Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?

In article ,
says...
A 6 Mpixel DSLR gives you very good pictures. They can compete
with 35 mm film pictures, using the best films.

Only in your dreams.

No, in reality. The quality of film and digital images can be measured
accurately using a variety of methods. 6 megapixels might not best film
in terms of resolution, but it certainly CAN compete at most print
sizes.

In article ,
says...
A 6 Mpixel DSLR gives you very good pictures. They can compete
with 35 mm film pictures, using the best films.

Only in your dreams.

No, in reality. The quality of film and digital images can be measured
accurately using a variety of methods. 6 megapixels might not best film
in terms of resolution, but it certainly CAN compete at most print
sizes.

Stephen H. Westin wrote:
Toralf writes:


Stephen H. Westin wrote:

"William Graham" writes:
snip

That means a 24 x 36 mm sensing plane would need about 12 megapixels to have
the same resolution as film. Digital cameras are not too far from that
now....Perhaps in another couple of years..........

Huh? The Kodak almost-14MP DCS Pro 14n shipped over a year ago. And
the DCS Pro SLR/n has replaced it, using an improved sensor.

I think he meant *affordable* cameras with that many pixels.


That's a problem. If you want a full 23x36mm sensor, it will be
expensive. Producing that size of chip is just plain expensive. Not
only do you not get many from each silicon wafer, but yield is low. A
Kodak guy said a few years back that the yield is on the order of one
over some power of the area, and the exponent was greater than 2. So a
chip twice as big will probably have a yield of less than a quarter
that of the smaller chip.
Well, that's the situation now, or was "a few years back", but will it
be like that forever?

Cutting-edge technology is *always* expensive, the primary reasons being
that:
- Production technology hasn't been optimised.
- The production is low-volume, which tends to costs more per unit than
high-volume.
- The producer want to cover the development costs.
- The market is willing to pay the higher price.

Fortunately, the price tends to drop quite rapidly.
I think that some years ago, you may have used arguments similar to the
ones you present above to explain why a 20Mhz CPU was so bloody expensive...


I've actually been thinking when that it's when we get there that
I'll buy a digital SLR.


Yeah, but with pros, the savings on film and processing can pay for a
good digital camera pretty quickly.


Also, *maybe* somewhere around that range the
"megapixel" race will slow down a bit, and perhaps then a new camera
won't be obsolete after about two months...

BTW. Do you know more about this sensor? It is full-frame, right? I'm
really interested in knowing if they have resolved the problems that
have lead to the use of smaller sensors so far.


The basic problem is cost. Kodak makes a 22MP CCD that's 38x50mm. It
just costs a lot, and requires a lot of power.

The Kodak full-frame cameras have been plagued with a sensitivity to
incident angle, but that seems to be corrected in firmware pretty well
these days.
Good.

I'm supposing that this correction has certain issues of it's own,
though - like noise considerations (if it's a simple amplification "near
the edges", you may find that the noise is more noticeable in those areas.)

They explicitly do *not* use microlenses; the thought is
that microlenses will aggravate any angle-of-incidence sensitivity.


These cameras actually don't use a Kodak sensor; instead, they buy
from a Belgian company called FillFactory. It's a CMOS sensor, but one
with tricks to increase the effective fill factor for less aliasing,
better sensitivity, etc. See http://www.fillfactory.com/ for more
about the company. They don't fabricate the chips. The first
generation was made in Israel (!), but now they come from the U.K.
Interesting. Thanks.


It uses

Nikon-mount lenses, and there is a Canon-mount sibling, the
SLR/c. Several people are using these in lieu of medium-format film
equipment, as they feel the image quality is better.
And medium-format backs reached 16MP some years ago; the best
current
single-shot backs have 22MP.

Oh, and I'm waiting for that that, too, on a 35mm-format camera (as
I've mentioned already),
or at least dreaming about it. A replaceable back, that is. Not
necessarily a system that
would allow you to switch between digital and film, but something that
would give you more flexibility in the sensor department somehow.


Ah, but the sensor needs electronics to keep up with it (data paths,
DSP, etc.)
Yep. But, like I was trying to say, I think those problems are
essentially the same as the ones that have been solved many times in
computer hardware etc.

So your replaceable back now costs far more than the body
it goes on.
Again, isn't that largely due to the low volume of the production and
the (lack of) age of the technology?

Not to mention the packaging and reliability challenges.
I think one great challenge would be the mechanical interface combined
with optical considerations. I mean, I assume you can't attach the
sensor just any old how, if you want to get correct focus etc. of the
images.

