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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Gordon Moat writes: [an *extremely* detailed and clear discussion of many of the issues in the topi in the subject line] First, *very* nice explanation! It obviously involved quite a bit of work. Second, I think one very important point often missed in this discussion is that digital and film images enlarge entirely *differently*. Even a first-rate slow film image acquires grain (clumps) as it's enlarged enough. A digital image *doesn't*. It gradually gets softer, but there is no underlying grain structure to appear (the underlying pixel structure doesn't appear because the decent interpolation algorithms prevent it). True to a point. In an article in LFI 06/2003 (Leica Fotographie International), Erwin Puts test the new Fuji Astia 100F and Kodak E100G. One of his remarks is quite interesting. He states that he could not ". . . detect any grain at an enlargement of factor 40 with both films." He also wrote, "One starts to see individual grain clouds only at a magnification factor of 100". His comments of the magnification factors were for using a microscope. To be fair, I have been critical of comments from Erwin Puts in the past, and I have e-mailed him on a few occasions. To his credit, he is good at answering e-mails, and explaining his methods and calculations. If you are a little more curious, I suggest getting a copy of the article, or sending him an e-mail. Consider that few of us make prints beyond 10x magnification, especially from 35 mm. I have quite a few Chromira and LightJet prints that are 10" by 15" and show absolutely no grain at all. To go much larger might mean inkjet prints, since it is getting tougher to find places that still do large chemical prints. I should also point out that getting good quality large chemical prints is not easy, and there are many quality issues. The few really large prints that have been done from my images were posters. Those were commercially printed, and also showed no grain structure. They were all done from scanned film, since that is the way I do my work. This is an example of printing methods, and post processing, affecting the output. To qualify all this, it is tough to get really large prints from film at high quality. It is easier to get large inkjet prints. It is easier for someone without lots of skill to get acceptable and pleasing prints on a desktop inkjet from direct digital, than it is from any other method. Direct digital may not have grain problems, though it can often have aliasing errors that show up in very large prints, or have some colour fringing issues. Again, there are ways in post processing to avoid those problems, similar to the ways that film scans can also be altered in editing software. On the basis of editing in software, there is no difference between direct digital and scanned film, since both are just manipulating digital image files. An experienced film photographer looking for flaws in a big print from digital may be looking for the wrong thing; one of the things I look for is how the grain is doing, and in a print from a digital original, I'm not going to find any. As a professional, I have to look at colour first, before any other aspects of an image. This is where direct digital has fallen short, though it is close in many situations. Where colour is important in work, is when there is architecture, automotive, product, fashion, or food imagery, as the main subject matter. It is also tough to get good scans from film, though it helps when editing to have the transparency in view on a light table. It also helps sometimes to send dupes of the transparencies to the printer, so they can better match colours. All these are issues that few enthusiasts ever encounter. This difference in how they enlarge probably accounts for part of the wide range of discussion about what "equivalent" resolutions are. Some people mind grain more than others, some people's eyes are probably more attuned to noticing some kinds of softness or missing details than others, so they'll have different tolerances for various size prints from film and digital originals. I only judge grain in the final print, and not on a monitor. I have seen images on a monitor that looked horrible, and then printed smooth. I also have some 24" by 36" prints done from Kodak TriX. Everyone knows TriX is grainy in comparison to many other films. These large prints were done as part of a series by a master printer, and even with all the care and knowledge, only two out of four prints were acceptable to me. Everyone who has seen those prints really likes them. The size also means that people rarely ever walk up to them really close, though if they did, they would see grain. I think grain can be a creative choice as well, and some images convey a certain mood or feeling when they are photographed on grainy films. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Updated! |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Gordon Moat writes: [an *extremely* detailed and clear discussion of many of the issues in the topi in the subject line] First, *very* nice explanation! It obviously involved quite a bit of work. Second, I think one very important point often missed in this discussion is that digital and film images enlarge entirely *differently*. Even a first-rate slow film image acquires grain (clumps) as it's enlarged enough. A digital image *doesn't*. It gradually gets softer, but there is no underlying grain structure to appear (the underlying pixel structure doesn't appear because the decent interpolation algorithms prevent it). True to a point. In an article in LFI 06/2003 (Leica Fotographie International), Erwin Puts test the new Fuji Astia 100F and Kodak E100G. One of his remarks is quite interesting. He states that he could not ". . . detect any grain at an enlargement of factor 40 with both films." He also wrote, "One starts to see individual grain clouds only at a magnification factor of 100". His comments of the magnification factors were for using a microscope. To be fair, I have been critical of comments from Erwin Puts in the past, and I have e-mailed him on a few occasions. To his credit, he is good at answering e-mails, and explaining his methods and calculations. If you are a little more curious, I suggest getting a copy of the article, or sending him an e-mail. Consider that few of us make prints beyond 10x magnification, especially from 35 mm. I have quite a few Chromira and LightJet prints that are 10" by 15" and show absolutely no grain at all. To go much larger might mean inkjet prints, since it is getting tougher to find places that still do large chemical prints. I should also point out that getting good quality large chemical prints is not easy, and there are many quality issues. The few really large prints that have been done from my images were posters. Those were commercially printed, and also showed no grain structure. They were all done from scanned film, since that is the way I do my work. This is an example of printing methods, and post processing, affecting the output. To qualify all this, it is tough to get really large prints from film at high quality. It is easier to get large inkjet prints. It is easier for someone without lots of skill to get acceptable and pleasing prints on a desktop inkjet from direct digital, than it is from any other method. Direct digital may not have grain problems, though it can often have aliasing errors that show