Film vs A900

[artington]

Well this seems pretty conclusive.

Original post on Dyxum:

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts ... 470#468470" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Comparison between Ektar, Velvia and a900 on:

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dusty]

Of course, the problem with this comparison is that he's comparing the A900s digital image against a film image that he scanned to digital. What would he see if he did an optical printout of the film at the same size as a A900 print, then scanned them both? That would put them both 2 generations from the original, since you have to have 2 gens to get the film printed then digitized.

In essence, his test is testing the scanner, not the film.

Dusty

[KevinBarrett]

Very astute, Dusty, although if the most easily replicated and archived version of the film picture is in digital form, then it is burdened from the start with that extra step in quality loss just to get it to the same playing field as the a900. I agree though, that it appears to test the scanner more than the film.

[artington]

While I accept your arguments, is it not now the case that pro labs use digital scanning of negatives to produce prints rather than optical enlargement? The scanner used in this test (eventually) was an Imacon 848 8000 ppi scanner from a pro-lab so does the test not, therefore, compare the real world print outs from film against those from the A900, or am I missing something here?

[bfitzgerald]

I think most film users have bad experiences with mini labs and their scanners, frankly I don't even bother getting a cd off them, and ignore the prints. I get much better results scanning myself. Many prints come back with burnt out skies..which is not common on neg film at all. When you go to the negative the details are there..they just did a dodgy scan!

Back to the test, this seems like a pretty decent stab at being fair, using a good Imacon scanner. This should at last put to death this silly 3mp is almost as good as 35mm low ISO film, so I am not shocked that good 35mm film is close to the A900 res wise.

Though I will admit, optical prints with good equipment would be a better way to work..few have such equipment to hand. So whilst I would say good scans can deliver very nice results..most would like to use optical prints.

For my prints needs I have never been unhappy with decent 35mm film, and the characteristics of film are very compelling reasons to still use the stuff at times. So a film users desires, are more than just resolution based, tonal wise..colour reproduction (to taste) are all factors here.

[Argonaut]

"This should at last put to death this silly [story that] 3mp is almost as good as 35mm low ISO film ..."

Hmm. I've been shooting for over 50 years. I've used all the 'chromes at all ISOs, had them developed by Kodak, Fuji, custom labs, drug stores, and done it myself. They've come back from the labs with scratches I can't remove - it's film. The highlights have been blown and I can't recover them (likewise for shadows) on any realistic budget - it's film. They've got dust and dirt on them as well as grain anybody can see if you go over ASA 200 - it's film. The colors fade and fungus eats them up - it's film (yep, even KR 25 can turn red and I've got the slides to prove it, although I'll concede they are from the 1940s). I've given many many slide shows using Carousel lenses as well as better aftermarket lenses. I've seen shows from guys with Leica Pradovits and lenses whose cost exceeded my entire hardware collection.

And the bottom line is that edited digital images in a show on an 800x600 (1/2 a megapixel) projector are at least as good as anything I was ever able to do on chrome, and as good as the Leicas (which continually jammed, BTW, and gave all of us cheapo projector owners a good laugh). My point is that real life intrudes on these lab experiments. I believe the results, but it makes no difference. Shooting with my 6MB KM 5D, followed by editing and cropping, has improved my output beyond any chance of going back to film.

[01af]

This should at last put to death this silly [story that] 3 MP is almost as good as 35-mm low-ISO film ...

Those who say that's a "silly story" simply have no clue.

As a matter of fact, 3 MP digital in APS-C format is almost as good as, um, medium-speed 35-mm film in many aspects, and even better in some. 6 MP APS-C is clearly better than 35-mm film in most aspects. 12 MP APS-C is definitely better than 35-mm film in virtually all aspects; actually it's about as good as 120-format roll film. 24 MP 35-mm-format digital clearly outperforms 120-format film and almost approaches the image quality of 4×5" sheet film.

Low-speed 35-mm film has better resolution than 3 MP digital, that much is true---but there's far more to image quality than just resolution. And then there's even more to the making of photographs than just the performance of the film or sensor---usability. As 'Argonaut' just said, in real life things like ease of use, instant feedback, lack of processing errors, no scratches on the negatives, and post-processing latitude add as much to the quality of the final results as sheer performance of the tools does.

