Film vs Digital

[JohnnyRebel]

Saw another discussion of this on a hijacked thread and wondered if there was any real information out there.

I'll let some of you experts translate this info into 2011, but as of 2007 the answer by Nestor Rodriguez, Senior Principal Scientist for the Kodak Entertainment Imaging division, was:

"A single frame of color film scanned at 4K by 3K resolution with 10-bit depth contains about 50 megabytes of data. However, there is actually a lot more information than that on each frame of 35mm film. We have conducted tests where we have scanned film at 6K by 4K resolution at 10-bit depth, resulting in about 100 megabytes of data, or twice as much image information. In comparison, a typical CCD or CMOS RGB 3- sensor 1920 by 1080 electronic camera with 10-bit depth records 8 megabytes per frame, assuming that there is no sub-sampling or data compression. A single CFA sensor 4096 by 2048 camera records about 10 megabytes of data. So the simple answer is that today's best film technology enables you to record 5 to 10 times more picture information on a single frame than the best contemporary digital cameras."

Read more @ http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Hub/nRodriguez.htm

JR

 

[corkyg]

Thanks for that link - a very interesting read. Digital photography is still, comparatively speaking, in its infancy. Currently, Arizona Highways has published a special on the best photos to ever grace their pages. The majority are, of course, from film, and of those, mainly 4x5 large format film. These are educational . . .

http://www.arizonahighways.com/photography/portfolio.asp

 

[twistedlogic]

Steve Hoffman:

"Output from the 6mp 10D in most photographic situations is as good or better than my 4000 dpi film scans from 35mm Provia F ISO 100 film."

But he has actual comparison images up.

 

[Munky]

I've seen conflicting results. Of course, there's always the argument that no scanner is good enough to capture all the detail of film.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I've seen conflicting results. Of course, there's always the argument that no scanner is good enough to capture all the detail of film.

And that is my take-away from the article.

JR

 

[slashbinslashbash]

You've got to define what you want to talk about. An overall assessment is probably impossible. Let's assume that we are just talking about 35mm format here. Now if you want to nail it down to a certain ISO range, it might be possible to get a firm statement. I believe that at ISO 50 or 100, there are probably films that can out-resolve the best modern DSLR's. Conversely, I believe that at ISO 1600 or higher, there are DSLR's that can out-resolve the best films ever made. Now, in the middle -- 200, 400, 800 -- I'm not so sure, but I have seen plenty of crappy looking ISO 400 film results, and I personally see little difference in most DSLR's between ISO 100, 200, and 400, whereas you can see film results get noticeably worse over that same range.

Then you have to talk about black and white vs. color film, and slide film vs. negative film, and bulk/cheap processing vs. boutique/expensive processing. There are certainly more steps to film processing than there are in digital processing, and more room for human error at each step.

The Kodak article is obviously a sales pitch for Kodak film. Not to say there's no useful information, but it goes out of its way to point out the downsides of digital.

 

[GoSharks]

You guys realize that all the digital references in that article are references to digital video?

 

[Lemon law]

Thanks for that link - a very interesting read. Digital photography is still, comparatively speaking, in its infancy. Currently, Arizona Highways has published a special on the best photos to ever grace their pages. The majority are, of course, from film, and of those, mainly 4x5 large format film. These are educational . . .

http://www.arizonahighways.com/photography/portfolio.asp

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me the corkyG has put his finger on the exact digital Camera v film debate.

There is no doubt about it, if you are willing to use a big enough film size, no existing smaller format digital Camera can compete head to head with a 4x5 film negative that takes minimal enlargement to make a 16x20 or larger print.

Its only when we compare apples to apples that the differences becomes clearer. As we ask questions about both costs and the abilities of your average photographer.

As sluping along a large view camera, a tripod, may well be within the skill sets of professional photographer, but still we must ask, what percentage of the shots taken by the large film size pro set yield a stellar image worth writing home to mother. Because regardless of dud or not, there is a huge cost in film and development.