up in very large prints, or have some colour fringing issues. Again, there are ways in post processing to avoid those problems, similar to the ways that film scans can also be altered in editing software. On the basis of editing in software, there is no difference between direct digital and scanned film, since both are just manipulating digital image files. An experienced film photographer looking for flaws in a big print from digital may be looking for the wrong thing; one of the things I look for is how the grain is doing, and in a print from a digital original, I'm not going to find any. As a professional, I have to look at colour first, before any other aspects of an image. This is where direct digital has fallen short, though it is close in many situations. Where colour is important in work, is when there is architecture, automotive, product, fashion, or food imagery, as the main subject matter. It is also tough to get good scans from film, though it helps when editing to have the transparency in view on a light table. It also helps sometimes to send dupes of the transparencies to the printer, so they can better match colours. All these are issues that few enthusiasts ever encounter. This difference in how they enlarge probably accounts for part of the wide range of discussion about what "equivalent" resolutions are. Some people mind grain more than others, some people's eyes are probably more attuned to noticing some kinds of softness or missing details than others, so they'll have different tolerances for various size prints from film and digital originals. I only judge grain in the final print, and not on a monitor. I have seen images on a monitor that looked horrible, and then printed smooth. I also have some 24" by 36" prints done from Kodak TriX. Everyone knows TriX is grainy in comparison to many other films. These large prints were done as part of a series by a master printer, and even with all the care and knowledge, only two out of four prints were acceptable to me. Everyone who has seen those prints really likes them. The size also means that people rarely ever walk up to them really close, though if they did, they would see grain. I think grain can be a creative choice as well, and some images convey a certain mood or feeling when they are photographed on grainy films. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Updated! |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
"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. 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. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
[ ... ]
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.) OK. I've been thinking a bit about the "luminance" argument that has popped up a number of times (but not a lot, so I may have overlooked something), and I'm not sure I'm convinced - although it depends a bit on how you see it. It seems to me that one of the key weaknesses of the standard "pattern" sensor is actually that it cannot capture luminance. When you're looking through a filter, there is simply no way you can tell white light apart from light of the colour associated with that filter! Furthermore, the real problem seems not to be photographing a large area in one of the primary colours like someone suggested, but rather to capture tiny spec of a distinct colour - especially if that colour is such that one or two of the components are different from the surrounding data, and the other(s) the same. For instance, imagine taking a picture of a small read dot against a completely white background. Now, assume that the size of that dot's projection onto the sensor matrix is one pixel, and that it falls on a red pixel sensor. Surely, this will mean that the dot won't show up at all on the picture - as there is no way the red sensor can distinguish it from all the white points surrounding it, and the adjacent green and blue sensors won't "see" it at all. If, on the other hand, it falls on a e.g. green sensor, it should indeed show up, as that sensor won't register any light at all, but there is no way of telling it's exact colour - all you know is that it's not green or colour that has a green component. (But it may be black or any shade of blue, read or purple.) For an exact representation of a dot do be guaranteed, the dot would have to be of a size equivalent to at least 4 sensor elements (when the matrix is made up of sets of one red, one blue and two green) - or more than 3, anyway. By this argument, you could say that the real resolution is actually the equivalent of 1/4 of the number of pixel sensors, or 1.5MP for a "6MP sensor". However, I admit that if the projection "touches" two elements instead of just one - and it has to be larger than one pixel to do that - the chance of getting the value right is much greater, and if it touches at least tree, chances are that there is at least one of each colour channel, in which case a correct colour should be guaranteed. In other words, it's fair to assume that a size of "two point something" pixels is sufficient for a correct representation of our little spec. So, I'd say that for purposes of quality comparisons, a 6MP array has neither 6 million pixels or the very conservative 1.5, but something in between. It's actually tempting to guess that the "effective" number of pixels is somewhere near the 3M the foveon has if you count the way they'll teach you at most schools except the Sigma marketing academy. (Which would mean that the sensors are equally good, but that Sigma are the greatest liers...) Furthermore, the luminance phenomenon is indeed useful in one sense, namely that it allows for a good interpolation algorithm - and it does so *because it isn't registered*. It didn't have to be the luminance, of course, but I think an essential requirement for reasonable interpolation is being able to make good assumptions about some parameter that isn't actually captured. So, if the 6MP data is generated base on the assumption that the luminance always makes up most of the light, and that turns out to be true in a certain case, then maybe you can say that you *really* have (close to) 6MP *in that particular situation.* Also, the general quality of data produced by the camera is to a large extent determined by the probability that the assumption will hold. By the same token, you may make some kind of assumption about the data from a foveon sensor or a colour scan that makes you able to interpolate extra pixels. For instance, you can make the assumption that all pixels have a value "right between" the adjacent pixels, and get a type of linear interpolation algorithm. That way you can at least double the number of pixels and get decent results in most cases, I think. Based on that, the comparison between the foveon and the other sensors really boil down to comparing the quality of the interpolation for the 6MP data with the (potential) quality of the interpolating necessary to get the same number of pixels based on the foveon output - or if you like, the merits of the assumptions that lie behind the different interpolations. Cheers, T |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
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. I've actually been thinking when that it's when we get there that I'll buy a digital SLR. 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. 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. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
I was surprised how good prints from 35mm Gigabilfilm looked.
