BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: Comparison Between Digital and Film Photography

digital vs film

The best digital is kodaks or canons new ones that are full frame ccds.
and they are 14 MP at most.

Now with my film and using ls-4000 I get 27.5 MP scans.

So how can digital cameras be better or equal with less res than I get my scanning film

To love this question, log in above
July 16, 2003

Would the same image be better, because it was shot first generation digital with an $8000 SLR? Hard to say. If these SLR users don't have to apply Digital Ice to deal with the inevitable dust spots on film, then, theoretically, there should be less image degredation.
On the other hand, by the time the SLR guys with Canon D60s and such upsample in Photoshop or Genuine Fractals to get the size print you get from a 4000 ppi scan, they've introduced a bit of image degredation. In either case, would we see these digital effects? Probably not.

Whether it's from silver halide crystals or pixels, any printed medium is a con job on the eye. The medium is considered acceptable because we don't have eyes like eagles (we don't need to).

For me, scanning film is the best AFFORDABLE technology we have for truly high resolution digital. W're gonna hear it from digital camera owners, Russ. Brace yourself.

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2003

I have read many opinions on scan vs digital and once you get up to the Canon 1Ds, they have shown the quality to be above 4000dpi film scanning. Even the 10D which I have has come so close that it just doesn't pay to scan anymore. Here are just a couple of sites that has done some comparisons:
http://66.192.180.232/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

http://www.photographical.net/mf_vs_35mm_vs_digi.html

Michael Kaplan
Montreal, Canada
Canon EOS-10D
http://www.pbase.com/mkaplan

To love this comment, log in above
July 17, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
July 18, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
July 18, 2003

More seriously, you're selling short the capability film can give you by scanning it. I will give an example and walk you through the Nyquist Theorem (and its theoretical limit) along with the Kell Factor (which provides the practical limit) as applied to both digital cameras and to digital scanners.

The image projected onto film . . . or a CCD is an analog "signal." Think of it as the light version of an analog audio signal. The accutance of lenses and film is described using the Modulation Transfer Function which shows how much contrast is retained (depicted as a percentage) as detail level is increased. It is very much considered analogous to an analog "signal" in that detail level is measured in line pairs per millimeter and is often referred to as cycles per millimeter, as measured on the film.

Since detail level is under discussion in this thread, I will deliberately pick a high accutance film that has a published resolving power; it's also a very, very popular among those striving for high accutance in shooting landscapes, architecture, nature; just about everything except portraiture. Fuji Velvia has a resolving power of 81 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm), or 81 cycles per millimeter.

The Nyquist Theorem states that the absolute theoretical limit in sampling an analog signal for "accurate" reproduction is no less than 2 samples per cycle. This is a theoretical limit. In practical application, it doesn't work well as only 2 samples per cycle results in too much aliasing. It must be derated to reduce this effect. Enter the Kell Factor. For digital still photography and digital scanning, 0.65 - 0.7 is the accepted derating value. It is based on human perception regarding aliasing effects. Divide 2 samples per cycle by the Kell factor for still digital imagery and you get 3 samples per cycle, and this is at the very brink of what is barely acceptable. In other words, it's the practical limit of the fewest samples per cycle that will be deemed acceptable by a human who views the sampling.

If the desire is capturing all the information from a 35mm Velvia slide contains, and Velvia film is capable of recording 81 cycles per millimeter, the sampling must be 3 times that, or about 240 samples per millimeter. Each sample is a pixel. A 35mm film frame is 36mm X 24mm in size. This means you must attain at least an 8640 x 5760 pixel digital scan of the slide to reasonably capture its level of detail. That's just under a 50 megapixel image (49.8 to be more accurate). If you want this in dpi, there are exactly 25.4 millimeters to an inch. Multiply that by the 240 pixels per millimeter and you get a 6096 dpi scan requirement. Your 4000 dpi film scanner is only capturing about 2/3 the resolution film is capable of delivering, and you will get some aliasing if you use a high accutance film.

Now work the problem in the other direction. To compete with high accutance 35mm film, a CCD must be able to record a 50 megapixel image. It is sampling an analog light signal projected onto it by the lens.