But when we scale in down 35mm film v digital, the 35mm film costs are still there, but still somewhat cheaper v 4x5 firm sizes. But for the non-professional 35MM willing to buy a quality 35mm camera and descent lens, their resolution and ability to make 16x20 prints, transcend the limitations of film at about the 8 mega pixel sensor point. Meanwhile back at the ranch, it costs the non pro zero to make a pile of bad shots, and better yet, the digital photographer can use software to edit in additional appeal.

And as the megapixels keeps improving, who knows what the future will be?

On the downside, the expense of the quality digital lens required, keep everyone in poverty.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

You guys realize that all the digital references in that article are references to digital video?

We do. Perhaps you can explain to me why it makes a difference.

the simple answer is that today's best film technology enables you to record 5 to 10 times more picture information on a single frame than the best contemporary digital cameras.

JR

 

[Gintaras]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as the megapixels keeps improving, who knows what the future will be?

On the downside, the expense of the quality digital lens required, keep everyone in poverty.

Says who? a photographer? or so-called photo-engineer?

 

[Madwand1]

And that is my take-away from the article.

Is that all? Why did you start this thread? Does the dead & done film vs. digital war mean something to you still? What? What's your perspective on this question? If the combined photographic and technical wisdom of AT was to say, "why yes, indeed, 35mm film has more resolution than 35mm DSLRs", would you be shooting film?

 

[Throckmorton]

Can't we look at film through a microscope or something to determine how how many DPI it really is equivalent to?

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Is that all? Why did you start this thread? Does the dead & done film vs. digital war mean something to you still? What? What's your perspective on this question? If the combined photographic and technical wisdom of AT was to say, "why yes, indeed, 35mm film has more resolution than 35mm DSLRs", would you be shooting film?

First line of my first post is the simple reason that I started this thread.

The Kodak scientist also verified what I suspected to be true and thought others might be interested. Seeing as this subject constantly hijacks threads, perhaps it deserves a thread of its own.

I do shoot film. I still use my mid-80's AE-1P (purchased new at Sears) and my Nikon D4 (bought used back in the 90's when I used to shoot for a local newspaper). I have also had a Trip 35 and a PEN EES-2 refurbished. Sometimes when I shoot an event, I have my 13 year old run around with the Trip and take retro snaps. I am considering getting a Diana Mini, just for the fun of it.

I specifically shoot B&W film whan I have a particular subject that I want immortalized. My B&W film shots are much more likely to be around in 100 years than are the thousands of digital shots.

I mostly shoot digital. I use a D700 at work, and have just traded the old D2H, D200 and D40 in on a spanking-new refurb D7000 for my freelance work.

As I continue to learn the craft, I would love to move up to larger format film for landscape shots.

Hope I answered your questions...

JR

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Can't we look at film through a microscope or something to determine how how many DPI it really is equivalent to?

Your problem is with referring to "film" as "film" instead of differentiating it. All films are different. Velvia (50 ISO) is better than another film at 100 ISO, is better than 200 ISO, is better than 400 ISO, and so on. The grains get larger and larger with each bump in sensitivity; the larger grains are the mechanism by which they're more sensitive. You can't just say "film is better than digital" by cherry-picking the best film in existence, which is impractical for 95% of common photographic needs. Choose a 200 ISO or 400 ISO film and you might be closer to making a fair comparison.

Of course, larger film sizes give better results than smaller film sizes. I have no doubt that medium and large formats can out-resolve current 35mm sized DSLR sensors. However, these are usually limited to slow-speed films like ISO 25 or 50; and the lenses are all fixed focal length, with f/8-f/16 apertures. This means they require either a lot of light, or a long exposure. For a landscape with a big sturdy tripod, an exposure of several seconds is no problem. For a portrait in a studio, having several small suns' worth of light going off in 1/5000 of a second is no problem. Portability and flexibility take a big hit, however. They are pretty much limited to subjects that either don't move, or can fit into a studio. For big advertising agencies, this can range up to car-sized objects. The studios are massive and have integrated turntables for rotating cars or whatever they're shooting. The lighting is multiple 2400 Ws strobe heads which are capable of outshining the sun in broad daylight. Sometimes it is possible to move the studio outdoors, and shoot large format on location, but this will require a team of 10 or so assistants just to get all the lights and modifiers into place and hold them steady (along with several power generators and a big truck to move everything). The are very few photographers in the world who do this kind of work, and the cost for such a shoot is $100k+. Of course, the ability to manipulate the focal plane with a view camera is unparalleled even by the tilt/shift lenses available for some DSLR systems. There is simply no way to get a DSLR to have the incredible depth of field achievable by view cameras (and which comes in handy when you're shooting a landscape with flowers a foot or two from the camera, and you want something distant to also be in focus). So there is certainly still a place for film, and I certainly wouldn't denigrate somebody who decides to use film. As long as they have money to burn on film and development, more power to them.

