If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Hi.
I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research. To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot. Be that as it may, some of the questions I'd like to have answered are these: 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? I think I read somewhere that a colour negative is at least 3000dpi. Is that correct? How about black&white? (Yeah I know, a film doesn't have pixels in exactly the same sense as a digital image, but it *is* made up of discrete elements after all.) 2. What about the print? 300dpi? 3. I know that the most common sensors are made up of individual elements for the read, green and blue channels, arranged in a special pattern, whose data is somehow interpolated into RGB pixels. But what exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean in that context? Does it mean that the sensor has (just) 6 million elements, or that data from a higher number (like 18 or 24 million) is combined into 6 million RGB pixels? The same question more bluntly put: When Canon/Nikon/Pentax is talking about 6MP, is that just a big a lie as the one about 10MP on Sigma cameras? (I'm hoping not, as I think the Sigma/Foveon way of counting really takes the cake.) 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation be quantified and/or measured against e.g. the error introduced by scanning a negative with a film-scanner? And how does it compare with pixel interpolation in the scanning sense? 5. And how about those other parameters I mentioned briefly above - like different kinds of geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc.? Can those be compared with the ones of plain old film? 6. And the chromic aberration effects? How serious are they these days? And are the full-frame sensors that are actually found in some high-end cameras now, in any way comparable to film in that respect? Well, maybe some people will say I have a somewhat critical or conservative attitude towards digital cameras, but I actually think you ought to be a bit sceptical when something "new and wonderful" comes a long; new technology is too often introduced for technology's own sake, IMO. - Toralf |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Toralf wrote:
I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research. To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot. ..... Why not convince yourself (one way or the other) by comparing side-by-side prints (or whatever final output you like) of 35mm prints/scans and 6MP DSLR. I viewed some 20" X 30" prints from a 6PM digital, bought one, sold my film bodies and haven't regreted it. YMMV -Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Toralf wrote:
I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research. To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot. ..... Why not convince yourself (one way or the other) by comparing side-by-side prints (or whatever final output you like) of 35mm prints/scans and 6MP DSLR. I viewed some 20" X 30" prints from a 6PM digital, bought one, sold my film bodies and haven't regreted it. YMMV -Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Hi. While i may not have specific answers to your question, I just want to say that I don't really think the numbers matter much in practical use. If it looks good enough then it's good enough. For many applications, digital is more than adequate. The speed and convenience, and the sheer quantity of images you can shoot with a digital camera overcomes many of the quality issues some may have with it. Here's a recent thread with links to an example where even a 5mp digital was adequate enough for publication and winning photojournalism awards. http://tinyurl.com/4jvdt Film has its advantages too. It seems though there there is a consensus that the 11mp Canon 1Ds is better than 35mm drum-scanned film, which is in turn better than 6mp SLR, so 35mm film is somewhere in that range. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Hi. While i may not have specific answers to your question, I just want to say that I don't really think the numbers matter much in practical use. If it looks good enough then it's good enough. For many applications, digital is more than adequate. The speed and convenience, and the sheer quantity of images you can shoot with a digital camera overcomes many of the quality issues some may have with it. Here's a recent thread with links to an example where even a 5mp digital was adequate enough for publication and winning photojournalism awards. http://tinyurl.com/4jvdt Film has its advantages too. It seems though there there is a consensus that the 11mp Canon 1Ds is better than 35mm drum-scanned film, which is in turn better than 6mp SLR, so 35mm film is somewhere in that range. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
OK, I'll take a shot at it...
It used to be "Film is cheap,' now it's "Cameras are cheap." 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? - For practical purposes, it's infinite. 2. What about the print? 300dpi - Unless you're printing posters, it's not relevant. 3. exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean - 6.3 megapixels is 6,291,456 sensors. 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation be measured - Film will almost always be better, but it's what the outside eyes see that matters. 5. geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc. - That's a lens issues, not sensor/film issues 6. And the chromic aberration effects? - As far as I know, all digicams are prone to purple fringing, which is something you don't see on any cheap slr. My two cents worth. Hi. I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research. To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot. Be that as it may, some of the questions I'd like to have answered are these: 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? I think I read somewhere that a colour negative is at least 3000dpi. Is that correct? How about black&white? (Yeah I know, a film doesn't have pixels in exactly the same sense as a digital image, but it *is* made up of discrete elements after all.) 2. What about the print? 300dpi? 3. I know that the most common sensors are made up of individual elements for the read, green and blue channels, arranged in a special pattern, whose data is somehow interpolated into RGB pixels. But what exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean in that context? Does it mean that the sensor has (just) 6 million elements, or that data from a higher number (like 18 or 24 million) is combined into 6 million RGB pixels? The same question more bluntly put: When Canon/Nikon/Pentax is talking about 6MP, is that just a big a lie as the one about 10MP on Sigma cameras? (I'm hoping not, as I think the Sigma/Foveon way of counting really takes the cake.) 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation be quantified and/or measured against e.g. the error introduced by scanning a negative with a film-scanner? And how does it compare with pixel interpolation in the scanning sense? 5. And how about those other parameters I mentioned briefly above - like different kinds of geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc.? Can those be compared with the ones of plain old film? 6. And the chromic aberration effects? How serious are they these days? And are the full-frame sensors that are actually found in some high-end cameras now, in any way comparable to film in that respect? Well, maybe some people will say I have a somewhat critical or conservative attitude towards digital cameras, but I actually think you ought to be a bit sceptical when something "new and wonderful" comes a long; new technology is too often introduced for technology's own sake, IMO. - Toralf |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
OK, I'll take a shot at it...