All this, plus a few more reasons related to "noise," issues with very long exposures, and the physical thickness of the CCD technology (affects ability to record oblique ray paths well) . . . are the reason I'm going to remain a geezer using film. Not only that, but I'm going to continue demanding optical prints from film.

I don't accept the argument that software such as Genuine Fractals or other interpolation algorithms can fill in the gaps to make the image bigger and therefore it's now the same as film capability. Reason? Film records what is actually projected onto it from the light gathered by the lens. Genuine Fractals and other interpolation algorithms create information. It may or may not represent what was originally there (as projected onto the film plane by the lens). The result may look real, but it's not real; it's artificial.

BTW, I very strongly disagree with the characterization of CCD "noise" as being the same as film grain. It's most definitely NOT the same.

So . . . for those who say "bye-bye film" and are eager to sound its death knell . . . I want to see the 50 mega-pixel camera first . . . and that's only for replacing 35mm small format . . . do the math for the smallest of medium format cameras, the 645. IMHO digital has a very long way to go before it records the level of information that film can record.

-- John
Who's going to the AARP site next to check on membership eligibility.

To love this comment, log in above
July 18, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
July 19, 2003

I did read somewhere that on your computer monitor anything over 2 megapixels your eye cannot see any diffrence as your monitor does not display over about 2 megapixels, so even a 35mm photo scanned and displayed on your monitor is not going to look much better.

How good your resulting picture is going to be is the limits of your printer, or monitor, so unless you have the very best hardware, or printer is anything above much 2 megapixel worth buying at all for the average person?

So what are the current limits of digtial printer printouts these days in mega pixels, as this at the end of the day determines how good your picture is, not if your camera is 2 or 5 megapixels?

Whats the use of having a 5 megapixel camera if what you have at home will at best do picture quality of only 2-3 megapixels anyway?

I have seen reviews of cameras 2-5 or more pixels and on my Computer monitor they all look the same to me, as my computer montior cannot even go to 2 megapixels, as the highest res is only 1024X768, and this is not 2 megapixels, which on your computer montior will be 1600X1200

What are peoples feelings on this? Does it really matter, and are you getting carried away with megapixels, as digtial cameras can produce images that far exceed the best computer monitors.

And if you have to get your pictures developed by a professional to get the best quality then the perpose of having a digtial camera is wasted and may as well use a 35mm camera?

I would think most people will never get the best from their digtal camera due to the cost of really good printers capable of producing pictures with a very high megapixel rate. Sure printers are out there to explot the higher megapixel cameras, but at what cost? But saddly monitors are still limited.

To love this comment, log in above
July 23, 2003

BUT, (ah, the big but) there are other reasons to have larger Megapixels available.

#1. Ability to crop your picture. I suggest you see my answer to someone elses similar question here: http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/qnaDetail.php?threadID=6093 where I show a sample of why you might want to crop a picture. In order to do that you need more information. Depending on what you want to crop, it could be a lot more information therefore the more Megapixels available the better.

#2. Printing. If you are just going to print a 4x6" print again you are correct that you do not need more than 2MP to get a good print. For the best printing you need about 300LPI (Lines Per Inch) with a minimum of 150LPI. A 2MP camera has approximately 1632 x 1224 resolution. If you divide by 300 (LPI) you get a picture size of 5.44 x 4.08". That is just slightly smaller than a 4x6. You can also see you already need to crop the picture a bit as the native size is not exactly 4 x 6 so you would need to increase the 5.44 to 6" then the 4.08 would be 4.49" You therefore have to cut off 1/2".

BUT (again) what if you want to print larger? I have a photo that I recently printed 13x19. I would need an image 3900 x 5700 or 22.23MP. Since the largest Megapixels available now is only 14(Kodak) or 11(Canon) it comes up short. Yes, not everyone wants to print that large and I am certainly not going to print most of my pictures that size but you never know when you will want to and if you wanted to crop it before you printed it... well I guess you now know what I mean.

#3. If you really want to get the best picture available the picture will be sharper if you have to reduce it rather than have to blow it up to get the necessary pixels. It will help hide things like jpg compression artefacts and such.