- T

Stephen H. Westin wrote:
Toralf writes:


Stephen H. Westin wrote:

"William Graham" writes:
snip

That means a 24 x 36 mm sensing plane would need about 12 megapixels to have
the same resolution as film. Digital cameras are not too far from that
now....Perhaps in another couple of years..........

Huh? The Kodak almost-14MP DCS Pro 14n shipped over a year ago. And
the DCS Pro SLR/n has replaced it, using an improved sensor.

I think he meant *affordable* cameras with that many pixels.


That's a problem. If you want a full 23x36mm sensor, it will be
expensive. Producing that size of chip is just plain expensive. Not
only do you not get many from each silicon wafer, but yield is low. A
Kodak guy said a few years back that the yield is on the order of one
over some power of the area, and the exponent was greater than 2. So a
chip twice as big will probably have a yield of less than a quarter
that of the smaller chip.
Well, that's the situation now, or was "a few years back", but will it
be like that forever?

Cutting-edge technology is *always* expensive, the primary reasons being
that:
- Production technology hasn't been optimised.
- The production is low-volume, which tends to costs more per unit than
high-volume.
- The producer want to cover the development costs.
- The market is willing to pay the higher price.

Fortunately, the price tends to drop quite rapidly.
I think that some years ago, you may have used arguments similar to the
ones you present above to explain why a 20Mhz CPU was so bloody expensive...


I've actually been thinking when that it's when we get there that
I'll buy a digital SLR.


Yeah, but with pros, the savings on film and processing can pay for a
good digital camera pretty quickly.


Also, *maybe* somewhere around that range the
"megapixel" race will slow down a bit, and perhaps then a new camera
won't be obsolete after about two months...

BTW. Do you know more about this sensor? It is full-frame, right? I'm
really interested in knowing if they have resolved the problems that
have lead to the use of smaller sensors so far.


The basic problem is cost. Kodak makes a 22MP CCD that's 38x50mm. It
just costs a lot, and requires a lot of power.

The Kodak full-frame cameras have been plagued with a sensitivity to
incident angle, but that seems to be corrected in firmware pretty well
these days.
Good.

I'm supposing that this correction has certain issues of it's own,
though - like noise considerations (if it's a simple amplification "near
the edges", you may find that the noise is more noticeable in those areas.)

They explicitly do *not* use microlenses; the thought is
that microlenses will aggravate any angle-of-incidence sensitivity.


These cameras actually don't use a Kodak sensor; instead, they buy
from a Belgian company called FillFactory. It's a CMOS sensor, but one
with tricks to increase the effective fill factor for less aliasing,
better sensitivity, etc. See http://www.fillfactory.com/ for more
about the company. They don't fabricate the chips. The first
generation was made in Israel (!), but now they come from the U.K.
Interesting. Thanks.


It uses

Nikon-mount lenses, and there is a Canon-mount sibling, the
SLR/c. Several people are using these in lieu of medium-format film
equipment, as they feel the image quality is better.
And medium-format backs reached 16MP some years ago; the best
current
single-shot backs have 22MP.

Oh, and I'm waiting for that that, too, on a 35mm-format camera (as
I've mentioned already),
or at least dreaming about it. A replaceable back, that is. Not
necessarily a system that
would allow you to switch between digital and film, but something that
would give you more flexibility in the sensor department somehow.


Ah, but the sensor needs electronics to keep up with it (data paths,
DSP, etc.)
Yep. But, like I was trying to say, I think those problems are
essentially the same as the ones that have been solved many times in
computer hardware etc.

So your replaceable back now costs far more than the body
it goes on.
Again, isn't that largely due to the low volume of the production and
the (lack of) age of the technology?

Not to mention the packaging and reliability challenges.
I think one great challenge would be the mechanical interface combined
with optical considerations. I mean, I assume you can't attach the
sensor just any old how, if you want to get correct focus etc. of the
images.

- T

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...
A 6 Mpixel DSLR gives you very good pictures. They can compete
with 35 mm film pictures, using the best films.

Only in your dreams.

No, in reality. The quality of film and digital images can be measured
accurately using a variety of methods. 6 megapixels might not best film
in terms of resolution, but it certainly CAN compete at most print
sizes.


Only at print sizes that are at the low end of the range achievable
with 35mm film. If all you aspire to is 4x6 inch prints, a 3MP
digital will do just fine, and 6MP is overkill.

Of course what you are saying is what I have always said: If your
standards are low enough, digital is more than competitive with film,
and most people's standards are very low.

But the best that can be achieved with 6MP digital (1.5MP red, 1.5MP
blue, 3.0MP green) falls massively short of what can easily be
achieved with 35mm film.