It used to be "Film is cheap,' now it's "Cameras are cheap." 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? - For practical purposes, it's infinite. 2. What about the print? 300dpi - Unless you're printing posters, it's not relevant. 3. exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean - 6.3 megapixels is 6,291,456 sensors. 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation be measured - Film will almost always be better, but it's what the outside eyes see that matters. 5. geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc. - That's a lens issues, not sensor/film issues 6. And the chromic aberration effects? - As far as I know, all digicams are prone to purple fringing, which is something you don't see on any cheap slr. My two cents worth. Hi. I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research. To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot. Be that as it may, some of the questions I'd like to have answered are these: 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? I think I read somewhere that a colour negative is at least 3000dpi. Is that correct? How about black&white? (Yeah I know, a film doesn't have pixels in exactly the same sense as a digital image, but it *is* made up of discrete elements after all.) 2. What about the print? 300dpi? 3. I know that the most common sensors are made up of individual elements for the read, green and blue channels, arranged in a special pattern, whose data is somehow interpolated into RGB pixels. But what exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean in that context? Does it mean that the sensor has (just) 6 million elements, or that data from a higher number (like 18 or 24 million) is combined into 6 million RGB pixels? The same question more bluntly put: When Canon/Nikon/Pentax is talking about 6MP, is that just a big a lie as the one about 10MP on Sigma cameras? (I'm hoping not, as I think the Sigma/Foveon way of counting really takes the cake.) 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation be quantified and/or measured against e.g. the error introduced by scanning a negative with a film-scanner? And how does it compare with pixel interpolation in the scanning sense? 5. And how about those other parameters I mentioned briefly above - like different kinds of geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc.? Can those be compared with the ones of plain old film? 6. And the chromic aberration effects? How serious are they these days? And are the full-frame sensors that are actually found in some high-end cameras now, in any way comparable to film in that respect? Well, maybe some people will say I have a somewhat critical or conservative attitude towards digital cameras, but I actually think you ought to be a bit sceptical when something "new and wonderful" comes a long; new technology is too often introduced for technology's own sake, IMO. - Toralf |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
All the tests I have seen where 35mm film is compared to a modern DSLR
(6-11MP)...the DSLR pictures shows more detail and less noise than a fine grained film like Provia 100F. It is quite fustrating that 6MP can beat 35mm. I know many scanners can do 4000 dpi but if most of the information is noise? I still use film and it will be quite interresting to see a test where e.g. Provia 100F shows more detail than an e.g. D1X/D70 or 1Ds/300D. When I see my slides projected it seems strange that a 6MP DSLR can do better.... Max "Toralf" skrev i en meddelelse ... Hi. I'm still wondering about how good the image quality of modern digital cameras (especially SLRs) really is, in particular how it compares with 35mm film. I've seen many articles on the subject on the Net, but few of them seem to give you a lot of tangible information (I want to see the numbers, please), and I can't help feeling that tests they refer to are usually done to prove a point, i.e. that digital cameras are as good as 35mm, which is not the way you do proper research. To say a few words about myself, I'm working for a company that makes high-accuracy, large-format scanners, so I'm not particularly impressed when I hear e.g 6 million pixels (you need to talk about *billions* of pixels if I'm really going to listen), and the word "interpolation" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But this also means I know that high resolution isn't everything, of course; parameters like geometric precision or signal-to-noise ratio also count a lot. Be that as it may, some of the questions I'd like to have answered are these: 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? I think I read somewhere that a colour negative is at least 3000dpi. Is that correct? How about black&white? (Yeah I know, a film doesn't have pixels in exactly the same sense as a digital image, but it *is* made up of discrete elements after all.) 2. What about the print? 300dpi? 3. I know that the most common sensors are made up of individual elements for the read, green and blue channels, arranged in a special pattern, whose data is somehow interpolated into RGB pixels. But what exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean in that context? Does it mean that the sensor has (just) 6 million elements, or that data from a higher number (like 18 or 24 million) is combined into 6 million RGB pixels? The same question more bluntly put: When Canon/Nikon/Pentax is talking about 6MP, is that just a big a lie as the one about 10MP on Sigma cameras? (I'm hoping not, as I think the Sigma/Foveon way of counting really takes the cake.) 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation be quantified and/or measured against e.g. the error introduced by scanning a negative with a film-scanner? And how does it compare with pixel interpolation in the scanning sense? 5. And how about those other parameters I mentioned briefly above - like different kinds of geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc.? Can those be compared with the ones of plain old film? 6. And the chromic aberration effects? How serious are they these days? And are the full-frame sensors that are actually found in some high-end cameras now, in any way comparable to film in that respect? Well, maybe some people will say I have a somewhat critical or conservative attitude towards digital cameras, but I actually think you ought to be a bit sceptical when something "new and wonderful" comes a long; new technology is too often introduced for technology's own sake, IMO. - Toralf |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Sabineellen wrote:
