digital vs 35mm - status now

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Stirling wrote:

Agreed - with film, it's relatively easy to scale the image area you use
to
record the image to get better quality. A second hand 6*6 TLR (I have a
couple and use them quite a lot) with an old Tessar lens will produce
images
that contain vastly more detail than one of the 35mm-body DSLRs, and, of
course, there's always large format. Scaling silicon in the same way is
ludicrously expensive.


Actually the ability to easily stitch multiple digital images together
to make a larger, higher resolution image makes this a non issue in
most, though not all, cases.

Digital does provide a very useful mechanism for capturing the raw info
for
stitched panoramas, especially if you use a telephoto lens, or a fisheye
to
minimise/eliminate illumination differences where adjacent frames match
up,
due to the inevitable vignetting of a wide-angle rectiliear lens.

There is still an edge in resolution in
35mm vs digital, but apparently most people don't notice it for
much of their work.

With the 6/8 MP DSLRs, most seem to find this true only for slow slide
film,
assuming we're talking about real world images. You can show a much
bigger
gap with high contrast lens test targets, but film doesn't deliver the
same
sort of advantage for lower contrast real world images, wheras digital is
much closer to being limited by resolution, rather than contrast and
grain.

Actually there is good test data that indicate the high end DSLR's
(Canon 1DS and Kodak 14n/c) produce images of higher quality than ANY
35mm film and is pushing into medium format.

I specifically didn't mention those cameras, because other than for
laboratory test images, they pretty much urinate all over 35mm and are
indeed more usefully compared with 645 medium format in terms of overall
image quality. Of course, nothing affordable in digital even comes close
to
the 6*7 output from a Mamiya 7 when used with slow slide film.

I believe the current crop of 6MP and for sure 8MP DSLR's are equal
to or better than 35mm film.

Well, there are places where 35mm film still has advantages. To my eyes,
the
OP didn't really mention any of them - dynamic range, high ISO performance
and long exposure are areas where the current crop of DSLRs urinate all
over
35mm film. To my eyes, the main reasons to use 35mm over a DSLR at present
include:

- the ability to use a small, lightweight portable camera, such as a
rangefinder, that doesn't need batteries.

- Black and white, an area which digital has neglected.


Can't argue with much of what you said, but Canon has addressed the black
and white issue with the 20D. Black and white mode with "filters", red,
yellow, orange and green. I've gotten results very similar to Ilford XP-2,
my usual film of choice.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Arnaud B wrote:

You forgot the greatest advantage : slides projection 3 meters base !

but this is not a fault of digital slr. If you have a 6 MP dslr and find a
projector capable of displaying these resolution there will be no big
difference.

Wolfgang

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:49:45 +0100, Arnaud B wrote:

You forgot the greatest advantage : slides projection 3 meters base !
That is the reason why it gonna be a while before i switch to digital

This "advantage" only exists for the one who is showing the slides,
and not for the long-suffering audience that has endure it. Forgive
me, I was simply remembering such a occurence earlier in the year that
left me forever opposed to slides in general. Just give me a book of
vacation photos that I can politely pass along.

It might be noted that even medium format is rapidly dying, and that
Bronica has announced it was ceasing production last month. Also
Hassleblad has downsized considerably and is now a division of Imacon,
so production of film cameras by them may also end soon. The Kodak
14n, 14nx, SLR/n, Canon EOS 1DS, and upcoming D2X pretty much spell
the doom of MF.

There's still something to be said for 4X5 film, however, but that too
will just be a matter of time..

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:49:45 +0100, Arnaud B wrote:

You forgot the greatest advantage : slides projection 3 meters base !
That is the reason why it gonna be a while before i switch to digital

This "advantage" only exists for the one who is showing the slides,
and not for the long-suffering audience that has endure it. Forgive
me, I was simply remembering such a occurence earlier in the year that
left me forever opposed to slides in general. Just give me a book of
vacation photos that I can politely pass along.

It might be noted that even medium format is rapidly dying, and that
Bronica has announced it was ceasing production last month. Also
Hassleblad has downsized considerably and is now a division of Imacon,
so production of film cameras by them may also end soon. The Kodak
14n, 14nx, SLR/n, Canon EOS 1DS, and upcoming D2X pretty much spell
the doom of MF.

There's still something to be said for 4X5 film, however, but that too
will just be a matter of time..

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:26:35 -0500, Robert Feinman
wrote:

It seems many people now find that the newest generation of
digital cameras perform as well as their typical 35mm setup.
So the question becomes what is the role of 35mm?
I think film still has a use in the following areas, but
I'm sure some of these issues will change as digital continues
to evolve.