(I remember the last rolls I shot with my film SLR before I finally ponied up the money to buy my first decent P&S, a Panasonic DMC-FZ20K. I think it was 12 rolls of film, and it cost me over $100 to get it developed at the drugstore. And of course my images were essentially held hostage by the film until I paid to get it developed; most of them ended up looking like crap, but I could never know that until I got the prints back. In any case, after spending like $150 total for the film + development, I decided that a $400 digital camera with a nice f/2.8 zoom lens really wasn't that expensive. That camera lasted me a good couple of years before I got my first DSLR.)

Pro sports photographers are 100% digital, with 300mm f/2.8 or similar lenses (usually a 70-200 zoom on a second body, or 400/2.8 or 500/4.0 as the primary lens). Wedding and event photographers are 100% digital, usually with the primary lens being a 24-70 f/2.8, along with a 70-200/2.8 and a couple of large, fast primes like an 85/1.2 or 35/1.4.

So for many kinds of pros, the benefits of digital clearly outweigh the downsides. Professional landscape photographers and, to a lesser extent, studio photographers are sticking with their film cameras, for now. This is a pretty small portion of the market. Clearly the majority of pros have moved to digital. And who better to trust when it comes to notions of quality, than the pros?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Can't we look at film through a microscope or something to determine how how many DPI it really is equivalent to?

Sort of...maybe. Film detail is made by the density of the silver particles/clusters rather than aligned on a grid like pixels are. The particles themselves wouldn't be visible, but the clumps are, which forms the "grain".

At least I think that's how it works. Been a loong time since I was in a photography class.

 

[Madwand1]

I do shoot film. I still use my mid-80's AE-1P (purchased new at Sears) and my Nikon D4 (bought used back in the 90's when I used to shoot for a local newspaper). I have also had a Trip 35 and a PEN EES-2 refurbished. Sometimes when I shoot an event, I have my 13 year old run around with the Trip and take retro snaps. I am considering getting a Diana Mini, just for the fun of it.

As I continue to learn the craft, I would love to move up to larger format film for landscape shots.

Hope I answered your questions...

I appreciate the answers.

I did film vs. digital for myself close to about a decade ago, and while I tried my utmost to get the most out of film and prefer it to digital, I failed, and gave up. Film can be nostalgic and fun for me, but I don't believe that arguments about technical superiority hold up until you get to much larger formats, where film can have a significant size advantage for the cost.

I've generated 100 MB image files from medium format film and a Nikon 9000 scanner, and while those images can have technically more detail, all that detail was not image quality. There is plenty of detail which you wouldn't want to see -- noise, and lack of image sharpness (where even film flatness might come into play). And the colors aren't as good. This might be subjective and film dependent, but my own best and motivated effort lost against digital which was available and affordable at that time.

Film can still be fun. If you haven't already, check out an inexpensive TLR -- Minolta or Zeiss for example. I paid around $75 for mine on eBay. That's probably the cheapest way to get into larger format for fun, and you might well be able to find affordable shop processing, and MF film has some hope of competing against DSLRs. Seriously, I don't think 35mm film does.

 

[GoSharks]

We do. Perhaps you can explain to me why it makes a difference.

JR

Well, for one, the specific example you have there as "5-10 times more info" is based on 8mp, which is not exactly a contemporary DSLR. Not to mention that just comparing file sizes is completely bogus.

 

[Throckmorton]

So for many kinds of pros, the benefits of digital clearly outweigh the downsides. Professional landscape photographers and, to a lesser extent, studio photographers are sticking with their film cameras, for now. This is a pretty small portion of the market. Clearly the majority of pros have moved to digital. And who better to trust when it comes to notions of quality, than the pros?

For everyone but the landscape photographers, the extreme convenience benefit of digital outweighs the higher quality with film. But I guess the landscape photographers use the bigger film formats anyway...

 

[Gooberlx2]

Not to mention that just comparing file sizes is completely bogus.

That was my biggest gripe with the article. Inflating resolution on a scanner means absolutely nothing but larger file sizes if it outresolves the limits of a negative.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Well, for one, the specific example you have there as "5-10 times more info" is based on 8mp, which is not exactly a contemporary DSLR. Not to mention that just comparing file sizes is completely bogus.

I think he is saying that the amount of information we get from film is limited by the scanner. As scanner technology increases we can get more and more information from film, whereas this is not the case with digital.

Analog film has tremendous resolution. For example, from 1977 to the late 1980's Kodak used 35mm film (enlarged 500x) to craft the incredible Colorama's in Grand Central Station. These pieces measured 18'X60'. By 1988 35mm Ektar 25 could produce images equaling the 8x20 films used for the first Coloramas. It was all about learning how to extract the photographic data.

JR

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I think he is saying that the amount of information we get from film is limited by the scanner. As scanner technology increases we can get more and more information from film, whereas this is not the case with digital.

Analog film has tremendous resolution. For example, from 1977 to the late 1980's Kodak used 35mm film (enlarged 500x) to craft the incredible Colorama's in Grand Central Station. These pieces measured 18'X60'. By 1988 35mm Ektar 25 could produce images equaling the 8x20 films used for the first Coloramas. It was all about learning how to extract the photographic data.

JR

Ektar 25. 25 ISO. Requires 4x the light of 100 ISO. Small grains. Higher resolution. Once again, I posit that if Canon/Nikon/Sony/whoever were to care to build a digital sensor that only worked at 25 ISO, they could easily reach 100 megapixels or greater, using today's technology.

Take the sensor used in the Canon S100, which is a 1/1.7" sensor at 12.1MP. It has an area of 43 square millimeters. A 36m x 24mm full-frame sensor has an area of 864mm. So you could fit 20 of the S100 sensors into a 35mm full frame sensor. 20*12.1MP is 241MP. Seeing as the S100 gets fine results up to ISO 400 or so, I think it would be absolutely fantastic at ISO 25. There is nothing keeping them from doing this (although it might require the equivalent of a high-end graphics card to process all that data at once! CPU power -> Form factor and cooling are probably your limitations here).

So how about it? A 35mm sized 241 megapixel sensor, with a briefcase-sized, mains-electricity-required camera to house it? Would that satisfy you?

Come to find out (I actually searched for this after I wrote all the previous stuff) Canon actually made a 120MP APS-H sensor last year. Extrapolating to 35mm size would be roughly 190MP. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/8/24/canon120mpsensor

Film is not some magical technology from the gods. It is a bunch of chemicals layered on top of plastic. Those chemicals form crystals in order to form images. Although the silver atoms may be as small as we can reasonably hope to achieve, the crystals (grains) they form are not.

Re-reading the Kodak thing, it is clearly a propaganda piece. Marketing fluff by a desperate company. The "scientist" works for Kodak and wants to keep his job. Of course he is going to say that film is better.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml

 

[actuarial]

I wonder how hard/easy it would be for Canon or Nikon to produce a 35mm sized sensor, at ISO 50 only, that would exceed 100 megapixels.

The pixel density shouldn't be a problem at that ISO, as even stated above there are currently cameras with that pixel density that get excellent results at that ISO.

Wouldn't there be a huge market for it from professionals? The camera would be huge but for anyone in studio, or out taking landscapes, it would be able to produce the images they need and would probably still be a lot more convenient than a 4x5 camera.

