Scanning film at the resolution you mentioned means you're defining in detail the structure of the film grain, which is not the same as actual image information. You can get similar results by upsizing the digital image by 200-300% and adding a bit of Gaussian monochromatic noise. When you're scanning film at high resolution, you are devoting muiltiple pixels to individual clumps of film grain, which is basically a waste of bits. In most cases, the 8MP 1D-MkII will produce results that are superior to 35mm film (by comparing equal size prints), especially at higher ISO settings. The 11MP 1Ds is clearly better than 35mm, and the 16.7MP 1Ds-MkII is even better still.

Pixel count is only half the story. Pixel quality is just as important, and that's where film scans fall short.

Okay thank you all, that explains a lot.

However, say you need an enormous print-like the ones that are found on bilboards and buses. What kind of camera do you use to make that?

Boku speaketh: Digital is better than film.

I never justify anything.  :O  :O

Hey, what happened to all the film ranters, uh I mean propenents?  Have they all died of old age or have they quietly switched?  Where's the usual warmish controversy?  :p
On their behalf:  You can do film if you want.  You might enjoy the different process.  It's OK, and you can even keep posting here and nobody will make fun of you (if you don't make fun of us digital folks).  :D

> With 35mm format film it's best to emphasize bottom $ equipment cost and the fun and novelty of a different, now largely "retro" process rather than any issues of practicality, convenience, or final result quality.

I am rethinking this after seeing a Cartier-Bresson show this weekend. If you want to print b&w, and cannot wait for perfect light or to shoot overlay shots, the dymanic range of b&w negative film is dramatically wider than digital.  I was struck at how many of the photos would have been unsuccessful with digital because of the dynamic range problems.  (But many would have been great, it depends on the lighting and not the media.)

I stopping at the camera store for some XP2 to try some comparisons.

IMO this is an academic topic in general.  

Film still has a certain look that many find pleasing and artistic.  Various format sizes and different emulsions, coupled with traditonally printed or scanned and digitally manipulated and printed give users a plethora of options for different looks.

Digital is virtually free from noise which generates a look unto itself which many prefer over film.  Ease of capture, instant review, ability to alter ISO on the fly, and convenience of output make digital more efficient.  Plus, if you are facile with an image editing program, you can add in effects to emulate your favorite film emulsions, giving even more flexibility.

Horses for course, different strokes for different folks.  It's all photography and it's all good.

My .02,
Jack

I was looking at film scanners earlier and it gave me an idea:

Arguably, the best digital camera on the market right now is the Canon 1DsII which has 16.7 MP resulting in a maximum resolution of 4992 x 3328 for about $8000.

now comaring that to the best(?) film camera:

The Canon EOS-1V goes for 1750$ and the Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED Film Scanner goes for about $1800 and has resolution of 5,905 x 4,032(?).

Is there some flaw in my reasoning, because looking simply at those numbers then one would think that film is still better resolution and much cheaper then digital. Digital is a lot faster true and film is a non-reusable sourse of storage, but still, one would think that film would still be prefered.

Please help me out in understanding the differences in film and digital and their uses. Thank you all very much.

Image quality is not only about megapixels.

There have been countless articles on this subject for the past 6-7 years, here, on other web sites, in numerous books and magazine articles.

A bit of research will help you understand what's going on.

Michael

For small volumes you are probably correct. However...I am not a high volume photographer, yet still managed to take 12-15K photo's this year. If you add the cost of purchasing & storing unexposed film, processing costs, storing exposed film and cataloging, then the time and expense of scanning and cleaning negatives then the economics tilt in favour of digital.

Add to that the 'cleaner' image from lower noise, instant gratification of digital while shooting and the general quicker shoot to print times, to name just three off the top of my head benefits and you may get an idea why digital has become popular.

To balance the equation though - I shoot digital primarily because it is easier to workflow from start to finish in the digital domain. However, I retain a film camera for work which cannot be done with my particular digital camera (wide angle primarily, or when I want a light and battery free package).

To add a rough quantitative aspect to all this.  It's fairly generally agreed that the effective resolution of a 1ds is about double what you get by scanning 35mm film.  You can scan to get more pixels, but as has been explained already, you're just scanning grain.

As for 1dsMKII, careful comparison test results are so far not available so that we could say with confidence that the effective resolution with even very good lenses is 50% better with MKII vs original 1ds.  The one test posted here so far shows virtually no difference, but that was shot at f22, which is not optimal for the lens used.