Not only is 35mm essentially dead, but even MF is on the way out.
Note that Bronica has ceased production last month.

1. Ability to use lenses not available for digital. The only
one that comes to mind right now is the 12mm Heliar in Leica
screw mount. I don't think there is any other rectilinear lens
of this focal length. However lens makers could make one with
a similar angle of view for the new smaller sensor arrays if they
wished. Perhaps there are other unique optics as well.

At least with full-frame digital cameras there are most certainly
constraints with regard to the degree to which the light angle
impinges on the CCD surface without creating objectionable artifacts
(sensor-well shading & patterning), but this condition is improving.
For example, the newer sensors used in the Kodak SLR/n exhibit much
less of this problem. Not all WA lenses exhibit the exit pupil
characteristics that cause this--for example, the Sigma 12-24 (and
that's about as extreme as you may care to go) delivers a reasonably
parallel beam that functions just fine with even the finnicky sensor
(no anti-alias filter) of the 14n. Apart from limited coverage, this
improved exit pupil behavior is probably what is identified with
so-called "digital lenses."

2. Ability to shoot at very high ISO. I believe digital still has
a problem with 800+ ISO settings.

Let's not forget that even film is quite grainy at these high ISO
settings. And be fair in comparing images that are in fact both
flawed by the effects of grain, although of a somewhat different
nature. The present crop of full-frame digitals (EOS 1DS, SLR/n)
appear to deliver quite acceptable performance at ASA 800, although
not "grainless" by any means.

3. Ability to take long exposures. I think film's ability to
integrate the light over seconds to hours in not yet met by digital.

Not fully, but (for example) Kodak's long-exposure mode allows
noise-free photographs at ASA 6, permitting most special effects to be
accomplished.

4. Dynamic range. I think the latest generation of color negative
films still exceed the dynamic range of digital. Modern scanners
can extract this info which wasn't practical with conventional
color enlarging.

How can that be possible when the Kodak pro digitals (and possibly
Canon's) have 12-bit sensors (36-bit color) with 11.5 bits of dynamic
range? Can you identify a film that provides an even log-linear
response over this great a range? As I recall, film negatives
typically have a dynamic range of only 6-8 stops (transparency films
about 2 stops less), even though scanners can deliver a 36-bit range
of output. The great dynamic range of CCD sensors is one of the main
reasons they are chosen for astronomical use. I can't possibly
understand your rationale for this claim.

5. Media security. The physical film still has better viewing and
preservation properties than digital. Perhaps new standards that
are being discussed will temper the obsolescence factor that has
dogged digital so far. The latest generation of film should last
50+ years. Longer if kept cold.


This is a puzzling statement, especially in light of the fact that a
digital image is just that: an image that can be stored in any number
of archival ways having indefinite permanence. This is quite unlike
film that's simply an organic material that will indeed fail in time.

6. Ultimate quality. I'm posting this in the 35mm group, but film
probably still has an advantage over digital in larger sizes except
for some very expensive, special purpose digital sensors for medium
format and view cameras. There is still an edge in resolution in
35mm vs digital, but apparently most people don't notice it for
much of their work.

It is safe to say that at the present time, and with full-sized
sensors of 12+ Mpx that film is indeed superceded by digital. To make
this point, these cameras are quite adept at revealing optical
shortcomings that were not evident with common films, and I'd be
concerned that as sensors reach the 22 Mpx range that a great many
coveted lenses will be rendered closet fodder, even some primes. When
someone can show me an 11X14 or 16X20 from film that rivals a print
from a 14 Mpx image, than I'd concede--but I've never seen it. In
fact, those color prints (from negs) from years ago that I was so
enthusiastic about now seem quite mediocre.

Digital imaging was indeed a shot in the arm for an industry that
seemed to be on a continuous march to mediocrity.

-KBob

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:26:35 -0500, Robert Feinman
wrote:

It seems many people now find that the newest generation of
digital cameras perform as well as their typical 35mm setup.
So the question becomes what is the role of 35mm?
I think film still has a use in the following areas, but
I'm sure some of these issues will change as digital continues
to evolve.

Not only is 35mm essentially dead, but even MF is on the way out.
Note that Bronica has ceased production last month.

1. Ability to use lenses not available for digital. The only
one that comes to mind right now is the 12mm Heliar in Leica
screw mount. I don't think there is any other rectilinear lens
of this focal length. However lens makers could make one with
a similar angle of view for the new smaller sensor arrays if they
wished. Perhaps there are other unique optics as well.