Would it even be that expensive for them to produce? They target market would be such that you could strip out EVERYTHING. Full manual only, no video, a full complement of lenses already exist. Hell even take out jpeg processing and only allow shooting in raw. The people who are going to actually want to use it probably will anyways, and will already have the appropriate software to manipulate the images.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I wonder how hard/easy it would be for Canon or Nikon to produce a 35mm sized sensor, at ISO 50 only, that would exceed 100 megapixels.

The pixel density shouldn't be a problem at that ISO, as even stated above there are currently cameras with that pixel density that get excellent results at that ISO.

Wouldn't there be a huge market for it from professionals? The camera would be huge but for anyone in studio, or out taking landscapes, it would be able to produce the images they need and would probably still be a lot more convenient than a 4x5 camera.

Would it even be that expensive for them to produce? They target market would be such that you could strip out EVERYTHING. Full manual only, no video, a full complement of lenses already exist. Hell even take out jpeg processing and only allow shooting in raw. The people who are going to actually want to use it probably will anyways, and will already have the appropriate software to manipulate the images.

IMO such a lens would outresolve any existing SLR lenses. You can shoot black and white resolution charts all day, but color throws a stick into things. Different colors = different wavelengths = bends differently when it hits an interface between two media. With 10+ elements in most modern lenses, that is a lot of chance for the colors to bend in different ways. We already see enough chromatic aberration as it is, usually in the corners; how about having it visible throughout the entire image? Replace each pixel with 20 pixels; chromatic aberration that currently takes up 1/2 pixel would now cover 10 pixels. I think that it would be pretty distracting.

Not to mention the diffraction effects. Currently it is generally not best to use crop bodies with apertures smaller than f/8, and older full-frames like my 5D are good through f/11 or so. Higher than that, and diffraction starts to cause a diminishing of sharpness. Damn you, wave-particle duality!

It would sure be interesting to see though. I wish that Canon would have released some results/photos from the experimental sensor instead of just saying they'd built it.

Part of my point in saying this, is to prove a point to the folks who seem to want nothing more than higher resolution sensors (and to show that maybe the film they think is so high resolution, might not actually be so). We are already prodding at the physical limits of light itself with modern sensors. Take a look at this link, mouse over to see 100% crops of f/5.6 vs. f/11 with the same lens in a Canon 50D. The reason why f/11 looks blurrier than f/5.6 is that the photons are diffracting greater than 1 pixel due to the narrow aperture. This is one of the reasons why P&S's never stop down much, if at all. If your P&S stopped down to f/11, those images would look like blurry crap at 100%. If the sensor in your DSLR had pixel density comparable to a P&S, the same would apply. There is a good discussion/demo of diffraction here.

 

[Lalakai]

The film vs digital debate will never die until we have moved through all photographers that started on film or currently use film, and their voices are silent. There are still times when I will go back to my 1N or EOS 3, and when doing personal family portraits my 5D is a backup for the 330. The ease and convenience of digital is a clear winner and it's this advantage that makes most people make the switch. At the same time, I'm also seeing some of the professionals going back to film and using their digitals as backups. Can my eyes actually see a difference?? To me, yes. Digital is just that; a specific numeric representation that is created, adjusting to the capabilities of the camera/lense. Film is analog, adjusting to the same capabilities of the camera/lense, but not sacrificing quality as the image is converted to digital; with film, what you see is what you get. No doubt working with the flexibilities of a good photo shop program is a huge advantage over trying to make the corrections in the dark room or with the color analyzer. A disadvantage that many newer photographers are experiencing, is that they are depending on the camera to make the good shot, instead of understanding what makes a good shot and laying the ground work for that to happen as they take the shot. Ah well, if life were simple we wouldn't have anything to complain about.

 

[corkyg]

. . . A disadvantage that many newer photographers are experiencing, is that they are depending on the camera to make the good shot, instead of understanding what makes a good shot and laying the ground work for that to happen as they take the shot. Ah well, if life were simple we wouldn't have anything to complain about.

I fully agree with your entire response. Your last thought triggered one in my mind with respect to compsing a scene. Ansel Adams once said, "A good photograph is knowing where to stand.' "