Speaking subjectively, changing from shooting 35mm Velvia slides to 1ds is such a big improvement it can hardly be exaggerated and that's not taking into account the countless unique advantages to the digital format conveniences and field advantages (image review, histograms).

Better ask the client.  You don't view billboards that closely, so huge resolution may not always be required, but probably in most cases 4x5.  The cost of the printing and renting the billboard space is so huge that there would not likely be any compromising on the shooting cost.  You should probably not at this point shop around for a good billboard camera.

Okay, but you lost me with the 4*5. I'm assuming this is some other type of camera and i have heard of it, but I have no idea how it is different from 35mm. Could you please explain this to me?

Another major advantage to digital shooting is the ability to change ISO settings and white balance from shot to shot. Also, you have the ability to take way more shots on a memory card compared to the relatively few shots on a role of film. This helps insure that you won't have to change film in the middle of an important occasion. Let's not forget the ability to review your shots in the field. Not insignificant when you are shooting at a far away location or are in tricky lighting and exposure conditions. And last but not least, experimentation doesn't cost anything, except for storage space, if you choose to.

T

thanks guys, I apreciate the help.

What about something like taking two pictures on a single slide. Film can do that(and some of my favorite photographs that I have seen used this technique) but can digital do that? I'm assuming you can do that through photoshop somehow, but is there any way to do it durring the actual shoot?

I find I have many more "keeper" shots with digital than with film (I just switched earlier this year).  With digital, you can review the image right after taking it and check the histogram, and, if you find any problems, you can adjust the exposure and retake it; with film, you'd never know there was a problem until it's too late to do anything about it.  The other big advantage is that, with digital, you can adjust the ISO from one shot to the next; with film, I've been stuck too many times with the wrong ISO early in the roll after I've moved from one set of lighting conditions to another, and gotten nonoptimal pictures because of it.

Besides, scanning film takes an annoying long time.  A REALLY annoying long time.

To make a long story short, I'm very glad I went digital.

Lisa

lol guys, and thanks for all the help. As for me i think I'll stick with digital, the only really bad thing that I see is that all non uber expensive cameras have either a 1.6x or 1.3x magnification. Besides, it would feel weird, for a 3rd generation (assuming you older then me are 2nd and the ones you think are old are the first) to use film, when even you guys are using digital. Us new guys have to use the newest technology, even if it is worse.

Thanks guys, Im sure I'll have more questions on the subject later, but for now I'm done.

I'm not sure what's being referred to about "make fun of....".  I haven't seen any such thing.  No thread about anything even slightly controversial misses an opportunity for a little tongue in cheek humor and it doesn't pay to get too sensitive about such things.  Gross name calling is something else, but I haven't seen that about this issue.
I'm now 100% digital (though I may some day do 4x5 film again if really high res digital doesn't happen soon enough), but I'm definitely NOT one of the folks that's never seen a "nice slide on a light table, shining at me"  They do indeed look very nice on a light table.  It's when you scan them and look at them at fairly high magnification that the charm goes away.  If I never see any more grainy scans and 100% view grunge on my monitor the rest of my life, that's just fine with me.  I do believe that most folks are a pretty final result oriented and are more concerned about the best and largest possible clean and sharp looking prints than the pleasure of seeing those slides on a light table.

I don't know if I could be considered a "digital-know-all".  I think it's more accurate to say that I'm a "digital-and-film-know-a-lot" and for me, having now logged a lot of experience with both, for anything less than 4x5, it's no contest from every point of view, except maybe if I just had to go absolute bottom dollar for a new outfit.  Even 4x5 film equipment is cheap compared to a good digital outfit and a decent used film kit is garage sale stuff and I've even seen good things in thrift shops.

1ds raw conversion on my not state of the art single processor G4 takes about 8 seconds.  10d would be more like 4.  On a dual G5 that would probably be more like under 2 and under 1.  Max res slide scanning on anything less than an astronomically expensive scanner is vastly slower and you don't have to clean dust off your raw files before you scan either.

With 35mm format film it's best to emphasize bottom $ equipment cost and the fun and novelty of a different, now largely "retro" process rather than any issues of practicality, convenience, or final result quality.

I'd be very surprised if the 1Ds and even the 1Ds Mkll could match T-Max 100 B&W 35mm film. If memory serves me, this film retains an MTF response close to 100% at 50 lp/mm. At 50 lp/mm the 1Ds, with even the best lens, is close to zilch. (Say, 10% MTF).