At least with full-frame digital cameras there are most certainly
constraints with regard to the degree to which the light angle
impinges on the CCD surface without creating objectionable artifacts
(sensor-well shading & patterning), but this condition is improving.
For example, the newer sensors used in the Kodak SLR/n exhibit much
less of this problem. Not all WA lenses exhibit the exit pupil
characteristics that cause this--for example, the Sigma 12-24 (and
that's about as extreme as you may care to go) delivers a reasonably
parallel beam that functions just fine with even the finnicky sensor
(no anti-alias filter) of the 14n. Apart from limited coverage, this
improved exit pupil behavior is probably what is identified with
so-called "digital lenses."

2. Ability to shoot at very high ISO. I believe digital still has
a problem with 800+ ISO settings.

Let's not forget that even film is quite grainy at these high ISO
settings. And be fair in comparing images that are in fact both
flawed by the effects of grain, although of a somewhat different
nature. The present crop of full-frame digitals (EOS 1DS, SLR/n)
appear to deliver quite acceptable performance at ASA 800, although
not "grainless" by any means.

3. Ability to take long exposures. I think film's ability to
integrate the light over seconds to hours in not yet met by digital.

Not fully, but (for example) Kodak's long-exposure mode allows
noise-free photographs at ASA 6, permitting most special effects to be
accomplished.

4. Dynamic range. I think the latest generation of color negative
films still exceed the dynamic range of digital. Modern scanners
can extract this info which wasn't practical with conventional
color enlarging.

How can that be possible when the Kodak pro digitals (and possibly
Canon's) have 12-bit sensors (36-bit color) with 11.5 bits of dynamic
range? Can you identify a film that provides an even log-linear
response over this great a range? As I recall, film negatives
typically have a dynamic range of only 6-8 stops (transparency films
about 2 stops less), even though scanners can deliver a 36-bit range
of output. The great dynamic range of CCD sensors is one of the main
reasons they are chosen for astronomical use. I can't possibly
understand your rationale for this claim.

5. Media security. The physical film still has better viewing and
preservation properties than digital. Perhaps new standards that
are being discussed will temper the obsolescence factor that has
dogged digital so far. The latest generation of film should last
50+ years. Longer if kept cold.


This is a puzzling statement, especially in light of the fact that a
digital image is just that: an image that can be stored in any number
of archival ways having indefinite permanence. This is quite unlike
film that's simply an organic material that will indeed fail in time.

6. Ultimate quality. I'm posting this in the 35mm group, but film
probably still has an advantage over digital in larger sizes except
for some very expensive, special purpose digital sensors for medium
format and view cameras. There is still an edge in resolution in
35mm vs digital, but apparently most people don't notice it for
much of their work.

It is safe to say that at the present time, and with full-sized
sensors of 12+ Mpx that film is indeed superceded by digital. To make
this point, these cameras are quite adept at revealing optical
shortcomings that were not evident with common films, and I'd be
concerned that as sensors reach the 22 Mpx range that a great many
coveted lenses will be rendered closet fodder, even some primes. When
someone can show me an 11X14 or 16X20 from film that rivals a print
from a 14 Mpx image, than I'd concede--but I've never seen it. In
fact, those color prints (from negs) from years ago that I was so
enthusiastic about now seem quite mediocre.

Digital imaging was indeed a shot in the arm for an industry that
seemed to be on a continuous march to mediocrity.

-KBob

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:26:35 -0500, Robert Feinman
wrote:

It seems many people now find that the newest generation of
digital cameras perform as well as their typical 35mm setup.
So the question becomes what is the role of 35mm?
I think film still has a use in the following areas, but
I'm sure some of these issues will change as digital continues
to evolve.

Not only is 35mm essentially dead, but even MF is on the way out.
Note that Bronica has ceased production last month.

1. Ability to use lenses not available for digital. The only
one that comes to mind right now is the 12mm Heliar in Leica
screw mount. I don't think there is any other rectilinear lens
of this focal length. However lens makers could make one with
a similar angle of view for the new smaller sensor arrays if they
wished. Perhaps there are other unique optics as well.

At least with full-frame digital cameras there are most certainly
constraints with regard to the degree to which the light angle
impinges on the CCD surface without creating objectionable artifacts
(sensor-well shading & patterning), but this condition is improving.
For example, the newer sensors used in the Kodak SLR/n exhibit much
less of this problem. Not all WA lenses exhibit the exit pupil
characteristics that cause this--for example, the Sigma 12-24 (and
that's about as extreme as you may care to go) delivers a reasonably
parallel beam that functions just fine with even the finnicky sensor
(no anti-alias filter) of the 14n. Apart from limited coverage, this
improved exit pupil behavior is probably what is identified with
so-called "digital lenses."

