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? |
Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner
|
Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner
|
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. |
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. |
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 |
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