There are many reasons to want larger but that does not mean everyone needs more. Some people would be totally satisfied just taking their 1600x1200 (2MP) snapshots and getting their 4x6" prints just like so many have done with their P&S 35mm cameras and for them 2-3MPs are just fine.
Hope this helps you understand more about Megapixel size.
Michael Kaplan
Montreal, Canada
Canon EOS-10D
http://www.pbase.com/mkaplan

To love this comment, log in above
July 23, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
July 23, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
July 23, 2003

It could be that digital will eventually replace 35mm for most applications, I have read a lot of good reviews of the latest digital SLRs, and better cameras and higher megapixel counts are coming as technology improves, and it does seem like digital is approaching 35mm quality (I don't say it's there yet, but it is improving quickly). However, there are still a lot of photographers that shoot with medium-format and large-format cameras and digital backs for these cameras are horrendously expensive (as much or more than a new car in many cases). These folks probably won't be switching to digital until the prices for digital backs come down significantly.

I don't think digital is better or worse than film - it's just different.
The camera is just a box that captures the light and "stores" it somehow - either on a piece of plastic film or in a digital chip. The real art of photography is in the eye and brain of the person holding the camera. Ansel Adams could probably have used a pinhole camera and take better pictures than I have ever taken with any camera I have.

To love this comment, log in above
November 13, 2003

Just my 2 cents....:)

To love this comment, log in above
April 21, 2006

Have fun and keep shooting,
Mark H.

To love this comment, log in above
April 21, 2006

If you point at The Forum on the left side and click New Questions, you'll keep up with the latest discussions. Don't worry, the film vs. digital debate pops up often enough.

Welcome aboard!

Chris

To love this comment, log in above
April 21, 2006

You'd think on the forum directory they would post the date of the original post, not that of the latest response!
Anyhow, some things are worth more as they get older so here's my two scents worth. LOL!
I think this debate if futile! It's no different than the cassette vs. CD or the VHS vs. DVD. Or how about the ill fated 8 tracks. Then there was the VHS vs. BETA!
I think one thing we can all pretty much agree on, with the advances in digital technology and the increases in image quality from digital, as far as the consumer market goes, film is definitaly on the way out.
I beleive many pros and special use markets (X-rays, medical, scientific, etc..) will keep the demand for film high enough for the makers to keep producing it for some time. But for the average consumer market, people are in a big hurry these days. Everybody wants everything, yesterday. Most people these days are going to go for the speed and convenience digital has over film. No one wants to wait, not even an hour, for thier prints to be processed at a lab.
I think we have seen great increases in digital quality in the past three years.
As far as all these test to prove that a print from a scanned negative of slide is superior to one from first generation digital. Phewy!
Unless your going to pass out magnifying glasses, I beleive most veiwers are not going to notice the difference.
I've been very happy with the 13x19" prints I get from my 20D. The only thing I would want from more megapixels, as one respsondent said, would be the ability to crop.
Is film going to be replaced by digital? It's inevitable! The only real question is how much longer that will be and in what markets is that going to affect the most? The ameture market definetly! The pro markets? That all really depends on the pros! If enough of them continue to use film and keep the demand high enough to make it worth while for the manufactures, then they will probably enjoy that medium for quite some time after it's abated from the ameture world.

Bob

To love this comment, log in above
April 22, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
April 25, 2006

At that resolution, you could make a 150dpi print that was 90ft x 135ft.

Last time I checked, most labs don't offer that print size from a 35mm neg. ;-)

To love this comment, log in above
April 25, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
April 25, 2006

Is it okay if I spend $800-$1000 on a vacation? The camera I want is a whole lot more than that.

To love this comment, log in above
April 25, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
April 26, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
April 26, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
April 27, 2006

At least fairly recently (the last two years and especially this past year), film did surpass the quality of digital capture, in my opinion. Film does still handle certain situations better than does digital, but for all practical purposes, they will both produce professional results IN THE HANDS OF A PROFESSIONAL.

Some of these professionals are 100 % digital while others still prefer film only or a combination of the two.

Digital, though, is revolutionizing the photographic industry in a way that has been nothing short of astounding. It is here in the present and will be down the road. And like computers, it will only get better, faster and cheaper (at least the cost of the tools).

When researching a photographer who shoots digitally it is important to discern if that photographer is relatively new to the technology or has been using it for a longer period of time (and thus should have the bugs worked out).

