution can be a lot
better. You may need 100MP or more to
beat it.

That comparison cannot be accepted as scientifically valid. There is no
supporting information, like tripod or no tripod, was there a wind
blowing to micro-tremble the tripod if used? If hand-held, all bets are
off.

Aperture used for each shot?

Auto or manual focus - if auto, all bets are off. If manual, was a
magnifier used on the VF? If not, how accurate was focus?

Different lenses - a 50mm 1.8 Nikkor prime known to be very sharp vs
Canon zoom.

Was mirror lock-up used?

There are probably other points, but those are more than enough to
invalidate the test.

Note that I am careful not to lean one way or the other here. I am
simply pointing out the test is not reliable.

Colin D.

Beefy LaSleep wrote:
I'd imagine there must be...

Got in a conversation with a friend over whether either truly
outshines the other, and I asked if he had taken any identical shots,
one film, the other digital. While he had returned to a location some
time later, the lighting and time of day was completely different
(probably time of year, too), and I got to wondering if there's
objective comparison shots posted somewhere of the the identical photo
through different mediums...

I suppose I could drop some film in the Maxxum 9 and use the 135 f/1.8
CZ on both the Max9 and the Sony a900 in the exact same conditions and
see what's what. With respect to grain, noise and resolution I do
expect the a900 to blow the film out of the water.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Colin.D" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Max Perl wrote:
I made a small test some years ago (Velvia against a 8 MP DSLR).
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/velvia_and_dslr

Both images was taken within a couple of minutes from each other but
light
can change fast in Skotland.

It seems I can still resolve more details on 35mm Velvia / Provia than my
12 MP DSLR but
colors are more precise on DSLR and images are more "clean". But if you
like grain structure in
your prints then a 24x36 frame scanned at 4000 dpi using a good scanner
can produce very
good looking A3 / A3+ prints. Down to pure resolution 35mm Velvia /
Provia is still better than a 12MP DSLR.
If you use some of the special high res. B/W film resolution can be a lot
better. You may need 100MP or more to
beat it.

That comparison cannot be accepted as scientifically valid. There is no
supporting information, like tripod or no tripod, was there a wind blowing
to micro-tremble the tripod if used? If hand-held, all bets are off.

Aperture used for each shot?

Auto or manual focus - if auto, all bets are off. If manual, was a
magnifier used on the VF? If not, how accurate was focus?

Different lenses - a 50mm 1.8 Nikkor prime known to be very sharp vs Canon
zoom.

Was mirror lock-up used?

There are probably other points, but those are more than enough to
invalidate the test.

Note that I am careful not to lean one way or the other here. I am simply
pointing out the test is not reliable.

Colin D.

The test is far from scientifically.....I agree on that. But for me the test
was
informative. Some comments are written to the images in Pbase. There are
exif information to the digital image. When the images was shot it was not
the intention to perform a test. It was something that happens afterwards.

Both images are shot using tripod. I used the self-timer on the FE2 to pre-
fire the mirror. The 50/1.8 was set at 5.6 as far as I remember. Think the
Canon zoom should be able to outresolve the 8MP sensor and it is my
impression that not much more details could be pulled out with a better
lens.....faster shutter speed and a more optimal apperture (exif says f16
and 1/30 sec.).
I will guess that auto-focus was used here (not me that took the image).
I used a medium size carbon Gitzo and the Canon used a heavy sized Gitzo
(studio) carbon
tripod. To my eye the digital image looks sharp. One of the digital crops is
upsampled so it can
better be compared and this will always cause the image to look a bit
softer.
There is always wind in Skotland......but wind was very light. Think it can
be seen from
the water.

Comparing my 12MP D2x with film I find that e.g. 35mm Velvia still can show
more
details. But it has to be slow films. E.g. an ISO 800 Fuji against a D3
would be another
storie.


Max