| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
I have listened to the film-vs-digital argument for years. Inasmuch as
I haven't had a chance to experiment with 35 mm film, I could only
imagine the kind of resolution I could get if I had a good-quality
system and film.
Well, this year I began buying fairly nice photographic equipment,
nicer and much more expensive than anything I have ever before owned. I
have experiemented with films ranging in ISO from 100 to 3200, and even
tried Velvia 100F (I asked my local Wolf Camera shop for Velvia film,
and that's what they had to special order to get me). My Velvia film is
still out of shop being developed, but I've scanned everything else.
I have to say, I am disappointed by the results. So far, my cheapy
little point-and-shoot Minolta Dimage G500 does as good a job--image
quality-wise--as my 35mm Canon Rebel G with a 28-135 IS zoom lens. I
have been tinkering with this stuff for most of this year, and I simply
cannot take photographs with my 35mm camera that look any better than
those on my G500. Considering that I have spent nearly 4x more on my
film setup than on my digital camera, I am really disappointed.
Add to the image quality problem the annoyance of having to scan my own
negatives and keep track of the dates of each roll and the special
processing I need for slide film, and film is just a losing proposition
for me. I've had enough; I'm going to bit the bullet and buy a good
digital SLR, probably the Canon 20D.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scott W
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
pooua@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Add to the image quality problem the annoyance of having to scan my own
negatives and keep track of the dates of each roll and the special
processing I need for slide film, and film is just a losing proposition
for me. I've had enough; I'm going to bit the bullet and buy a good
digital SLR, probably the Canon 20D.
|
Welcome to the club, there are a lot of us in it. It was about 2003
that I got into seeing how much I could get out of 35mm film, not so
much as it turns out, they is the year I gave up on film
There are those who claim they are getting great resolution from film,
but they don't tend to post photos so it is hard to know what they
are really getting.
I have two friends, both of which thought they could do better with
their 35mm film camera then I could with my digital, in both cases we
both shot the same scenes and compared the results, in both cases
neither has shoot film since.
Then I hear that get really get 35mm to work you have to use just the
right film and have a pro lab process it and then have it drum scanned,
this is not for me. I also don't like the idea of shooting ISO 50
film.
I could kind of make film work, but I had a number of problems that
made it not even close to worth it, first was the time to scan in the
photo, then there is the fact that the negatives seem to come back
with scratches, a lot of time using PhotoShop to clean up the scans.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:19 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 19:49:29 -0800, pooua@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | I have listened to the film-vs-digital argument for years. Inasmuch as
I haven't had a chance to experiment with 35 mm film, I could only
imagine the kind of resolution I could get if I had a good-quality
system and film.
Well, this year I began buying fairly nice photographic equipment,
nicer and much more expensive than anything I have ever before owned. I
have experiemented with films ranging in ISO from 100 to 3200, and even
tried Velvia 100F (I asked my local Wolf Camera shop for Velvia film,
and that's what they had to special order to get me). My Velvia film is
still out of shop being developed, but I've scanned everything else.
I have to say, I am disappointed by the results. So far, my cheapy
little point-and-shoot Minolta Dimage G500 does as good a job--image
quality-wise--as my 35mm Canon Rebel G with a 28-135 IS zoom lens. I
have been tinkering with this stuff for most of this year, and I simply
cannot take photographs with my 35mm camera that look any better than
those on my G500. Considering that I have spent nearly 4x more on my
film setup than on my digital camera, I am really disappointed.
Add to the image quality problem the annoyance of having to scan my own
negatives and keep track of the dates of each roll and the special
processing I need for slide film, and film is just a losing proposition
for me. I've had enough; I'm going to bit the bullet and buy a good
digital SLR, probably the Canon 20D.
|
Here's a trick; Go find some Kodak Tech Pan, and borrow a fixed focal
length Canon lens of about 50-100mm. Take some close-up shots of
things with it and the digital. Then compare them.
-Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J. Littleboy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
| Quote: | "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
SNIP
All the comparisons I've seen show there being no significant
differences. Whatever the format.
That ("no significant") is more or less correct. We're in the "diminishing
returns" arena.
Drum-scanner results depend as much on operator quality as on hardware
quality. However, there is still some additional potential in balancing
resolution versus graininess, and dynamic range capability, depending on
the media quality.
|
The grain reduction associated with wet mounting is the biggest advantage,
although that's available with the Nikon MF scanners as well. (Although the
idea of solvent evaporating inside my scanner makes it a technique I'll not
be trying.) The claimed dynamic range advantage looks to me to be somewhere
between minimal an non-existent.
But if you have a comparison where digital is looking noticeably better than
a 4000 dpi film scan, there's no way drum scanning is going to change the
result of the comparison.
