Digital vs Film Resolution

Böwzér wrote:
[...] in my experience, wet prints still win, especially with negs.
However, the newer digicams, like the D2X may change that.

You're probably looking at much better prints than am I; I've
never gotten a print from a custom lab (and haven't made my own
since a high-school class long ago). May I ask how your wet
prints are made, and at what size?

At the low end, I think digital scans have an advantage because
enhancements, sharpening in particular, are so much easier to do
digitally. Sharpening doesn't add resolution, but darn if it
doesn't look that way. I know unsharp-mask is originally a film
technique, but how commonly is it actually done in 35mm and MF?

Right now, I'm scanning with a Nikon 9000, and while it does a nice
job, it
does not capture anywhere near all the detail on film. Scanner softness
still holds it back. If you examine the film using a powerful loupe and
compare it to the scan, you can see how much more detail is on film.

Maybe someday I'll have the resources to try that. Till then, I
have to go on differing opinions, so thanks for the data-point.


--
--Bryan

Böwzér wrote:
[...] in my experience, wet prints still win, especially with negs.
However, the newer digicams, like the D2X may change that.

You're probably looking at much better prints than am I; I've
never gotten a print from a custom lab (and haven't made my own
since a high-school class long ago). May I ask how your wet
prints are made, and at what size?

At the low end, I think digital scans have an advantage because
enhancements, sharpening in particular, are so much easier to do
digitally. Sharpening doesn't add resolution, but darn if it
doesn't look that way. I know unsharp-mask is originally a film
technique, but how commonly is it actually done in 35mm and MF?

Right now, I'm scanning with a Nikon 9000, and while it does a nice
job, it
does not capture anywhere near all the detail on film. Scanner softness
still holds it back. If you examine the film using a powerful loupe and
compare it to the scan, you can see how much more detail is on film.

Maybe someday I'll have the resources to try that. Till then, I
have to go on differing opinions, so thanks for the data-point.


--
--Bryan

David J. Littleboy wrote:

They don't seem hacked at all. His tests very much reflect what I see in my
4000 dpi scans, and what every high-res scan I've ever seen looks like,
namely god-awful crap. Here's a few examples.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Again, I look at every frame I scan with a 60x microscope, and I really
don't see the scans losing a significant amount of information. The
difference between 35mm and 11MP seems to be a lot more than can be expained
by hypothetical losses in scanning.


You can believe in whatever you like. Most people don't look at photo
with a microscope. I am looking at 11x14 and 13x19 prints from the 1Ds
and. my 4000DPI ProviaF scans, and I cannot say one is better than the
others. My eyes do not see this difference between 11MP and scanning
35mm. May be it's because I am using Leica. I don't know. In any case,
good for ya that digital works for you, I'm sure I will be using digital
at some point too (I already have a Minolta A2 and a Sony T1 but mostly
using the M7). All these arguments are irrelevant. If you like what the
digital provides, then great. If you like what films do for you, great
too. I just don't understand this quest for "scientific comparison" when
the best things to do is look at the pictures and say whether you like
the pictures or not.

--
// richard
http://www.imagecraft.com

David J. Littleboy wrote:

They don't seem hacked at all. His tests very much reflect what I see in my
4000 dpi scans, and what every high-res scan I've ever seen looks like,
namely god-awful crap. Here's a few examples.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Again, I look at every frame I scan with a 60x microscope, and I really
don't see the scans losing a significant amount of information. The
difference between 35mm and 11MP seems to be a lot more than can be expained
by hypothetical losses in scanning.


You can believe in whatever you like. Most people don't look at photo
with a microscope. I am looking at 11x14 and 13x19 prints from the 1Ds
and. my 4000DPI ProviaF scans, and I cannot say one is better than the
others. My eyes do not see this difference between 11MP and scanning
35mm. May be it's because I am using Leica. I don't know. In any case,
good for ya that digital works for you, I'm sure I will be using digital
at some point too (I already have a Minolta A2 and a Sony T1 but mostly
using the M7). All these arguments are irrelevant. If you like what the
digital provides, then great. If you like what films do for you, great
too. I just don't understand this quest for "scientific comparison" when
the best things to do is look at the pictures and say whether you like
the pictures or not.