To believe otherwise is to dream.

Toralf wrote:

Well, that's the situation now, or was "a few years back", but will it
be like that forever?


We seem to be stuck firmly at 6MP.

Where are the consumer-grade 10MP DSLRs?
Which manufacturers are even planning them?

Toralf wrote:

Well, that's the situation now, or was "a few years back", but will it
be like that forever?


We seem to be stuck firmly at 6MP.

Where are the consumer-grade 10MP DSLRs?
Which manufacturers are even planning them?

Roland Karlsson wrote:
Toralf wrote in news:cdte92$4je
:


Quite possibly. The difficult bit if you want to assess this

technology,

is to sort out the real (good) experiences from all the hype...


A 6 Mpixel DSLR gives you very good pictures. They can compete
with 35 mm film pictures, using the best films. There are
some aspects where 35 mm film is better, but nothing all that
breathtaking. There are also some aspects where the digital image
is better.

Both are perfectly fine methods for making good pictures.

The greatest difference is that digital cameras improves the
usability very much. You can take lots of pictures almost for
free
Like I said elsewhere, I don't quite buy the "price" argument. Or, I
think it's valid to a certain degree, but lots of people seem to think
that digital cameras have *no* "film" cost, and that's definitely not
true. Assuming that you want to keep the pictures, there is definitely a
cost involved, i.e. the one associated with whatever medium you store
the images on.

If you store the pictures on CD-ROM, true, the cost is a lot lower than
film. The security is also lower, though, in the sense that the expected
life-time of a CD is actually much lower than for film negatives, as far
as I know. And transferring to CD costs a bit of time or money, but
that's perhaps analogous to the film development cost.

BTW. Has anyone yet made a CD/DVD writer or other storage unit that you
may connect directly to the camera, or alternatively insert the camera's
storage medium into? This would be more convenient than using the PC, in
my opinion.

Storing on tape is safer, but more expensive, and less practical.

Storing on the original microdrive/compact flash/SD is a lot more
expensive than film, I think, and I'm not sure much is known about the
security.

But of course, you can instantly review my pictures, and delete the
pictures you don't like - I think *that's* maybe the prime advantage.
I'm wondering if I'd save that much in real terms since I would probably
take more pictures if I knew I could just delete the ones I didn't like,
but perhaps you can say that you get better pictures for the same money
(because there is room for more trial and error.)

Also, I'm assuming that I'd store the full-size data, and not use JPEG
compression or anything, so RAW sizes or sizes would lossless
compression (I'm not entirely sure what current cameras have to offer in
that department) will have to be used when calculating storage costs.

and you have instant access to the result. You can choose
ISO sensitivity and you can do white balance.

Now - what is digital imaging lacking?

1. Really large sheet film can give you extreme resolutions.
At a cost, but at a reasonable cost in many cases.

2. The graininess of some film is very nice, in particular
for B&W film. You could simulate it of course, but starting
with a square grid you would lose lots of resolution.

3. Film can be exposed for very long times. The reciprocity failure
will decrease the sensitivity for long exposures though. But
a 4 hour long exposure can give nice effects that you cannot really
obtain with digital.

4. Negative film has a very large dynamic range. I don't think that
RAW mode is enough to match that range.

5. That fantastic feeling of handling film! Maybe it is just som old
stupid nostalgica.
Hmmm. I must say I sort of rediscovered film lately. I didn't say this
originally, but I haven't really taken pictures for years, but thought I
might start again. I wondered if I should use film or digital, but
decided to go for film for now, and investigate a bit further before I
get anything digital. Anyhow, I'm now thinking that I'm not sure I like
what I present as the prime advantage above. I've found that I actually
*like* the "magic" not knowing exactly how it turned out, before the
film is developed some time later. And there is also a certain charm in
keeping all the pictures - even the truly bad ones...

Also, I think I would add to the above that the total cost of ovnership
will still be higher for a digital cameras for "amateurs" like myself.
Yes, you'll save a bit on film, but I'm not sure I'll take enough
pictures to make up for the added cost of purchasing the camera, before
it's time to buy a new (in the digital world.) Part of the problem is
that digital cameras get obsolete more quickly. They of course don't get
less usable just because something better comes along, but they are in a
sense less open-ended than film cameras since you have to replace the
entire camera body in order to keep up with the technology; you can't
just buy a better film. Also, when you do replace the camera, whether
film or digital, you may be able to sell the film one, but the digital
will probably be worth nothing.

And of course, the shear investment cost *is* an issue, even if you
expect to make the money back in the long run.