FWIW, it looks to me that 645 ought to slightly edge out 12MP, but I suspect
that the cleanliness of ISO 100 digital would tip the scales. Watch this
space for some 6x7 vs. 12MP comparisons.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott W
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf wrote:
Yours is a good example of the problem with film. Yes you can get some
detail when scanned at 5400, but only when the scene in very high
contrast and want you capture is very low contrast. But there is an
over all softness to the photo that by the time you have printed it
large enough to see this extra detail the whole thing look very soft. I
put the 5400 scan next to the 4000 scan and printed them out at 300
ppi, you have to look fairly close to see the extra detail in the 5400
scan, but at this scale the print look very soft. To get a sharp
looking print from the scan you would have to print at something closer
to 600 dpi, which I did. The photo still looks a bit soft even at 600
ppi, but now there is no real difference between the two scans, when
looking at the print.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott W
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
David J. Littleboy wrote:
| Quote: | "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
SNIP
All the comparisons I've seen show there being no significant
differences. Whatever the format.
That ("no significant") is more or less correct. We're in the "diminishing
returns" arena.
Drum-scanner results depend as much on operator quality as on hardware
quality. However, there is still some additional potential in balancing
resolution versus graininess, and dynamic range capability, depending on
the media quality.
The grain reduction associated with wet mounting is the biggest advantage,
although that's available with the Nikon MF scanners as well. (Although the
idea of solvent evaporating inside my scanner makes it a technique I'll not
be trying.) The claimed dynamic range advantage looks to me to be somewhere
between minimal an non-existent.
But if you have a comparison where digital is looking noticeably better than
a 4000 dpi film scan, there's no way drum scanning is going to change the
result of the comparison.
FWIW, it looks to me that 645 ought to slightly edge out 12MP, but I suspect
that the cleanliness of ISO 100 digital would tip the scales. Watch this
space for some 6x7 vs. 12MP comparisons.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
|
I believe for iso 100 film you will get about 4 MP / sq in. So for 6 x
7 I am thinking around
23 MP, not at all bad, but then not as much as I would like to have in
a photo.
Costco has cheap 20 x 30 prints, to print at this size I need about 54
MP that are clean and sharp. $10 for the print and $5 shipping BWT.
A 6 x 6 MF camera is going to be very close to a 1Ds Mark II, which is
what Canon was going for.
And I really need more like100 MP, since I might want to crop the photo
before printing at 30 x 20 inches :)
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J. Littleboy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Here's a trick; Go find some Kodak Tech Pan,
|
Rather difficult, since it's been discontinued.
| Quote: | and borrow a fixed focal
length Canon lens of about 50-100mm. Take some close-up shots of
things with it and the digital. Then compare them.
|
In my experience, it's nowhere near as much better than Provia 100F as
people would have you believe.
From this _simulation_ (raw 4000 dpi scan of Tech Pan vs. 300D image taken
at the scale you'd get out of a 16.7MP dSLR and upsampled to match the
scan), I'd much rather have the 1Dsmk2.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473670/original
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131517978.751380.238950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Maybe you'll get a more balanced impression when looking at some of
the results from
<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>. My (windmill) contribution
there <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/SE5400-Wbd-Crop.jpg> (when
printed at 300ppi, the full uncropped image would measure 26.0 x
17.4in or 66 x 44cm, on my approx. 96 ppi screen it's more than 3x as
large) shows that resolution doesn't have to be a problem, even with
35mm scans, but graininess becomes visible at 100% display zoom.
SNIP
| Quote: | My own filling is that if you care about quality then you don't
shot 35mm, you shoot digital or you shoot MF.
|
Yes, bigger is better (it's hard to beat 8x10 inch view camera
results), although some kinds of imaging (e.g. sports, and I don't
mean chess) benefit from a more luggable camera system like a 35mm
one.
| Quote: | If the OP really wants to give film a chance then he would
need to dump the 35mm gear and get a MF camera.
But if 35mm works for you more power to you, but most of
us are finding that a DSLR not only produces much better
looking photos but is also a lot more fun to use.
|
The absence of graininess is a plus for digital imaging, but true
(measurable) resolution is more sharply limited by the sensor than
with film. The intended use of the image should dictate the choice of
gear, but Full-Frame 35mm digital has surpassed the subjective overall
image quality of 35mm film.
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131551447.863652.309020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
| Quote: | That was not my photo, I went to PBase.com and looked to
see how got film photos are, you can look at photos based
on what camera took them. The photo was pretty typical of
what I see when looking at photos from a 35mm film camera.
|
Why lower the bar to what Joe Average produces? I'd look at what the
best results achievable are, see if I can approach / improve on that,
and take that to be the thing to benchmark with.
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott W
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf wrote:
| Quote: | "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131517978.751380.238950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
The problem I have is that I have yet to see any of these great
results from film, when I go looking this is typical of what I find.
http://www.pbase.com/rerobbins/image/22425757/original
Maybe you'll get a more balanced impression when looking at some of
the results from
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>. My (windmill) contribution
there <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/SE5400-Wbd-Crop.jpg> (when
printed at 300ppi, the full uncropped image would measure 26.0 x
17.4in or 66 x 44cm, on my approx. 96 ppi screen it's more than 3x as
large) shows that resolution doesn't have to be a problem, even with
35mm scans, but graininess becomes visible at 100% display zoom.
|
In fact I have seen you photo, and have down sampled it to 2000 ppi and
back to 5400.
I then split the photo in half, one half being the down and up sampled
half and the other the original half.