2. Ability to shoot at very high ISO. I believe digital still has
a problem with 800+ ISO settings.

Let's not forget that even film is quite grainy at these high ISO
settings. And be fair in comparing images that are in fact both
flawed by the effects of grain, although of a somewhat different
nature. The present crop of full-frame digitals (EOS 1DS, SLR/n)
appear to deliver quite acceptable performance at ASA 800, although
not "grainless" by any means.

3. Ability to take long exposures. I think film's ability to
integrate the light over seconds to hours in not yet met by digital.

Not fully, but (for example) Kodak's long-exposure mode allows
noise-free photographs at ASA 6, permitting most special effects to be
accomplished.

4. Dynamic range. I think the latest generation of color negative
films still exceed the dynamic range of digital. Modern scanners
can extract this info which wasn't practical with conventional
color enlarging.

How can that be possible when the Kodak pro digitals (and possibly
Canon's) have 12-bit sensors (36-bit color) with 11.5 bits of dynamic
range? Can you identify a film that provides an even log-linear
response over this great a range? As I recall, film negatives
typically have a dynamic range of only 6-8 stops (transparency films
about 2 stops less), even though scanners can deliver a 36-bit range
of output. The great dynamic range of CCD sensors is one of the main
reasons they are chosen for astronomical use. I can't possibly
understand your rationale for this claim.

5. Media security. The physical film still has better viewing and
preservation properties than digital. Perhaps new standards that
are being discussed will temper the obsolescence factor that has
dogged digital so far. The latest generation of film should last
50+ years. Longer if kept cold.


This is a puzzling statement, especially in light of the fact that a
digital image is just that: an image that can be stored in any number
of archival ways having indefinite permanence. This is quite unlike
film that's simply an organic material that will indeed fail in time.

6. Ultimate quality. I'm posting this in the 35mm group, but film
probably still has an advantage over digital in larger sizes except
for some very expensive, special purpose digital sensors for medium
format and view cameras. There is still an edge in resolution in
35mm vs digital, but apparently most people don't notice it for
much of their work.

It is safe to say that at the present time, and with full-sized
sensors of 12+ Mpx that film is indeed superceded by digital. To make
this point, these cameras are quite adept at revealing optical
shortcomings that were not evident with common films, and I'd be
concerned that as sensors reach the 22 Mpx range that a great many
coveted lenses will be rendered closet fodder, even some primes. When
someone can show me an 11X14 or 16X20 from film that rivals a print
from a 14 Mpx image, than I'd concede--but I've never seen it. In
fact, those color prints (from negs) from years ago that I was so
enthusiastic about now seem quite mediocre.

Digital imaging was indeed a shot in the arm for an industry that
seemed to be on a continuous march to mediocrity.

-KBob

In article geMld.141737$hj.133121@fed1read07,
Skip M wrote:
"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

- Black and white, an area which digital has neglected.


Can't argue with much of what you said, but Canon has addressed the black
and white issue with the 20D. Black and white mode with "filters", red,
yellow, orange and green. I've gotten results very similar to Ilford XP-2,
my usual film of choice.

That's still desaturating an image captured with a colour sensor though. A
true B&W sensor could use much weaker antialiasing and produce crisper
images for a given pixel count.

In article geMld.141737$hj.133121@fed1read07,
Skip M wrote:
"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

- Black and white, an area which digital has neglected.


Can't argue with much of what you said, but Canon has addressed the black
and white issue with the 20D. Black and white mode with "filters", red,
yellow, orange and green. I've gotten results very similar to Ilford XP-2,
my usual film of choice.

That's still desaturating an image captured with a colour sensor though. A
true B&W sensor could use much weaker antialiasing and produce crisper
images for a given pixel count.

It is safe to say that at the present time, and with full-sized
sensors of 12+ Mpx that film is indeed superceded by digital. To make
this point, these cameras are quite adept at revealing optical
shortcomings that were not evident with common films, and I'd be
concerned that as sensors reach the 22 Mpx range that a great many
coveted lenses will be rendered closet fodder, even some primes. When
someone can show me an 11X14 or 16X20 from film that rivals a print
from a 14 Mpx image, than I'd concede--but I've never seen it. In
fact, those color prints (from negs) from years ago that I was so
enthusiastic about now seem quite mediocre.

Digital imaging was indeed a shot in the arm for an industry that
seemed to be on a continuous march to mediocrity.

-KBob


Not only has 35mm film been surpassed and MF equaled but within a few
years LF will go by-by!!! In fact, because it is quite easy to stitch
many individual digital images together to make one super high res
image it might be fair to say that a photographer with a good
presently available DSLR and pano head on his tripod can produce
images of much higher resolution than even an 8 x 10!!!

Film is dead!


Later,

Brian