Examine photographs made by the photographer using digital capture. Most likely, that photographer will have work that was also captured with film. Compare them and see if you can tell the difference.

When I discuss digital vs. film, I find much less resistance than I did a year ago. People are usually pretty technologically savvy and often follow the developments in our industry, at least on the periphery.

Any opposition some might have with digital goes away when I show them an image that is quite large 14” x 22".

They also see many images that have been captured on film, though scanned. Some folks are able to notice the differences, but most really don’t care. What they care about are the images and the feelings that they capture and evoke. That’s really what it comes down to and the main reason we are hired.

Digital does, though, offer several advantages to the photographers while working:

1) The ability to see the image right away. This is my favorite reason for using digital capture. It gives me a level of comfort because I can see if my lighting, expression, exposure, etc. are correct right away rather than wait to see the film back from the lab in a few days.

2) The ability to change the ISO ( or the equivalent of film speed) on the fly. This allows the photographer to go in and out of a myriad of lighting situations without having to suddenly change film to match the light levels from place to place at a wedding.

3) A virtually unlimited number of photographs can be captured at an event. This can be the boon and the bane of the photographers’ existence, though, because if you shoot them, you've got to edit them. But it frees the photographer from thinking “I can only shoot 10, 12 or whatever number of rolls of film at this event in order to keep it within budget.”

4) The ability to make black and white and sepia toned photographs from the digital capture. When one shoots digitally (unless they are capturied in a black and white only mode on the Fuji S2) every photograph can become a black and white and/or sepia image. Parents may want an image in color, the couple may want to have it in black and white.

5) Digital workflow. Many photographers now offer what is often called a magazine style (or flush mounted) album. Images shot on film would have to be scanned in order to produce this type of album. While it is totally doable, it adds time and another step in the process. Digital capture elimnates the scanning and often the time spent dust spotting the scan made from negatives. (Though I know of a very talented photographer -- George Weir, who is a WEDDING PHOTOJOURNALIST ASSOCIATION member -- who prefers film and has his images scanned to disk to allow him to still post images online and then create images for his lab. He has created a digital workflow without using digital capture and is very pleased with the results).

6) Freedom to experiment. This is a corollary to reason one. I will often shoot images that I would not even try with film because I know I will be able to erase it if it doesn’t work and modify it because I’ll be seeing the results immediately.

I was on a foreign trip last year and stuck in the bus on a rainy day. I literally pointed the camera out the window and just made some exposures just for the fun of it. And it was fun! Some of those images were totally unexpected and I would not have “wasted” film on it. But because I had the immediate feedback I could see what was working, modify it as I shot and make some different images.

Despite all the buzz about film vs. digital what it gets right down to when selecting a photographer are the images and personality.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2006

First, what is the resolving ability of the lens, in lp/mm? Many dSLRs, especially at the upper end, can 'out-resolve' the available lenses.

Second, film's granularity is, in and of itself, a limit to the signal capturing ability. Granularity imposes a 'noise' on the captured signal that effectively masks captured detail. Thus, film cannot capture detail at it's computed ability any more than a digital sensor can.

In real life, lenses are usually the limiting factor in image quality. Most consumer 'kit' lenses are out-resolved by a 8 MP or higher digital sensor (I can see 'kit' lens resolving limitations, as compared to good prime lenses, on my Sigma SD10 -- the difference in quality is VERY noticeable).

A final factor: extra resolution is wasted if the viewer (human) cannot detect that resolution. For example, which camera will make a better 5 x 7 print, a Nikon D70 or a Nikon D2x? The answer is, the prints will be indistinguishable in terms of quality because the D2x's extra detail cannot be seen in a 5x7 print.

My personal experience has shown me that my Sigma SD10 at ISO 100 and with a GOOD lens (that outresolves the sensor) will produce prints up to 8" x 10" that are as good as, or better than, I can get from ISO 100 color print film and my Nikon FE2 with an equally good lens. Many photographers agree that 6 to 8 MP Bayer sensor-equipped dSLRs compare very favorably to 35mm ISO 100 print film.

Something to consider: the Nikon D2x has an effective sensor resolution of 90 lp/mm. That is better than all but of handful of lenses. The next step in better images will be the result of having better lenses.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2006