Re: 35mm film scanner questions

I have found that whenever there is an attempt to directly compare digital
and analog images, there is always something that renders the comparison
'invalid'. I wonder if this is an attempt to protect digital from
unfavorable comparisons.

For example, my scanner will capture an image at a full 24bits/channel...I
don't know of any digital cameras that come even close to that...what can we
get...8 bits/channel? maybe more (theoretically with so-called RAW formats)
and yet, I will bet that someone will argue that the reduced bits/channel
figure of digital is somehow...'better'.

For another example, the resolving ability of film and film camera lens has
been measured in lpmm (line pairs/mm) for years. There are, therefore, years
of data on lens and film resolution measured in lpmm...but digital cameras
resolving potential is NEVER stated in lpmm thus making direct comparisons
impossible. Instead, digital camera resolution is measured in LPH (or Lines
per Picture Height)..a completely incompatible unit of measurement with no
conversion factor. They say that this is to take into account the different
sizes of digital sensors in spite of the fact that lpmm is used for ALL
sizes of film. I think the reason for this is that digital cameras just
wouldn't compare very favorably to film when the same units are used.

But, people do claim that the results from their digital cameras are
'better' than the results from film. I am wondering if there isn't some
interesting psycho-engineering of preception going on here. Digital images
with artificial sharpening, averaging out 'noise', and all the various
enhancements that go into producing the image that fools the eye. Much of
this is based on a set of assumptions (and you hear them quoted in many of
these discussions) such as 'normal viewing distances' which means 'Don't
look too close at my digital print!' On the other hand, I can look closely
at my film prints or even through a 5x loupe and still see detail.

One thing that digital people obsess over is 'noise' and they (and the
manufacturers) go to extraordinary lengths to remove any hint of noise even
if it means the loss of detail. It seems that, psychologically, a noise-free
shot is perceived as clearer even if it contains less detail. Much of what
people 'think' they see in digital images could be more illusion than
reality...so don't look too closely!



"rafe b" <rafeb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:D-SdnfmpsuD2Y4jZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


What 6400 dpi scanner are you using?

Is that 6400 dpi optical resolution, or interpolated?

Most of us who have worked with both film scans
and digital have learned that comparing pixel-counts
from these two methods is rather meaningless.

Furthermore, there's not much correlation
(unfortunately) between scanner dpi ratings and
their actual resolving power.

For example: I own a Nikon film scanner rated
at 4000 dpi, and an Epson flatbed/film scanner
rated at 4800 dpi. The Nikon's scans are far
sharper, even though they're at lower resolution
than the Epson's.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 35mm film scanner questions
    ... what scanner are you using? ... than Creo or some high end unit, they just don't compare in 35mm to ... With most film you are running into ... cameras.The digital cameras I printed from most was a Kodak DCS760, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: question 35 mm vs digital
    ... That said, digital offers a flexibilty and ease of use that film can't match unless it, too, it scanned and digitized. ... You have to compare apples with apples. ... Comparing Adams' 8x10 with a digital camera is like comparing my 2-litre Nissan with a 7-litre Rolls Royce. ... Large - very large - images are being made by stitching successive digital shots together, producing Gigapixel and bigger images, which blow away even the best images ever made on film. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Film
    ... >medium but an artistic medium and it can be devopled and also can be ... commercial processing for their film. ... >process the images) that can make images that are good up to 8x10 print ... High end digital cameras are still priced well ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Canon lens vignetting demo with FF sensors
    ... I fail to understand the obsession people have with vignetting. ... Because it's worse than with film and no all digital cameras do it. ... It's nice to have a choice, not all images benefit from this. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: I have a 30mp camera redux
    ... Everyone else who has compared 6MP dSLRs to decently scanned film finds that the film slightly edges out 6MP dSLRs. ... There were claims made that 1.0 MP digital cameras would offer quality ... compare well with the mass market 35mm films of the 1990s. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)