Looking at this composite you can't tell which half is which, I would
be glad to post it for you if you would like.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:dkt32l$caq$1@nnrp.gol.com...
| Quote: |
pooua@aol.com> wrote:
I have considered getting a larger format camera (MF or LF), but
that is a lot of money and a completely unfamiliar world for me. I
don't know what I should get?
Get a ...
|
SNIPped good advice.
Somehow, judging from the "fuzzy branches now were bigger fuzzy
branches", there may also be a lack of technique or gear quality
involved. Even, or should I say especially, quality equipment requires
quality technique (lowest feasible ISO, correct exposure, tripod or
high shutter speed) added to quality glass and film-flatness, and
scanning & postprocessing.
Bart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J. Littleboy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
| Quote: | "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:dku69b$mpf$1@nnrp.gol.com...
SNIP
FWIW, it looks to me that 645 ought to slightly edge out 12MP, but I
suspect that the cleanliness of ISO 100 digital would tip the scales.
Watch this space for some 6x7 vs. 12MP comparisons.
Congratulations on your choice for the 5D (to be yours soon?) ;-)
|
Already here.
| Quote: | I can tell you from my experiences with the 1Ds Mark II, you're in for
some interesting (affirmation of expected) findings. DoF is (as predicted
by physics) indeed more shallow than you'd like, and lens performance is
pushed to its capabilities (when pixel peeping).
|
Not in my experience. DOF is much improved from 6x7<g>, and the fat pixels
mean that the high end of the passband of the sensor (around 40 lp/mm) is
much higher on the MTF curve than the 20D (50 lp/mm) or D2x (60 lp/mm) would
be. So I'm finding the Tamron 28-75/2.8 to be a superb lens. The 17-40/4.0
at 17mm produces sharp corners at f/11, but not at f/8. At 24mm, f/5.6 is
usable corner to corner and f/8 excellent.
| Quote: | Fortunately, output magnification is less than with sub full-frame
sensors, and noise is (presumably for the 5D as it is with the 1DS Mark
II) mostly a non-issue at ISOs below 800).
Post-Processing is critical, You'll appreciate the capabilities of (an
upgrade to) Photoshop CS2's Smart sharpening. There's an incredible amount
of detail waiting to be revived.
|
Actually, FocalBlade _claims_ to do exactly what I want with sharpening,
namely not produce halos. (I suppose I should acquired CS2: activation
irritates and I'd rather not.) I suspect that RSP needs some work on its 5D
conversion algorithms (the detail extraction slider has no effect other than
to introduce artifacts), but with sharpening off and detail extraction
reduced, it produces lovely images.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David J. Littleboy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
| Quote: | David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
FWIW, it looks to me that 645 ought to slightly edge out 12MP, but I
suspect
that the cleanliness of ISO 100 digital would tip the scales. Watch this
space for some 6x7 vs. 12MP comparisons.
On prints, I can tell you that A3 prints from the Mamiya 7 + Provia 100F +
Epson 4870 look better than A3 prints I'm getting from the 5D, but not
dramatically so. The 10D embarassed itself in a similar comparison, the 5D
puts up more of a fight, but the prints are still visibly not as sharp,
especially if there's a lot of foliage in the shot.
|
That's what I'm expecting. 13x19 from 6x7 is like falling off a log. 645 is
beginning to think about having trouble at 13x19.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film |
|
|
In article <dku69b$mpf$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
FWIW, it looks to me that 645 ought to slightly edge out 12MP, but I suspect
that the cleanliness of ISO 100 digital would tip the scales. Watch this
space for some 6x7 vs. 12MP comparisons.
|
On prints, I can tell you that A3 prints from the Mamiya 7 + Provia 100F +
Epson 4870 look better than A3 prints I'm getting from the 5D, but not
dramatically so. The 10D embarassed itself in a similar comparison, the 5D
puts up more of a fight, but the prints are still visibly not as sharp,
especially if there's a lot of foliage in the shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott W
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: High Resolution from 35mm Film - Sample Image |
|
|
pooua@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Last month, I took a photo of a strange animal in a vacant field. I
took the animal's photo using my Canon Rebel G film camera with a 28 -
135 IS zoom lens set to max zoom; and with my Minolta Dimage G500 at
max 3x (117 mm) zoom. The film that happened to be in my camera was
1600 ISO, probably not the best for this shot, but it's what was loaded
in my camera right then.
I scanned one frame of the film at 2 different resolutions, which I
combined in this collection. One scan was at 3200 ppi; the other scan
was at 12800 ppi, the maximum setting on my scanner. I resized the 3200
ppi image so that it was close to the same size as the image from my
digital camera.
The image crops are (CCW from upper right): my digital camera; the
resized 3200 ppi image; the full-size 3200 ppi image; the 12800 ppi
image.
http://members.aol.com/rekgallery/PupCollage/PupCollage.html
|
Thanks for sharing. Imagine what a 20D could have done with that
28-135 lens, it seems like a shame to waist it on a film camera.
It kind of sounds like you are using a flat bed scanner to scan the
film, where as some do well at this most do not. Also the really high
ppi numbers like 12800 are almost always interpolated and have little
if any meaning meaning.
Scott
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in