Combine that sort of resolution with the undoubted higher dynamic range of B&W film, I would think there'd be some very good reasons for some photographers to stick with film.

I have no doubt whatsoever about the validity of the B&W points raised here.  Not many folks shoot B&W and in my case, for what I've done so far, bracketing and blending for scenes of excessive DR has been a very adequate solution.  As I go through my huge archive of Sierra images, it's becoming obvious that quite a few will work best, if not only, in B&W, but I would still not bother about a second camera for B&W film, since so far I've been able to cope with DR just fine as is.

As for negative film also having better DR than digital, yes, but I think just the DR advantage doesn't come close to offsetting the grain problem and all the other big advantages of digital for most of us.  Not much fun to look at a strip of negatives on a light table either.

True, full frame "ueber cameras" are still (and maybe always will be) very expensive, but even typical 1.6X gives you about the same effective resolution as color film, without all the grunge and with the countless digital advantages listed here and so many other places so many times.

If the issue initially raised had been DR and B&W film superiority, rather than the pleasure of seeing slides on a light table, little argument would have been raised.  If I end up specializing in B&W (doubtful), I'll surely get an MF film kit or do it with my 4x5.  If really hi res digital doesn't happen soon enough, I'll surely eventually get back into 4x5 transparency work as well, but for what most of us want/need/can afford to do most of the time, digital it is.  For my particular case, I can't carry everything for every purpose backpacking.  A 1ds full kit is way too much already.

Jack, I could not agree more with you. It's all photography, it's all fun. I have started shooting with a digicam too, in the last couple of months. All I can say is that the "look" of digital capture vs. the "look" of film capture is different. The digital images are "cleaner", but I still prefer the "look" of the prints I get from slides. And yes, I love looking at slides on a light table. What is wrong with that? Put 10 slides on a light table, with bracketed exposures, and you can see at a glance what went wrong with what.

I am not trying to "prove" that whatever works for me works for the rest of the world. Again, I find it sometimes a bit rude that the digital proponents dismiss film so quickly, just becasue digital is what happens to work for them. Film cameras are dirt cheap these days; ####, even the 1V or F6 are cheap! I never thought I would say the 1V is a cheap camera, it took me two years to buy one. You can get a film Rebel for next to nothing, shoot film, and get high quality 24x30, or 30x40cm prints from that. And this would probably keep 90% of 20D or D70 users happy?

I am trying to gauge both sides here, but as Jack says, it's all fun.

You can do that in PS too.

With two images open, select the zoom tool (Z) and hold down Shift(Option) while you click. Both documents will zoom in/out at the same time. To move them around hold down Shift(Option)+Spacebar and both document windows will move at the same time.

The Window > Arrange menu has options for matching zoom levels and positions amungst the open documents as well.

You can do that with as many open images as you want too, just not RAW files.

Let me give you my feelings and impressions - from a film/scanner user.  I don't have a digital camera yet.....  I am getting very tired of carting the film half way across town to one of the few labs that still processes transparencies.  I spend LOTS of time scanning and dust busting.  Realize that I'm retired and have more time than money - hence no digital for the moment.  But I sure like the idea!

When scanning film you are converting an analog image into a digital image and it always takes considerably more pixels to get the same amount of detail as an image that started off as digital.

ClarkVision has a very good article on the subject. The conclusion of his tests indicate that it would take roughly a 10mp camera to equate to the amount of detail that is captured in a frame of high-res 35mm film (like Velvia 50) and about 17mp camera for the same amount of color information as high-res film.

His test was conducted with a (realatively) very old digital P&S camera and I have no doubt that based off the advances in digital tech since the article was written that a camera like the 11mp 1Ds surpases any 35mm film you could shoot in both detail and color data. When Micheal says the 1Ds MkII can match or outdue MF film, I believe it. Furthermore, a digital camera does not loose that level of capturable detail untill it gets past ISO 400 (ISO 800 for the latest round of Canon cameras) which makes digital capture even better when resolving power is important.

Then there's workflow. Scaning film is a pain in the arse and time-consuming. As a hobby in small volumes, it would be no big whoopie but if you shoot alot...

This is something totally different from 35mm, which has a film size of about 24x36mm.  4x5 means film size of 4x5 INCHES.  Do a google search for "large format photography".  There's also 5x7 cameras and 8x10 and even larger.  All these cameras use film holders and the image is on a ground glass and upside down and so dim you have preview your image under a dark hood and then put in a film holder for the exposure.