Hi. While i may not have specific answers to your question, I just want to say that I don't really think the numbers matter much in practical use. If it looks good enough then it's good enough. In a way, yes, but how do you get something to look at? Unless you want to actually buy a camera just to test for yourself, it's quite hard. I mean, the people who sell the things will of course show you an example or two, but that's not really enough (and example pictures of course tend to be designed specifically not to reveal any weaknesses.) Example images viewed in a web browser definitely don't tell you antything, and it's also quite difficult to draw conlusions from more or less subjective descriptions of the results. Much better with clear figures, then. And there's also a question of whether it looks *right* (based on whatever you take a photo of), which is not the same thing as looking good. For many applications, digital is more than adequate. The speed and convenience, and the sheer quantity of images you can shoot with a digital camera overcomes many of the quality issues some may have with it. Quite. But I also think that a lot of people buy digital cams because they are the fashion now, and because, well, because they are digital... Here's a recent thread with links to an example where even a 5mp digital was adequate enough for publication and winning photojournalism awards. http://tinyurl.com/4jvdt Film has its advantages too. It seems though there there is a consensus that the 11mp Canon 1Ds is better than 35mm drum-scanned film, which is in turn better than 6mp SLR, so 35mm film is somewhere in that range. Of course, I don't really want it on digital form, anyway; a good print is the ultimate goal - so maybe the prints are what should be compared. Call me old-fashioned, but I really don't see the support for direct image transfer to the PC as that much of an argument. Why would I want to do that? Sounds like a bit of a hassle to me... Process the image? Again, more hassle. And view my pictures on the PC screen? Now, really... My film I can hand over to other people and let them do all the work. What could be more convenient than that? (But I can of course do the same thing with a digital camera's storage media these days.) What I do see as an advantage, though, is the fact that you can preview the images (although in a way I like the magic associated with film of not knowing exactly how it turns out) and delete the ones you don't like, and perhaps also that you can print the images directly without ever having to let them enter your PC... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Sabineellen wrote:
Hi. While i may not have specific answers to your question, I just want to say that I don't really think the numbers matter much in practical use. If it looks good enough then it's good enough. In a way, yes, but how do you get something to look at? Unless you want to actually buy a camera just to test for yourself, it's quite hard. I mean, the people who sell the things will of course show you an example or two, but that's not really enough (and example pictures of course tend to be designed specifically not to reveal any weaknesses.) Example images viewed in a web browser definitely don't tell you antything, and it's also quite difficult to draw conlusions from more or less subjective descriptions of the results. Much better with clear figures, then. And there's also a question of whether it looks *right* (based on whatever you take a photo of), which is not the same thing as looking good. For many applications, digital is more than adequate. The speed and convenience, and the sheer quantity of images you can shoot with a digital camera overcomes many of the quality issues some may have with it. Quite. But I also think that a lot of people buy digital cams because they are the fashion now, and because, well, because they are digital... Here's a recent thread with links to an example where even a 5mp digital was adequate enough for publication and winning photojournalism awards. http://tinyurl.com/4jvdt Film has its advantages too. It seems though there there is a consensus that the 11mp Canon 1Ds is better than 35mm drum-scanned film, which is in turn better than 6mp SLR, so 35mm film is somewhere in that range. Of course, I don't really want it on digital form, anyway; a good print is the ultimate goal - so maybe the prints are what should be compared. Call me old-fashioned, but I really don't see the support for direct image transfer to the PC as that much of an argument. Why would I want to do that? Sounds like a bit of a hassle to me... Process the image? Again, more hassle. And view my pictures on the PC screen? Now, really... My film I can hand over to other people and let them do all the work. What could be more convenient than that? (But I can of course do the same thing with a digital camera's storage media these days.) What I do see as an advantage, though, is the fact that you can preview the images (although in a way I like the magic associated with film of not knowing exactly how it turns out) and delete the ones you don't like, and perhaps also that you can print the images directly without ever having to let them enter your PC... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |