sevencrossing said:
For me, it bring back memories of snogging in the darkroom

Snogging, snogging, what the heck is snagging..... from a girl raised in South Dakota... unless....

Back to the discussion. I may have mentioned on this forum about my experiences with folks who are into what is called "High End Audio". These are the folks who have anywhere from $25,000 to $250,000 in their audio gear/rooms,etc. Some have "tube" equipment. Speakers cost up to $50,000 EACH. And, they actually think they can hear the difference between their system and a good system costing less than $10,000. Interestingly enough, these "High End" folks will never enter in to a double blind study to determine whether the difference can actually be heard or if it is primarily in their imagination. And, this is exactly where I think we are when we discuss the differences between film and digital.

It is my opinion (same value as yours) that if we shoot a job with digital and film, equal quality lens, body, etc. and go through the same process of producing the final product... say a billboard of 20' x 40', not one of us will be able to tell the difference. Or, make 30" x 40" color prints. Again, I am doubtful anyone can tell the difference. So, let the games begin. If anyone knows of a comparison study, please let me know either here or via PM. Thanks, Ms. Tommie Lauer

And snogging...mmmm.... I looked it up... always used the model dressing rooms....

Pierre said:
Pro-film arguments gives me skin rash and brings back many bad and painful memories.

For me, it bring back memories of snogging in the darkroom

TaoTeJared said:
There is now 96-bit color scanning which can scan a color gamut way beyond any single film type can record. I heard many times 24 bit color scanners could out resolve, out color record most if not all films. Consider DSLRs 14bit raw color of the D800 is only 25bits of color info recorded - and that is one of the best ever tested. Only a few MedFmt cameras have hit that high. Camera's have a long way to go to catch up with the capabilities that exist in the rest of the digital realm.

That's a bit misleading. Just because a scanner is marketed as 96-bits doesn't mean it can accurately resolve 96-bits of color depth (not even close!) It's mostly a marketing gimmick.

Consider that one can buy many of these 96-bit scanners (such as the HP Scanjet series) for like $200 new. Inside these scanners you'll find cheap CCD sensors (it has to be cheap, considering the whole unit is only $200). Using filters, this cheap CCD is used to scan 6 colors, and the analog results are converted to digital using a 16-bit ADC. That's how we get 6x16 = 96 bits.

But we all know that just because we can stick a cheap 16-bit ADC to a cheap CCD sensor, it doesn't mean we're getting accurate 16-bit color discrimination per channel. Quantity vs. quality. Marketing vs. Reality.

The sophisticated CMOS sensors and ADCs used in the D800 / D4 are vastly superior to anything in these cheap 96-bit scanners. I'd say the D800 sensor compares favorably even against the CCDs in the $20,000+ Hasselblad Flextight scanner (considered the best by many). The Hasselblad, by the way, is not 96-bit. ;-)

So I'd disagree that camera tech has a long ways to "catch up" to scanner tech.

Lastly, the human eye can only discriminate about 24-bits of color. So except during post-processing, anything more than 24-bits is wasted anyway.

As the

Willis said:
... I definitely think there's something to be said for the film look.

Likewise with the dinosaurs, and I am equally happy I do not have to deal with either :-)
Pro-film arguments gives me skin rash and brings back many bad and painful memories.

I gotta say though, much like records vs. CD's, even if the technical quality is better w/ digital, there is an organic quality to film that you just can't get with digital... at least not without post-processing (maybe those stupid photo-shop disclosure laws in europe will bring back the film industry LOL). I definitely think there's something to be said for the film look.

TaoTeJared said:
MSmoto now you are trying to move it to another argument. That one is on another thread somewhere. ;)

If anyone still thinks "Film" is so great - Just look to the movies - Avatar - The color blows your mind because it was created 100% digitally and viewed digitally. No film type could have ever captured anything like that.

Gotcha.... and I agree with your opinion fully. We used to have to plate our own glass with silver.... oh, you're not that old, ha, ha,ha...

But the idea is the image capture technology is now digital and film is basically gone except for special purposes. And I used to shoot that 11"x14" Ektachrome, so it is a bit sad.....

MSmoto now you are trying to move it to another argument. That one is on another thread somewhere. ;)

Just on Digital technology (not exclusive to cameras), it can surpass film depending your setup. There is now 96-bit color scanning which can scan a color gamut way beyond any single film type can record. I heard many times 24 bit color scanners could out resolve, out color record most if not all films. Consider DSLRs 14bit raw color of the D800 is only 25bits of color info recorded - and that is one of the best ever tested. Only a few MedFmt cameras have hit that high. Camera's have a long way to go to catch up with the capabilities that exist in the rest of the digital realm.

If anyone still thinks "Film" is so great - Just look to the movies - Avatar - The color blows your mind because it was created 100% digitally and viewed digitally. No film type could have ever captured anything like that.