Perhaps you could include:

6. Higher investment cost.
7. Obsolescence built in.


- T


/Roland

Roland Karlsson wrote:
Toralf wrote in news:cdte92$4je
:


Quite possibly. The difficult bit if you want to assess this

technology,

is to sort out the real (good) experiences from all the hype...


A 6 Mpixel DSLR gives you very good pictures. They can compete
with 35 mm film pictures, using the best films. There are
some aspects where 35 mm film is better, but nothing all that
breathtaking. There are also some aspects where the digital image
is better.

Both are perfectly fine methods for making good pictures.

The greatest difference is that digital cameras improves the
usability very much. You can take lots of pictures almost for
free
Like I said elsewhere, I don't quite buy the "price" argument. Or, I
think it's valid to a certain degree, but lots of people seem to think
that digital cameras have *no* "film" cost, and that's definitely not
true. Assuming that you want to keep the pictures, there is definitely a
cost involved, i.e. the one associated with whatever medium you store
the images on.

If you store the pictures on CD-ROM, true, the cost is a lot lower than
film. The security is also lower, though, in the sense that the expected
life-time of a CD is actually much lower than for film negatives, as far
as I know. And transferring to CD costs a bit of time or money, but
that's perhaps analogous to the film development cost.

BTW. Has anyone yet made a CD/DVD writer or other storage unit that you
may connect directly to the camera, or alternatively insert the camera's
storage medium into? This would be more convenient than using the PC, in
my opinion.

Storing on tape is safer, but more expensive, and less practical.

Storing on the original microdrive/compact flash/SD is a lot more
expensive than film, I think, and I'm not sure much is known about the
security.

But of course, you can instantly review my pictures, and delete the
pictures you don't like - I think *that's* maybe the prime advantage.
I'm wondering if I'd save that much in real terms since I would probably
take more pictures if I knew I could just delete the ones I didn't like,
but perhaps you can say that you get better pictures for the same money
(because there is room for more trial and error.)

Also, I'm assuming that I'd store the full-size data, and not use JPEG
compression or anything, so RAW sizes or sizes would lossless
compression (I'm not entirely sure what current cameras have to offer in
that department) will have to be used when calculating storage costs.

and you have instant access to the result. You can choose
ISO sensitivity and you can do white balance.

Now - what is digital imaging lacking?

1. Really large sheet film can give you extreme resolutions.
At a cost, but at a reasonable cost in many cases.

2. The graininess of some film is very nice, in particular
for B&W film. You could simulate it of course, but starting
with a square grid you would lose lots of resolution.

3. Film can be exposed for very long times. The reciprocity failure
will decrease the sensitivity for long exposures though. But
a 4 hour long exposure can give nice effects that you cannot really
obtain with digital.

4. Negative film has a very large dynamic range. I don't think that
RAW mode is enough to match that range.

5. That fantastic feeling of handling film! Maybe it is just som old
stupid nostalgica.
Hmmm. I must say I sort of rediscovered film lately. I didn't say this
originally, but I haven't really taken pictures for years, but thought I
might start again. I wondered if I should use film or digital, but
decided to go for film for now, and investigate a bit further before I
get anything digital. Anyhow, I'm now thinking that I'm not sure I like
what I present as the prime advantage above. I've found that I actually
*like* the "magic" not knowing exactly how it turned out, before the
film is developed some time later. And there is also a certain charm in
keeping all the pictures - even the truly bad ones...

Also, I think I would add to the above that the total cost of ovnership
will still be higher for a digital cameras for "amateurs" like myself.
Yes, you'll save a bit on film, but I'm not sure I'll take enough
pictures to make up for the added cost of purchasing the camera, before
it's time to buy a new (in the digital world.) Part of the problem is
that digital cameras get obsolete more quickly. They of course don't get
less usable just because something better comes along, but they are in a
sense less open-ended than film cameras since you have to replace the
entire camera body in order to keep up with the technology; you can't
just buy a better film. Also, when you do replace the camera, whether
film or digital, you may be able to sell the film one, but the digital
will probably be worth nothing.

And of course, the shear investment cost *is* an issue, even if you
expect to make the money back in the long run.

Perhaps you could include:

6. Higher investment cost.
7. Obsolescence built in.


- T


/Roland

In article ,
says...
But the best that can be achieved with 6MP digital (1.5MP red, 1.5MP
blue, 3.0MP green) falls massively short of what can easily be
achieved with 35mm film.

Oh, another one of you idiots.

To believe otherwise is to dream.

Enjoy your delusions.