I made 20x30cm. No grains at all and super sharp even with a x15 magnifier directly on the print. I think more people should try this film. Max "Chris Loffredo" skrev i en meddelelse ... David J. Littleboy wrote: 20x24 is a pitiful joke from 35mm B&W films, even Tech Pan. If one has any sense of quality imaging at all, 11x14 is MF (645) territory. 20x24 from 6x7 would be OK, but would look better if you used LF. I agree that 20x24 is stretching things a bit (no pun intended) using 35mm and that MF or LF would be far preferable, but with a good negative the results are still acceptable, especially at real viewing distances. I much more often do 30x40 cm (12x16) with fully satisfactory results (given of course a decent negative). In a direct comparison with a MF shot, there is a little less tonal smoothness & 3D look, but then I wonder how much tonal smoothness & 3D look digital would have in this case. Chris |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
I was surprised how good prints from 35mm Gigabilfilm looked.
I made 20x30cm. No grains at all and super sharp even with a x15 magnifier directly on the print. I think more people should try this film. Max "Chris Loffredo" skrev i en meddelelse ... David J. Littleboy wrote: 20x24 is a pitiful joke from 35mm B&W films, even Tech Pan. If one has any sense of quality imaging at all, 11x14 is MF (645) territory. 20x24 from 6x7 would be OK, but would look better if you used LF. I agree that 20x24 is stretching things a bit (no pun intended) using 35mm and that MF or LF would be far preferable, but with a good negative the results are still acceptable, especially at real viewing distances. I much more often do 30x40 cm (12x16) with fully satisfactory results (given of course a decent negative). In a direct comparison with a MF shot, there is a little less tonal smoothness & 3D look, but then I wonder how much tonal smoothness & 3D look digital would have in this case. Chris |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
"Stephen H. Westin" wrote in message ... "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. 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. Yes.....I should have said, "Digital cameras at a reasonable price are not too far from that now....Perhaps in another couple of years." |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
"Stephen H. Westin" wrote in message ... "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. 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. Yes.....I should have said, "Digital cameras at a reasonable price are not too far from that now....Perhaps in another couple of years." |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Gordon Moat wrote:
Toralf wrote: 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. The reality is that both film and direct digital offer some goods choice to produce images. I see them more as complimentary devices, rather than an either/or choice. 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. Do you work for Creo? No. I work for a small company that makes the "Rolls Royce of scanners", at least according to our marketing people ;-) If you're really interested, have a look at http://www.procaptura.com/pages/scanners/scanners.htm [ ... ] If you are imaging to a desktop inkjet output, then many direct digital choices might be an easier path. It takes a great deal of knowledge to get the best results in printing, or at least lots of trial and error. The option of connecting the camera directly, or alternatively insert the picture storage media into it, offered by most (all?) recent image printers definitely appeals to me. I somehow see the transfer of my image to a PC as a complicating factor... (And not a very good argument for digital cameras.) [ ... ] 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? A CCD film scanner uses a trilinear array, Yeah, that's what I thought. This is the method I'm familiar with! Although we've also tested camera units using a different, also quite common, approach: These had 3 plain CCD arrays without filters or anything, and a prism used to decompose the light so that each component would an array of its own. BTW, I've never actually seen a film scanner. Do you happen to know of which type (flatbed, sheetfeed etc.) they are? (Or do they use methods completely different from the ones employed by other types of scanners?) Film grains are under 3µ in size. Film imaging chips have an optimum response at around 6.8µ to 8µ (microns) in size. Too small reduces sensitivity to light, while too large introduces noise. There are drum scanners that can image at about 3µ, though they are very new, and not very common. CCD film scanners are capable of much less than drum scanners. OK. We've been using 12 and 14µ pixel-arrays (I don't remember off the top of my head which is the one currently used and which was in an older model) on the scanners, but I'm getting off the topic, now... I think the technology is improving all the time. Obviously, the gear available next year will be better than the gear there is today, and will be priced lower. I think we will see many more full 35 mm sized imaging chips in the near future, Yeah, that's my theory as well - but maybe it's just wishful thinking... Apart from that, lots of good answers, there. Thanks. - Toralf |
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 |