Pierre said:
Not true, I believe each photocell or group-of has its own AD converter and therefore the sensor output is digital which is what the CPU processes.

Sort of. Upon some quick research,I found that to be true of CMOS, but not CCD sensors. The latter of which sends an analog signal which is then buffered and converted later. We are talking about the original capture device, not so much the medium it is stored on. In which case it it is all digital with modern cameras.

Oh, I love to jump in on these things.

mirtos said:

He claims that digital technology has exceeded film technology.

Well, if two people take a camera out to obtain a photo, and one has digital, the other film, the digital can be done for a heck of a lot less money than the film. If it is a large set, even more so. The big advantage of digital is the instant feedback. This allows changes in the set, and one would suspect changes in the set would be for the good, thus the digital will have an advantage.

Let's go to the ocean. We are shooting large power boats. Digital... client sits down after first day and says "let's change this" Film.... maybe some discussion, but doubtful the entire shoot can be reviewed on the first night. Day two of shoot... digital is improving and producing what client wants... film... same old same old as client has not seen it yet.

We must conclude the final product will be satisfactory technically and both will have adequate resolution. Another problem for film is the post shoot processing. Had a three day shoot of large boats almost all go down the drain because a bozo in the darkroom did not follow protocol. Digital will be backed up before even leaving the site and going home.

So, if comparing the two technologies, one must really compare them in their entirety and not just one aspect or another. Oh, digital in low light.... no brainer here.... find me ISO 12800 film....

This should get at least a few other opinions, huh?

Thank you all for the intelligent comments. I can certainly admit when Im wrong, and It looks like I am.

PB PM said:
Hate to break it to you, but CCD and CMOS sensors are analog capturing devices. The images are digitized by the CPU in the camera.

Not true, I believe each photocell or group-of has its own AD converter and therefore the sensor output is digital which is what the CPU processes.

Now here is an interesting question, is the universe at the quantum level analog or digital by nature? We used to think it was analog but there is a growing sense within the scientific community that nature might by digital-like.

Hi all,

I still think it's best not to argue... :-)

Digital color counts bits - a jpg image is a 16 million (and change) image and a Tif (and it comes in many varieties) can be a 14-bit with billions of colors.

A healthy human eye can discern over 4 billion hues. A Kodachrome 25 (and other ISOs) are known for their brilliance, contrast, sharpness, tonality, faithfulness, archival qualities (decades), but also things that are 'touchy feely', like elegance and softness.

Digital produces dots. Film produces finer than dot grain, but both - and this is the key to each - have to live in so 'view able' surface.

My point is that there isn't a level playing field or a vacuum or 'ideal' world in which the discussion takes place. You take a picture and it goes somewhere.

That somewhere determines whether the medium is appropriately sized for it - film, enough pixels, cell phone, pinhole or whatever, to fit the destination.

The market place has clearly shown that digital is good enough, but science is still catching up.

As always, my very best,

Mike

To Mirtos: I totally disagree that colors with film photography are inherently more accurate than digital photography. As a pro I used many formats with film from 35mm Kodachrome to Fujichrome (transparencies) to many of the color negative films. Despite all kinds of color control often even big fine art prints had to be greatly tweaked to get even acceptable color accuracy. I used every device I could find from color checkers and usually tried to use natural sunlight and reflectors rather than artificial light sources. Since I switched to digital many of those glitches went away. Another problem is that I had to count on pro labs to get colors right that I could always get better myself as I could recall the colors of the subject better than someone who had never seen the subject. There are many other reasons I chose digital over film and I was a hold out still using film. I used to say digital is still a poor investment and film was increasing in quality faster than digital. The market alone for digital versus film tells almost the full story.

mirtos said:
...I was under the impression that under ideal conditions, film still recorded more than digitial, and that because of the more analog nature of film there was less loss.

Hate to break it to you, but CCD and CMOS sensors are analog capturing devices. The images are digitized by the CPU in the camera.

mirtos said:
I was under the impression that under ideal conditions, film still recorded more than digital, and that because of the more analog nature of film there was less loss. I know the loss is imperceptible, but I thought it still existed.

I think there is a big misunderstanding on digital v analog signals

any signal will alway have noise, in the case of film, the noise comes from grain

no matter how fine grain the film is the noise will still be there

so there is no theoretical reason why film will have more information

Yes a I0x 8 negative may have more information than a CX sensor but that has to do with the size not media

Or to put it more simply, I thought the true colors will still more correct on film. (not necesarily 35 MM film, but at the highest quality film vs the digital of that size (so large format vs the equivalent digital, i suppose) that for the purity of colors, film was still more correct. (not necesarily perceptably so, but thats a different thing)

This whole discussion stemmed from a discussion that was held in the recent SCMS (Society for Cinema and Media Studies) conference in Boston, MA.

