A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 04, 09:00 PM
Toralf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 04, 09:45 PM
Dave Herzstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 04, 09:45 PM
Dave Herzstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:03 PM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:03 PM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:35 PM
nitzsche
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:35 PM
nitzsche
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:39 PM
MXP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:39 PM
Toralf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:39 PM
Toralf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.