Some digital cameras can, but it's really pointless; you have much more control over the result blending separate exposures in Photoshop.

I suppose I am one of the film "proponents", he, he... Seriously, people should use what is best for them and the end result they are after. In my case, I went digital 2 1/2 years ago when I bought a film scanner.

I have not given up on film yet for a few main reasons:

1) I like slide film a lot, I mean, we never had so high quality slide films as we have today. Luckily, I don't have to make a living out of photography, so I can afford to spend time to go over my slides with a loupe and a light table. I then select the keepers, scan them, and store them. Then I select a few for printing, usually no bigger than 24x30, or 30x40 (cm, that is). I go to a pro lab I have used for many years, with my slides, for printing. It works for me.

2) I use the EOS 1V, I am used to, and need, its build quality and reliability, so for me going digital means the 1-pro series of cameras with full-frame sensors. Way too expensive and unjustifiable. I shoot in a very disciplined manner, mostly nature, landscapes, travel. So I don't have the need to be trigger happy. I also have one digicam, the Powershot Pro 1, which I use as if I were using a film camera, meaning that I try to properly expose and focus the picture before taking it, instead of relying on filling up the memory card with endless variations of the same photo, exposure-wise, to try and get one right. I am a firm believer of trying to get it right in the first place, instead of hoping that photoshop will salvage the shot later.

3) I also shoot a lot of B&W, mostly with a compact camera, street shots. I print my work in a trusted B&W lab that I have used for years. Again, I don't have the need for immediate feed-back, or immediate results to send to clients.

So where does all this leaves us? I don't know, I have a workflow that works for me, and that I am comfortable with. Scanning takes time, but I have found out that converting RAW images also takes time. There are pros and cons, and whatever way you choose, you will have a regret list!

I do think it is sad that the "digital-know-alls" make fun of the "little-film-people". To them I say, if you never saw a nice slide on a light table, shinning at you, you don't know what you are missing.

The same could be said of viewing a freshly-converted RAW on a properly calibrated 21" LCD monitor. No loupe or squinting required.



True, but the computer can do that while I'm asleep. The same can't be said of scanning.

Just because one shoots digital doesn't mean one shoots sloppy and trust to fix it in Photoshop. Getting composition, focus, and exposure right in-camera is equally desirable with film or digital.

True, but it's not nearly such as bad thing as it used to be, now that lens manufacturers are starting to produce good lenses optimized for those sensor sizes (such as Nikon's DX series).  Such lenses are actually more cost-effective (i.e. cheaper for the same image quality) than standard lenses.  Of course, the problem is that you can't use them if you later decide to switch to one of the expensive full-frame-sensor cameras.



Keep in mind that color negative film has a much higher dynamic range (as used in this context) than digital too - so if you want to avoid the not-enough-dynamic-range problem, you don't need to be limited to B&W.  I used to mostly use Kodak Supra back in my film days (last year  ;-)  ) (the closest thing now, I think, is Kodak Royal Gold) because I was often in high-contrast-lighting situations and couldn't deal with it at all well with slide film.  If it weren't for the histogram on my digital SLR, allowing me to review and retake shots when necessary, I'd have stuck with film to avoid trashing too many shots.  With the histogram, though (and multiple-exposure-blending on occasion), I'm OK.

Lisa

I can understand that; I love the light table feature in the Olympus Viewer [edited from Studio] software that comes with the E-1 (Viewer is painfully slow and crashes too often, but it does a few very nice things).  You can select pairs of images for side by side viewing, lock them together so that zooming and panning on one does the same on the other, and so on.

To be fair, here are a few advantages I see for film
a) handling large subject brightness range ("high dynamic range"), especially B&W film and maybe color negative film. B&W is the main thing that I keep my film cameras for.
top of the line SLRs like EOS-1 series, F5 or F6, or even second teir models like the F100 and EOS-3, are far more within the financial reach of a purely amateur enthusiast than DSLRs with the same quality on the non-digital side. For an enthusiast who is slow and serious about photography, not taking thousands of photos each year, a very good film SLR can still be far more affordable.


Note the correction; I am talking about the free Olympus Viewer software, not the Olympus Studio, which costs extra. And I was thinking of JPEG comparisons; I have not tried RAW files on the "light table", though Viewer generally handles RAW well. Also, I intended no quibble with PS; I only have my various free copies of PS Elements, not the full-fledged version, and have not explored even Elements very much.