Basically "images" (whether it be from the lense that is our eye, sending data to the brain, from the lense on a camera recording to film, or a lense on a digital camera sending data to be processed and turned into an image boil down to collecting light and transerring that light to something. And the discussion boiled down to that film is one step closer to the actual object/person/whatever that you are recording, so it has the capability of recording more information. The human eye collects light and basically transmits at basically 70 Megapixels (Idf I'm correct on this, i might not be, so that once a camera creates an image of greater than 70 megapixels the human eye could not discern any differences... i know there are practical differences but from a theory standpoint that would be the max needed for talking about the human eye. Then the discussion switched to film vs digiital (again, not practicality, i dont see myself ever going back to film), and I was under the impression that under ideal conditions, film still recorded more than digitial, and that because of the more analog nature of film there was less loss. I know the loss is imperceptable, but I thought it still existed.

From what everyone was saying, it looks like I'm wrong on this one. Ok, fair enough.

InTheMist said:
You're probably going to lose this bet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography#Image_quality

Never read that one on wiki - almost correct but leaves out a bunch of stuff. Arguments made are the correct ones though. The numbers are off a bit.

One thing to remember is that CCDs and CMOS are actually between 1/3-1/2 the stated MP counts as pixels are combined to create a color. (Combine 2-3 pixels of a sensor to equal 1 pixel of captured color.) Foveon sensors are the only ones that capture a color at each pixel.

mirtos said:
He claims that digital technology has exceeded film technology.
...
Am I wrong on this one?

You're probably going to lose this bet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography#Image_quality

Besides that, one thing that digital has way over film is the fine control ver so many variables in the digital darkroom.

mirtos said:
I dont believe its possible for digitial (right now) to collect as much as film.

Collect as much what?

If we are just talking about 35mm film, then yes digital is better. There is more to this matter than just resolution. For example, the D800 has a dynamic range of 14 EV, film has 6-9 at the most.

Just find an old 1980's or 1990's National Geographic and look at the photos there . The wildlife images that stunned us in those years are not even comparable in image quality ( horrible grain ) to what we take today with entry level DSLRs. Even the APS-C sensor has surpassed 35mm film - my humble opinion.

MRI machines and high resolution TEM I've seen in the last few years use digital capture.
20 years ago I used to develop high resolution TEM on medium format and use nice optics and high technology to enlarge/expose and develop images on high resolution paper.
While I still love the appearance of a projected or backlit slide and still use slide film today, I will ultimately hit a scanner if I try to print so anything I like in the printed image must be achieveable digitally.

Another thought to add: DSLR do not represent the true potential of Image CMOS. Beyond the continual year on year improvements, there are medical, scientific and military applications less constrained by economics that achieve even better performance.

On the other hand, the digital chip is made using lithography so analog image transfer wins the resolution game.

I have always felt that with the development in Photoshop and other post processing software today we have certainly surpassed non-digital technology. This in fact occurred years ago really. Taking the time to invest in learning such software can be even more valuable than upgrading a body or buying that next lens. I always wished I took one semester or even two at a local college to learn photoshop instead of the trial and error approach that has eventually worked out for me these past ten years.

SquamishPhoto said:
Films and their approximate Digital MegaPixel equivalents Calculated @ 107 lines/mm film resolution for the interested photographer!

The problem with the numbers is that they are a digital scanner settings and not the actual film. It also doesn't take into account color bit depth that can be recorded.

This came from Zeiss. It is just the Lpmm. There were others that went into the 200 Lpmm range but are no longer made.

Brand Film Type Resolving power (LPMM)
Kodak T-Max 100 b & w 180
Fuji Fujichrome Velvia color transparency 160
Agfa Portrait XPS 160 color negative 150
Kodak Portra 400 b & w monochrome C- 41 150
Kodak Portra 160 VC color negative 150
Kodak Portra 160 NC color negative 140
Kodak Ektachrome 100 VS color transparency 130
Kodak T-Max 400 b & w 120
Fuji NPZ 800 color negative 110
Kodak Portra 800 color negative 90

mirtos said:
I'm not asking from a practical standpoint, but an intellectual standpoint, and I was hoping people in this forum might have information for me to read.

You can't separate the two since film development and advancement basically has stalled, and digital is limited by current technology. Theoretically both could be developed endlessly to far superior standards but you are caught in the economic web that Film won't be.

There just is not much to read that is a not just an opinion due to the fact you can not decouple "Better" from a particular "Use" or even as Squimish showed, scanning vs. capturing from a digital camera. Scanners can scan at a greater color depth than camera sensors can capture. Film can have a endless amount of color tone where digital currently does have it's limits. And all of it changes every day as new film and camera sensors are released.

The closest you will get is reading the tech papers from Film manufactures (easily found) as well as the developers of CCD and CMOS sensors.