So all in all, the image quality achieved by digital photography has left behind that of film five or six years ago, and the gap between the two keeps widening ever since.

-- Olaf

[bfitzgerald]

Sorry 01af, using both mediums..I feel I do have a clue.

3mp is fine for A4 prints, it can go a little bigger, but drops off rapidly after that. If you think that's almost as good as film, I have news, it's not..not even close.
6mp is better, but cannot render fine details in the way film does, 10mp isn't beating it either..and as 10-12 mp is so small as to not even be worth talking about..that's no match for these ISO 100 films either.

I have been a fan of digital for high ISO work for some time now..that's it's strong point, least to me. And to the complains about poor conditions of slides or negs, store them properly..that helps a huge degree.
As an FP4 user, the remarks about processing latitude don't rub with me, the stuff is damn near bulletproof exposure wise, never even seen a digital come close to that kind of latitude..both over and underexposure.

I can appreciate the remarks about ease of use and instant feedback...I like digital too. but for the real serious stuff, film is hard to beat. 01af I thought you read this test online..it concluded the A900 won, but not by much. So i don't think it's very logical to come here and say "no clue"..it's all there for folks to see, no reason to get upset..unless you are a Luminous landscape fan.

Oh and BTW, film is a great pp saver too..IMO. And like I said, resolution is only one part of it..tonal and colour reproduction, and the "look and charm" of film, appeal to shooters. I have my 5d right here next to me..but I know even cheap ISO 200 neg film runs rings around it for details\dr. When I get my Kodachrome 64 through..no doubt I will do one shot to compare to the A200, though I will at least try to do something nice with the frame, film is a discipline. If I honestly thought film was beaten by 3mp, I would not waste my time with the stuff

[Yagil Henkin]

Was shot by a photographer with three cameras - 2 Nikon F100's loaded with Fuji films, from a portrait 160 to a superia 1600, and one Nikon D100, 6mp. the prints, through a proffesional lab with lots of experience both in film and in digital, were MUCH beter from the films.
I did some comparisons myself. Even if I won't take into account the 3"X4" print I did from ektar 25, I did print 30X45cm and 40X60 prints from films and some digital cameras, and I can say for sure that, on close inspection, there Was a difference in the small detail. Sorry, to say 3mp is as good as 35mm film, not to speak of medium-format, is in my view unacceptable claim - judging real-world results.

[pakodominguez]

In essence, his test is testing the scanner, not the film.

You right.
In other hand, if the tester was photographing a test chart, he could at least use a better lens -a 50mm f2.8 Macro. A real subject will probably works better and look nicer.
IMHO this kind of test are useless.

Regards

[pakodominguez]

Was shot by a photographer with three cameras - 2 Nikon F100's loaded with Fuji films, from a portrait 160 to a superia 1600, and one Nikon D100, 6mp. the prints, through a proffesional lab with lots of experience both in film and in digital, were MUCH beter from the films.
I did some comparisons myself. Even if I won't take into account the 3"X4" print I did from ektar 25, I did print 30X45cm and 40X60 prints from films and some digital cameras, and I can say for sure that, on close inspection, there Was a difference in the small detail. Sorry, to say 3mp is as good as 35mm film, not to speak of medium-format, is in my view unacceptable claim - judging real-world results.

A couple of thoughs
in 2003 not that many labs in the world had "lots of experience" with digital. Then, not that many lab do color correction from digital, most of the times they just send the files through: if you haven't had your monitor calibrated, download the printer's profile and softproof while correcting, you will have a hard time getting nice prints from any camera, in 2003 or today (I still have the horrible 8x12 prints I got from my first digital order, back in 2003 actually, I have learn alot since then). Of course, it is not the case with film, where labs had really a lot of experience by 2003... Same lack of experience about digital was what photographers were experiencing at that time.

The D100 wasn't a nice camera, regarding color and general quality. The D70, a year younger/newer camera either. And that's why I decided to sell all my Nikon gear and go Minolta (I already had a 7Hi at that time) and I wasn't the only Nikon user abandoning the brand at that time. Nikon is doing much better now, the D200 was a good step ahead and the D300 the camera that put Nikon back on the game (the D700 show up latter)

Film and digital aren't better than the other, they are different, as different is the approach you have to photography when you go out with your A700 or your X700.


Regards