PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=1298)

Mike July 1st 04 08:22 PM

Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner
 
Has anyone a link or material to share regarding how digital camera's
compare to scanning film on a film scanner?

Is the sensor technology the same or is one better than the other?

Assuming I had the same number of megapixels would one have better
color information than the other? For example, reading about CMOS
sensors in digital cameras, each pixel is a gray value in RAW. The
camera then interprets the colors based on surrounding pixels and the
bayer filter values, is that the way film scanners work too?

Any other major differences in quality of output?

Silvio Manuel July 1st 04 09:12 PM

Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner
 
In article ,
(Mike) wrote:

Has anyone a link or material to share regarding how digital camera's
compare to scanning film on a film scanner?

Is the sensor technology the same or is one better than the other?

Assuming I had the same number of megapixels would one have better
color information than the other? For example, reading about CMOS
sensors in digital cameras, each pixel is a gray value in RAW. The
camera then interprets the colors based on surrounding pixels and the
bayer filter values, is that the way film scanners work too?

Any other major differences in quality of output?


In general good cameras produce cleaner image files at a smaller
size.....but film allows for a much larger print to be made.

If you want nice digital files you'll pay either way.

A good alternative is shoot Medium format and scan it.

That way your not spending 14k
on an Imacon scanner or 5K on a 1D Mark II.
--
Would you like to know the precise date of your own death?
What if anything is too serious to be joked about?
Do you ever spit or pick your nose in public?

David Dyer-Bennet July 1st 04 11:29 PM

Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner
 
(Mike) writes:

Has anyone a link or material to share regarding how digital camera's
compare to scanning film on a film scanner?

Is the sensor technology the same or is one better than the other?

Assuming I had the same number of megapixels would one have better
color information than the other? For example, reading about CMOS
sensors in digital cameras, each pixel is a gray value in RAW. The
camera then interprets the colors based on surrounding pixels and the
bayer filter values, is that the way film scanners work too?

Any other major differences in quality of output?


Generally speaking, digital-original pixels (captured directly with a
digital camera) are worth considerably more than scanned-film pixels;
that is, a 6 megapixel digital original is much better than a 6
megapixel film scan. I don't think there's a clear factor; I use 2x
as a rule of thumb, but it's very rough and not arrived at by any
scientific process. The quality of the digital camera also makes a
difference; the bigger sensors on digital SLRs really do give lower
noise and hence better pictures, especially at high ISO.

Scanners actually scan each primary color at each pixel individually,
unlike most digital SLRs. This makes less difference than you might
expect (see all the Sigma/Foveon threads), but it makes some
difference.

Scanning takes quite a lot of time (or costs quite a lot of money).
Workflow issues are driving many high-volume professionals to shooting
digitally even if other reasons don't.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

bmoag July 2nd 04 01:39 AM

Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner
 
The digital afficionado will claim the superiority of the orginal digital
image.

Digital is more convenient. Current higher end digital cameras deliver high
quality images under the appropriate cirmumstances.

The reality is that scanned 35mm film, particularly negative film, shows
greater latitude and contains exponentially more picture information than
most digital originals. I have been working with both. I am starting to
habitually reach for the digital camera, because it is easier and faster to
get the digital image into Photoshop that way.

But when I take the time to scan a 35mm negative it is obvious how far
digital sesnors have to go.



Bob C July 4th 04 08:26 PM

Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner
 
I have spent a little time (too much) examining nagatives and slides
under a microscope, and found that there is a great deal of detail
that simply does not come out with normal digital printing you get at
most photo labs. A small object I can see on a negative will appear
as pixels on a print or .JPG file. I don't know what resolution is
required to get all the information, but I suspect it's not far short
of 4000 dpi.

Bart van der Wolf July 4th 04 08:53 PM

Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner
 

"Bob C" wrote in message
om...
I have spent a little time (too much) examining nagatives and slides
under a microscope, and found that there is a great deal of detail
that simply does not come out with normal digital printing you get at
most photo labs. A small object I can see on a negative will appear
as pixels on a print or .JPG file. I don't know what resolution is
required to get all the information, but I suspect it's not far short
of 4000 dpi.


If the low ISO film image was shot with a quality lens and preferably on
tripod, 6000 to 8000 ppi is more likely. Note that the scanning stage
introduces some optical (sampling and contrast) loss aswell, but part of
that can be restored by postprocessing. Optical printing will also introduce
small optical (contrast) losses, but they cannot be compensated.
See http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html and
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/f...400/se5400.htm for some
practical examples.

Bart


Roger Halstead July 5th 04 07:06 PM

Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner
 
On 4 Jul 2004 12:26:56 -0700, (Bob C) wrote:

I have spent a little time (too much) examining nagatives and slides
under a microscope, and found that there is a great deal of detail
that simply does not come out with normal digital printing you get at
most photo labs. A small object I can see on a negative will appear
as pixels on a print or .JPG file. I don't know what resolution is
required to get all the information, but I suspect it's not far short
of 4000 dpi.


At 4000 dpi from a Nikon LS5000 ED I can see the grain patterns at 20,
although it's very tiny, in Kodak Gold ASA 100, Ektachrome 100, and
Fuji 100 slides and negatives.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com