--
// richard
http://www.imagecraft.com

"Böwzér" wrote:

Right now, I'm scanning with a Nikon 9000, and while it does a nice job,
it
does not capture anywhere near all the detail on film. Scanner softness
still holds it back. If you examine the film using a powerful loupe and
compare it to the scan, you can see how much more detail is on film.

Hmm. That's not the experience here with the 8000. Getting the film flat
enough so that it's sharp across the whole frame is a bear, but once the
frame is flat and focus set to that the whole frame is within 10 focus units
(a magic constant determined empirically: defocusing by 20 units is
noticeable), the beast does a good job of scraping off what's on the film.

Here it is in action on Tech Pan (requiescat in pacem).

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ugly-c2.jpg

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Here it is in action on Tech Pan (requiescat in pacem).

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ugly-c2.jpg

Yes, that's a useful example for several reasons. A bit of analysis
may help to understand what we're actually looking at (see
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ for more/other examples).

On my 19inch CRT (approx. 36cm image width) at 1024x768 resolution,
that (0.25x0.25in or 6.35x6.35mm) film crop produces a bit more than
one screen's width. A 35mm film scanned at that resolution would span
almost 6 screen widths, and a Medium-Format film would span some 8.5
screen widths, so we're actually looking at a small part of a roughly
2 - 3 metres (7 - 10 feet) wide image. Impressive.

A Canon 1Ds and even more likely the MarkII version, would be capable
of equalling such a result, but with an even lower noise/graininess
level. Clearly lens resolution, combined with the sensor (or film),
poses a limit to what can be resolved. It requires larger sensor
arrays, or larger film, to better that result.

Bart

"TRR" wrote in message
hlink.net...
After the techies resolve this argument I submit the quality of your
printer makes it all moot. Not much has been said here in that
regard.

That just depends on output size. If the image magnification is high
enough, the output medium will outresolve the image.

Bart

SNIP
That said, probably 1% of the digital mavens can make a properly
exposed and printed 35mm picture; that's how difficult it really is
and also a measure of the low expectations of most contemporary
photographers.

Unfortunately only partially true. Only yesterday, on the Photokina
trade fair I talked with one of the leading Lab managers in my country
and he complained about the crap he gets offered in a digital form,
with the expectation that they can make something decent from it.
Sure, they can beautify the crap, but it remains crap that they are
not really eager to supply. What's more, customers blaim the lab for
delivering lower quality than they expected based on their previous
experience with film...

Bart

SNIP
That said, probably 1% of the digital mavens can make a properly
exposed and printed 35mm picture; that's how difficult it really is
and also a measure of the low expectations of most contemporary
photographers.

Unfortunately only partially true. Only yesterday, on the Photokina
trade fair I talked with one of the leading Lab managers in my country
and he complained about the crap he gets offered in a digital form,
with the expectation that they can make something decent from it.
Sure, they can beautify the crap, but it remains crap that they are
not really eager to supply. What's more, customers blaim the lab for
delivering lower quality than they expected based on their previous
experience with film...

Bart

"Howard McCollister" wrote in message
...

"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
...
SNIP
Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give
you excellent 5x7s.

But it's not just megapixels that are going to give you film-
quality results. The camera has to have a good lens, good AF,
and a sensor that keeps noise from ruining the pictures. You
simply are not going to get film-replacement quality from a
small-sensor point-and-shoot such as you mention above.

That's my opinion as well. Many 4MP or more cameras allow excellent
5x7in output, but some are better than others. There are also things
like ease of use, compactness, etc., to be considered, but that's a
different thing than originally asked for.

Bart